Col,
To quote you, “We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

You have made some good points, as this is exactly what the freedom of Christianity is about, personal conscience, and social responsibility. Each man is fully accountable for his own behaviour, unless his behaviour violates the accepted social standards then the State must act. The Church or for that matter a totalitarian State must not rule over the conscience or against the personal will of a person. The person must be free to choose if he is fully accountable for his / her behaviour. A role of the Church is to educate the conscience not govern thought and behaviour.

Aslan,

(1) Abelard, I feel, would be happy with self-defeat. Progress is made by self-defeat: That is, the whole idea of Science. Were it not for self-defeat, we would be still swinging in the trees. Why admire Abelard is that he made observations 500 years ahead of his time. He was a brave and brilliant scholar (in my opinion), who was a Christian. Had he been an adult in 1776, I think Abelard's sceptical mind would be saying: Is Edward Gibbon right? What are Gibbons' sources? Should I remain a Christian?

Aslan, I was hoping you would address Abelard's Doctrine of the Power of Scepticism.

2) Michael Polyani addressed the issue of truth and reality. He argued, that when we adopt a proposition, the most we can do is make a commitment to reality in an indeterminant future.

3) Can you be sure the Moses spoken would have spoken in Hebrew as his primary language? I think “maybe” Hebrew or “maybe” an Egyptian tongue?

4) I did not say that most people believed in baby killing. I did not say, I did. Your original statement adds the word, “wrong”. Transcription is dangerous, even today. :-)

5) If you want to understand about reliability, I would recommend, “Scale Development – Theory and Applications”, by Robert F. DeVellis.

6) I had read from the Bible and even Reference Bibles. So, I do practice what I suggest.

Jane,

It is grand modern society is trending towards giving individuals more choice in their preferred lifestyles. Relatedly and belatedly, society is recognising ability is a general human attribute and not a product of a sex chromosome. Herein, I think that Eleanor Roosevelt would have made a great world leader. I also admire the intellect of your Forum namesake, Jane Goodall. In Oz, on loan, Susan Greenfield, is another favourite of mine. Well should forget all that Adam's rib nonsense too

Get over yourself boazdavid. I suggested you're coming across as a bit "idiotic" given the puerile, snide way you have been responding to my posts - and you magnify that into a "litany of mean names". Litany? Que?

I think a tendency to unwarranted exaggeration is also idiotic; thank you for further justifying my point.

<insertpuerileemoticonofyouchoicehere>

Oliver,

You didn't answer my question: If someone tortured your baby, would you prosecute them? Given that you accept that it is not wrong in their opinion, if you decide to prosecute, on what basis would you do so?

On May 17 you said: "I did not say that most people believed in baby killing. I did not say, I did. Your original statement adds the word, “wrong”. Transcription is dangerous, even today."

This makes no sense. I have no idea what you are referring to. Regarding the morality of TORTURING (not "killing") babies for fun, I was referring to you comment on May 15: "I would say it is a statement of opinion, with which, many people including me would agree."

BTW, Michael Polanyi (not Polyani) was highly critical of logical positivism ie. that something must be "proved" to be known and that the observer is neutral. He noted that the observer always has worldview filter and pointed out the importance of tacit knowledge and intuitive knowledge - he did not resort to skepticism.

1. Welcome on board Col.

2.(a) Aslan,

Yes, I would try to prosecute based on my opinion. In our society, many people would agree with me. A very few people might not. We all have opinions.

(b)I do know how to spell Polanyi, but my fingers don't ;-). I have read five to six books of his, written between the late 1940s and the mid-1970s. Knowledge: Actually, he relates explicit knowledge to tacit knowledge, saying these forms of knowledge are coefficient. He also recognises intuition and presents an account of the teenage Einstein thinking about the basis of Relativity. Pol... (being careful now)... anyi is a participative realist.

P.o.l.a.n.y.i held that we make a commitment to an indeterminant future, as I previously commented.

To support:

"Real is that which is expected to reveal itself indeterminately in the future. Hence an explicit statement can bear on reality only by the coefficient associated with it (aside:He is refering to explicit knowledge not intuition). This conception of reality and tacit knowing of reality underlies all my writings." - Polanyi (1964)

My comment on scepticism related to Peter Abelard and presumably Edward Gibbon, regarding which, I await your reply with interest. Thanks. If you have read Polanyi (my guess is, "Science, Faith and Society"), you have also possibly read Karl Popper, and, should be aware of the dangers of self-confirmation prevalent in Pychoanalysis(Freud & Jung), Marxism and Religion. Relatedly, citing all these like-minded bible scholars, only shows internal consistency not accuracy. Remember, what Confucius said, above.

Aslan, please remember to comment on Abelard with an argument, not a question.

Thanks for the agreement Philo – Agree the individual is the unit of all action, decision, compassion and conscience – such characteristics are impossible for anything larger than a very small community where every one knows everyone else, certainly impossible for contemporary society as a whole and definitely beyond the “class based” nature of organised religion.

The church role to “educate” – most religious “education” has been formulated on a doctrine which includes fear and denial (just look at the doctrines of the RC’s with all the hang-ups about sex and where excommunication is but one of the weapons used to ensure the faithful (gullible?) conform to ther directed role). Similar doctrines of compliance permeate just about all “organised” religions – that is why I avoid them and argue against any influence they may wish to exercise across our secular society.