/cont

Its not difficult to read the Bible with malice in mind and find reasons to disparage it. (One could do the same with almost any text as searching as the Bible).

That the Bible offers some cover for slavery is certainly true. It was after all written in periods when slavery was ubiquitous and unquestioned. But bear in mind that, as far as we know, only one civilisation in the long line of world civilisations, has ever moved to ban and delegitimise slavery. That civilisation was the west, based on the tenets of Christianity and the Christian texts and the men who championed that unique movement were entirely Christain in their thinking. They used those same texts to advance the cause of anti-slavery. All those 'rights' which we think of as being vital are western in origin and developed in socities based on Christian tenets.

Clearly Christianity is currently in decline, mirroring the decline in and of the west. I have grave misgivings about where this will lead. On the other hand, its never smart to decide long term results based on potentially short-term trends. The decline and/or death of Christianity has been forecast in the past, only to see it roar back into prominence. We, or more likely our grandkids will see, how this plays out.11111111111

Yuyutsu
I still can’t see why it’s a problem to say that it’s incorrect to argue that one cannot argue, and why it’s a problem that to conclude so involves mathematical logic.

Say, what would be an example of arguing that one cannot argue being incorrect, but still nevertheless right? What would be an example of such mathematical logic miscarrying in this particular case, i.e. the example of the issue whether one cannot argue that one cannot argue?

“In fact, some schools of thought do not take this leap of faith and instead claim, for example, that the action is performed by nature or by God.”

I don’t see how either of those can be described as “quite convincing or rational arguments”. What’s rational and convincing about the God bit? As for the nature bit, isn’t that just begging the question? To say “Fred acts” or “nature acts through Fred” – is that really saying something different? What is that really saying at all? What does it really convince you of? If it were true that nature, not man, acts in what appears to be human action – what does that really mean?

Can we agree as follows:
1. It is incorrect to say that one cannot argue that one cannot argue; but it may be right for some unspecified reason?
2. It is rational to say that man acts, except for the possibility that an alleged invisible magical superbeing acts instead and not man and this explains what appears to be human action; or it is rational to say that man acts, except for the possibility that “nature” acts instead of man (whatever that means)?
3. Any other reasons why it’s not rational to say that man acts?

Dear Jardine,

I can't see why we are digging deeper into what seems to me a side-issue, "man acts", rather than continue exploring what it has to do with ethics.

Example of incorrect-but-not-wrong: Mother pleads with an attacker not to shoot her child. Attacker says: "Stop arguing and take me to the money". Mother responds: "I'm not arguing, it's just that...". The mother was incorrect to say she wasn't arguing, but she was right to use this time-buying maneuver.

Yes, I can entertain you with many more examples why "man acts" is far from obvious, thus the conclusion "man acts" must rely on various assumptions, none of them rational.

Say a drunkard brakes a window, totally-unaware. Who broke that window?
Say a bird landed on the drunkard's face, so his arm jerked and threw the stone that broke the window. Who broke that window? The arm? the bird? the stone? the man? the booze? the window? God?

Can a man in a coma act? What's a "man" anyway? Say someone receives a heart-implant from a pig, is he still a man? What then if they receive a partial-brain-implant? What if a man is in a vegetative state where doctors can ask them yes/no answers, watch their brain-waves for their 60%-accurate answer, then act accordingly: is that man acting?

In the Bhagavad-Gita [11:34], Shri Krishna, an incarnation of God, urges Arjuna to fight, assuaging him that he'll incur no sin because He, Krishna, has already killed those enemies: "Dronacharya, Bheeshma, Jayadratha, Karna, and other brave warriors have already been killed by me. So slay them without being disturbed. Just fight and you will be victorious over your enemies in battle."

«what does that really mean?»

That we all rely on, sometimes-hidden, irrational and subjective assumptions when we come to form our world-view and ethics.

1. Yes.
2. No, as you can see there are myriad of other possibilities.
3. I could sure list more, but even if I couldn't, perhaps someone else could, or perhaps I could do so some other time, so the onus is on you to prove rationality.

Yuyutsu

I am interested in the proposition “man acts” because
a) I don’t see why an axiom cannot be rational,
b) I want to see what criticism you, or anyone, can make if I can put forward a rational ethics, and
c) also I am interested in objections to that particular proposition “man acts”.

“we all rely on, sometimes-hidden, irrational and subjective assumptions when we come to form our world-view and ethics.”

I’m sure we do, but the issue is whether an axiom can be rational.

About where it would be incorrect but nevertheless still right to argue that one cannot argue, that mother in your example was arguing that she is not arguing, not that she cannot argue. So that example does not disprove me.

So: got any other example?

As for “man acts”, I concede all examples such as
• Unconsciousness
• Coma
• Vegetable
• Intoxication to the point of stupefaction
• Knee-jerk reflex
• Etc.

However that leaves the everyday purposeful actions of 7 billion ordinary people, which is enough for my purposes.

As for what is a “man”, I will accept any dictionary definition. Issues of robotics don’t concern me; I will concede them from the outset if you like.

The more I think about it, to say that man does not act, but or because “God” acts, is to me no more convincing or rational than saying the Invisible Pink Unicorn or the Magic Flying Teapot acts. It has no real explaining power, and I don’t see how you can say it’s rational or quite convincing.

For example, Fred gets himself a drink of water because he's thirsty and wants to quench his thirst.

“Objection! Fred is not taking any action: the Invisible Magic Flying Spaghetti Monster is the real actor: He is just using Fred as the instrument of his getting Fred a drink of water.”

Come on. Is that your main argument?

(cont.)

And the same with not man, but “nature” acts. Which has more explaining power: that Fred gets himself a drink of water because he’s feeling thirsty; or that unknown planets in unknown galaxies trillions of light years away are the real acting agent, or part of the real acting agents, causing Fred to get a drink?

Again, if that’s your main argument, I beg we may now move on to entertain conjecture of my hypothesis THAT we are capable of a rational ethics, if you’re interested.

“3. I could sure list more, but even if I couldn't, perhaps someone else could, or perhaps I could do so some other time, so the onus is on you to prove rationality.”

By all means list more. Apart from what I concede, I don’t think you have really listed any.

That some alleged unspecified person “could” do it is not a convincing argument.

Establishing rationality requires me to establish a basis in reason. I think I have established the basis in reason of the proposition that “man acts”: namely, that human action is purposeful behaviour.

And I think I have established the irrationality of the propositions that man does not act but instead an alleged invisible supernatural being acts; or that “nature” acts. What is their basis in reason?

I cannot be given an unfalsifiable standard. If you don’t and won’t accept that an axiom can be rational, then what proof of mine would you ever accept that an axiom is or can be rational, please?

AJ,

OK, I agree, you understood my point (I never claimed you would not be able to understand it), and I agree the quote from Habermas does not contradict anything you have said. And, of course, I agree that “moral principles can come from sources other than Christianity”. This, however, is unrelated to the fact that you cannot replace XY’s parents to see how different he would come out, and the same with “historical parentage”.

mhaze,

I can endorse every sentence of your interesting posts. You mention the Benedict option (named after 6th century Benedict of Nursia). It is a meaningful coincidence that within the Catholic Church this attitude of “shutting oneselves off from the chaos” is being associated with Pope Benedict XVI. It is complemented by a Francis option of openness named after his successor.

>>Christianity is a mainstay of western civilisation but equally western civilisation is a mainstay of Christianity. It’s unclear to me that either can long survive without the other. <<

Certainly, Christianity is in decline in what can be called the (political) West but not necessarily so in e.g. Africa, China, Russia etc. For me personally, the question of Christianity surviving without western civilisation can be modelled by the question of mathematics, especially analysis (calculus) that was the mainstay of newtonian physics, surviving physics’s extension "without Newton" into more general gravitation and quantum theories.

That, of course does not answer necessarily in the affirmative your question about Christianity’s survival outside of western civilisation.