"That's a SIN!"

[Abbadon]

Gluttony and sloth are both sins, but it does not follow that obesity is a sin.

Sloth is not the lack physical exertion, it is the failure to exert oneself to live a Godly life.

It doesn't take gluttony to rack up the pounds over a few years, esp. if you start out a bit on the pudgy side and/or are not very physically active.

I read in a thread on nudity that nudists are trying to be like Adam and Eve, before the fall, you know, without the shame of being naked, or something like that. How come I get in trouble for sloth when I try to be like Adam and Eve before the fall when I don't do work? They didn't have to.

(Just joking, but related)

 

[Ledifni]

You're confusing categories. A truth proposition is not "objective" or "subjective." It's true or false. The objective/subjective distinction refers to the perspective of the knower.

"True" and "false" describe the truth value of the proposition. "Objective" and "subjective" describe the proposition's validity with respect to observers -- where a subjective fact is one that can be considered true only with respect to an observer ("spirituality is beneficial," for example) but an objective fact is one that can be considered true for all observers ("gravity makes things fall," for example). So yes, a given premise can be either objective or subjective -- we typically strive to identify objective facts, because subjective facts are worthless for supporting any objective argument.

Thus, if a fact is considered objectively true by all participants, that is, if all participants accept that it applies to all observers, then it can be used to argue that the conclusions are likewise objective. If a group of premises are objectively true (true for all observers), and a certain conclusion must follow from them, then the conclusion is likewise objectively true.

My claim is as follows:

"It is objectively true that laws based on subjective beliefs do society a disservice." I am attempting to argue, based on premises that all concerned accept to be objectively true, that this claim is true for all observers and all societies. It follows that if my premises are objectively true, and if my logic holds up, then my claim is valid. Your job here, if you want to argue against me, is to show either that my premises are either "not objective" (can be false for some observers) or "not true" (cannot be considered true for any observer), or that my logic is invalid at some point.

Now explain to me, based on the above, how I am "confusing categories." It seems to me that you've misunderstood what's going on here, rather than that I've misunderstood the use of the words "objective" and "subjective."

Again, premises aren't objectively or subjectively true; they're true or they're false. I may agree with any of your given premises or I may not, but that's not the point. The problem you have is that your position implicitly denies knowability at all. Even if you and I both think or feel or are of the personal opinion that people have a responsibility to foster agreeable human societies, we have no inherent "right" to foist that opinion on others, if this view is not actually and knowably true. Yet you seem to presume that Christians must justify our view that homosexual behavior and particularly, I believe, "homosexual marriage" should not be socially and legally sanctioned if our will is to prevail in society. You seem to presume that, only if our view is justified in accordance with premises common to everyone can it be valid as a societal standard. By this standard, though, your own views of good and bad laws are equally ruled out as long as there are people who reject your premises.

Here comes the strawman again. My position does not deny knowability at all. I haven't said anything of the sort or even implied it -- I think that it is quite possible to know things. I know that gravity exists -- I could be wrong, but the evidence is so strong that I can confidently claim to "know" it. If by "know" you mean "be absolutely positive," then no, you can't know anything -- because, if nothing else, you might be insane and not know it. But that's a unreasonable requirement for knowledge, so I take "know" to mean "have so much certainty that any other belief would be perverse."

You keep bringing up this strawman as if you think that you'll convince me it's a fair representation of my beliefs if you say it often enough. As it is, though, your objection to my arguments is facile; you don't bother to come up with a good argument, but instead say, "Whether you'll admit it or not, you believe such-and-such, and according to that belief, your arguments are wrong -- therefore, your beliefs are inconsistent." Since I don't believe any such thing, I'm afraid you'll have to find a better argument.

Of course, you'll probably respond that it doesn't matter if everyone shares your premises--only that the majority does. But then in that case, you have no grounds for complaint if the Christian premises become the majority view, and homosexuality then loses its social and legal sanctioning.

You're quite fond of constructing your own world to support your arguments, aren't you? You want to think that the Christian beliefs are worthy of law if the majority likes them, and so you come up with beliefs that, if I held them, would mean that my beliefs support yours. Then you claim that I hold those beliefs, prove your beliefs from "mine" with one fell swoop, and declare resounding victory. Doesn't work -- sorry.

As an aside, though, I would say that the sanctioning of homosexuality is destructive to society as is the sanctioning of extra-marital sex, abortion, divorce, and a host of other things in a way that is recognizable by Christians and non-Christians alike. I'm not arguing that point, though, because I chose to address what I consider much more foundational--the flaw in your premise for even expecting such an argument.

Setting aside the fact that every single "flaw" you've pointed out in my arguments was constructed wholesale out of commercial-grade straw, I wonder what argument you would make in support of a law. Did you really mean to say that the social destructiveness of a behavior is not an argument to be expected, when someone proposes a law to restrict it?

 

[Ledifni]

It is a bad habit to Ass U Me you know what is going on in other people's heads.
Not to say I don't do it occasionally.

You're right, it is a bad habit, but I don't think this assumption is unwarranted.

Profound religious experiences are quite real do not come under the heading of "what others have told you is true."... unless you want to posit that the other is God.

Two points apply here:

1) Members of all religions have profound religious experiences, and they take away different conclusions regarding specific beliefs. Your belief that the experiences in your religion represent God's true beliefs, but those from other religions don't, is based on what humans have told you. Even if you feel that in your profound religious experiences, God told you that your beliefs are true, others can say the same about their beliefs.

How do you judge someone's report of such an experience and decide whether they've interpreted it correctly, or even had it in the first place? What standard do you base such a judgement on? God's standard? But the point of the judgement is to determine God's standard, and you can't use something to prove itself. So by whose standard do you determine that your religious experiences (and those of people who agree with you) are real and not delusional, but everyone else's are either delusional or misinterpreted?

I say by human standards. I don't see where else the standard could possibly come from. Even if you're basing it on Biblical standards, you're still using a book penned by humans, whether or not you believe that God inspired it.

2) How do you know that you're not misinterpreting what you experience? Ultimately, your observations are based on reactions within your brain -- you do not directly sense reality, you sense your brain's reaction to reality. If your brain reacts in a way that does not precisely correspond to reality, something can seem real that is not at all real. Typically, when we observe unusual psychological phenomena, we assume that these have physical causes and investigate them. However, popular belief has it that religious experiences are special, and should be considered "revelations" as opposed to "disorders."

While I am not going to claim that this popular belief is wrong, that is just what it is -- popular belief. If you were staying up all night every night to obsessively detail-clean your house, you would assume that there was something wrong with you and go to a psychiatrist. But if you have a profound spiritual experience, you assume that a great truth has been supernaturally revealed to you, rather than that your brain is misfiring. Why? I say, because you've learned from humans around you to accept that religious experiences are fundamentally reliable.

I'm afraid that you will immediately reject the above out of hand, because I appear to be calling you insane. Please understand, that is not my intention. We all have oddities in the way our brains function, and we are all susceptible to certain stimuli. Mob psychology can turn nice, friendly, caring people into murderous animals -- does that mean that humans are insane or does it mean that human brains react in certain ways to certain things? And your religious experiences may be reliable, and not a matter of your brain misfiring -- I'm pointing out that the fact that you had them is not in itself proof that they're reliable.

And again, you may be right that these things you believe are accurate; the point is that religious beliefs are too far based on the word of men (and too variable from person to person) for the argument, "That's a sin," to stand as the unchallenged final word. If God came down to Earth and informed all mankind that a certain thing was sinful, then it would be the final word; but without that confirmation, calling something a sin is nothing but a statement that everyone else must believe that your preferred sources are reliable.

You are most welcome to debate the precise meaning of those experiences and what they prove in the context of making secular law, and I suspect that you and I would be pretty close in agreement at least with respect to the latter discussion, but in the meantime I would suggest not assuming that there isn't something beyond blind acceptance of authoritative teaching.

Right, but I didn't say "blind acceptance" or "authoritative." Acceptance need not be blind, but it does not justify itself. That is, the fact that you've accepted certain teachings is not proof that the teachings are correct -- in order to prove that, you have to make objective arguments from the world outside of your beliefs, the secular world (since a proposition cannot prove its own truth).

When I say that your beliefs are based on what men have told you, I don't mean that they're blind or unreasoning. When someone makes an argument based on religion (for example, listing Bible verses to support a position whose scope extends beyond the Bible), the implication is that the argument is correct because its source is God, and God is reliable by definition. The problem is that the source isn't God, at least not directly -- the source is human. If you believe that God is indirectly the source, then objective arguments are needed to prove that before you can demand acceptance based on the absolute divine standard. Hand-in-hand with this is the responsibility to prove that there even is a God who can provide an absolute standard.

As far as that goes, even beyond religious experiences, both profound and subtle, your statement, as formulated above, is way too simplistic and more than a bit insulting. Many people's faith is based on their own study and cogitation. Again we can debate the value and meaning of that but it is not merely an acceptance of authority.

Peace be with you,
Robert the Pilegrim

I think you find my statement insulting because you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that you don't have good reasons for your beliefs. They may be true; but the fact that you believe it doesn't prove it. You can't reasonably argue that your beliefs should guide lawmakers simply because it is your opinion that God agrees with you.

In other words, when someone says, "It would damage society to legalize gay marriage because homosexuality is a sin," I simply don't see how that's proof that gay marriage will damage society. It's proof that somebody believes that God thinks it will damage society, but it isn't proof that such a thing is actually the case. To provide proof, you have to draw on material from outside of your belief. If that's unreasonable, I can't see how.

 

[A. believer]

"True" and "false" describe the truth value of the proposition. "Objective" and "subjective" describe the proposition's validity with respect to observers -- where a subjective fact is one that can be considered true only with respect to an observer ("spirituality is beneficial," for example) but an objective fact is one that can be considered true for all observers ("gravity makes things fall," for example). So yes, a given premise can be either objective or subjective -- we typically strive to identify objective facts, because subjective facts are worthless for supporting any objective argument.

Thus, if a fact is considered objectively true by all participants, that is, if all participants accept that it applies to all observers, then it can be used to argue that the conclusions are likewise objective. If a group of premises are objectively true (true for all observers), and a certain conclusion must follow from them, then the conclusion is likewise objectively true.

My claim is as follows:

"It is objectively true that laws based on subjective beliefs do society a disservice." I am attempting to argue, based on premises that all concerned accept to be objectively true, that this claim is true for all observers and all societies. It follows that if my premises are objectively true, and if my logic holds up, then my claim is valid. Your job here, if you want to argue against me, is to show either that my premises are either "not objective" (can be false for some observers) or "not true" (cannot be considered true for any observer), or that my logic is invalid at some point.

Now explain to me, based on the above, how I am "confusing categories." It seems to me that you've misunderstood what's going on here, rather than that I've misunderstood the use of the words "objective" and "subjective."

I agree that my accusation of "confusing categories" does not accurately state what I meant. What I should have said is that you're assuming epistemological categories that, I would argue, are not rationally justifiable, and that are rejected within a Christian worldview.

Your argument is incoherent. How do you "objectively" determine a "disservice to society?"

Here comes the strawman again. My position does not deny knowability at all. I haven't said anything of the sort or even implied it -- I think that it is quite possible to know things. I know that gravity exists -- I could be wrong, but the evidence is so strong that I can confidently claim to "know" it. If by "know" you mean "be absolutely positive," then no, you can't know anything -- because, if nothing else, you might be insane and not know it. But that's a unreasonable requirement for knowledge, so I take "know" to mean "have so much certainty that any other belief would be perverse."

You keep bringing up this strawman as if you think that you'll convince me it's a fair representation of my beliefs if you say it often enough. As it is, though, your objection to my arguments is facile; you don't bother to come up with a good argument, but instead say, "Whether you'll admit it or not, you believe such-and-such, and according to that belief, your arguments are wrong -- therefore, your beliefs are inconsistent." Since I don't believe any such thing, I'm afraid you'll have to find a better argument.

Then please clarify your epistemology. What can we know? How can we know it? Give an example of a law based on objective knowledge--one that has no "subjective" ultimate good upon which it's supposedly based.

You're quite fond of constructing your own world to support your arguments, aren't you? You want to think that the Christian beliefs are worthy of law if the majority likes them, and so you come up with beliefs that, if I held them, would mean that my beliefs support yours. Then you claim that I hold those beliefs, prove your beliefs from "mine" with one fell swoop, and declare resounding victory. Doesn't work -- sorry.

I don't claim that "Christian beliefs are worthy of law if the majority likes them."

Setting aside the fact that every single "flaw" you've pointed out in my arguments was constructed wholesale out of commercial-grade straw, I wonder what argument you would make in support of a law. Did you really mean to say that the social destructiveness of a behavior is not an argument to be expected, when someone proposes a law to restrict it?

Of course I would argue for the social destructiveness of socially and legally sanctioned homosexual behavior, but that wasn't the point of my responses to you. Rather, I was responding to your OP. You said,

This claim seems at times to be the ultimate trump card. A certain behavior, I might argue, is socially acceptable for this or that secular reason... but ultimately, it's a sin, which means that no secular argument applies. For example, homosexuality may be a victimless crime that indicates a natural attraction, not a perversion, but that's irrelevant since it is, as we've all been told time and time again, a SIN.

What is sin, folks? Sin, according to the Bible and according to every reputable definition I've read, is disobedience or disrespect towards God. That means that when you say something is a sin, you are claiming to know that God Himself disapproves strongly enough that it is invariably wrong. But how do you know? Have you personally spoken with God? Do you have this from his own mouth?

You reject Christian epistemology from the outset and you criticize Christians for presupposing Christian epistemology. Then you go ahead and presuppose your own epistemological construct, and expect Christians to just accept your presuppositions--the very thing you criticize Christians for doing.