Re: Challenge from Christopher Hitchens

On 2007-08-03, Revd. Eric Potts <loiner2003@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Then you have already prejudged the issue. There is no unanimity about
what actions are good and what are not - there may be widespread
agreement about many things but not about all. On your definition the
question really becomes:
"What actions that I, an atheist, deem good would you still perform if
you, a believer, were to become an atheist?". That may be an
interesting question in itself, but it says nothing about the relative
merits of belief or non-belief.

Off topic, but Hello! Long time no see! (Maybe I've not been reading
the right threads). I' hope you are well.

I think I'm getting stuck on the frame of reference issue in another
thread, or another bit of this thread. I'm fairly sure what I say is
wrong is wrong but I know it is right in the other person's frame of
reference. Given no absolutes it's a case of understanding why I believe
it to be wrong and maybe being able to present that in a polite way
(oops), or just drop it as a lot cause at this stage.

In the extreme case we could consider a frame of reference in which
it's right to do what we think are quite bad things, and in that frame
of reference for those things to be accepted and have explanation. It
may be a deluded frame of reference in which sacrifice of the first born
brings the pleasure of the gods, or it may be a pragmatic one in which
the ill are killed off for the greater good. There are probably many
examples from history of regimens that we look at as bad, but we must
understand why that is so and why it may have seemed good to those there.
Even what is now thought of as the 'Original' caste system has arguments
for it. Why did it fail as it did?

When you move away from the idea of just taking someone's "Absolute
Truth" without question things become more challenging. But if you take
someone's Absolute Truth without question you are still left with the
possibility that it is wrong. On the other hand, do we have time to
study all the lessons of the past and try to work it out, or do we take
the easy way? Is this working it out what our legal system with its case
history is all about?

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfield@xxxxxxxxx>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
    ... single "absolute frame of reference". ... sense but two parts to one same frame, ... reference such that it defined the start and the end to the race. ... Group selection wrongly argues that selecting one B ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Is "malfunctioning" absolute or relative?
    ... it depends on the reference ... "Fartherness" is not absolute. ... but as for time being frame dependent, I have no clue as to how to ... explanation were Lorentz, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has
    ... a falsifiable constant frame of reference. ... absolute assumptions" represents about as wide a focus as it is possible to ... relativistic assumptions that have no proposed constant frame of refernce. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: behoynd SR masquerade
    ... > the frame. ... you have to look at the outside reference but not ... > length of the ruler you must compare them to something fixed outside. ... This is what I mean by "there is no absolute velocity". ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: E-Matrix and Model Mechanics
    ... > description of IRT is included at the end of this post. ... > 1) The laws of physics based on a clock second and light path ... > 3) The laws of physics based on a defined absolute second ... > By definition the speed of light in the rest frame of the ether is as ...
    (sci.physics)