Karma reasons for concrete message



    Posts: 8435
  • Darwins +884/-28

According to Elton Trueblood, a philosopher:

"There must be an objective moral law; otherwise: (a) There would not be such great agreement on its meaning. (b) No real moral disagreements would ever have occurred, each person being right from his own moral perspective. (c) No moral judgment would ever have been wrong, each being subjectively right. (d) No ethical question could ever be discussed, there being no objective meaning to any ethical terms. (e) Contradictory views would both be right, since opposites could be equally correct."
Elton Trueblood is not a philosopher, he is an idiot. Not one statement bears examination

Norman L. Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Reference Library (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 499.

(a) is not so.  Many people can agree on an objective moral law.
That means only, that they agree subjectively.

Trueblood continues:
Trueblood has been dismissed as an incompetent.

Geisler comments:
That is, unless we assume the universe is irrational,
The universe cannot "be irrational". It is inanimate. If he means, "it obeys certain laws", then this is irrelevant. What keeps the sun together and our orbiting it, has absolutely nothing to do with morals.

We may dismiss Geisler.

C.S. Lewis contributes:
There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do.
Lewis is saying that moral disagreements make sense. Lewis therefore agrees there are moral disagreements, therefore they are subjective – that is why there are disagreements…

Lewis again:
The Moral Law Is Not Human Fancy. Neither can the moral law be mere human fancy, because we cannot get rid of it even when we would like to do so.
Lewis was an apologist only. He seems to ignore the fact that different societies have different morals – The Bible is very clear on slavery and stoning people to death. What is Lewis actually saying?

This is from Geisler:
We have dismissed Geisler. And stupid statements such as the one that follows confirms his dismissal is just:

“An absolute duty is one that is binding on all persons at all times in all places.”

There is no such thing.

Gzusfreke, if you ever get back. Not so much cut and paste and more a few of your own ideas.

Changed Change Reason Date
median Amen to that brother! January 17, 2014, 01:20:57 AM