Recent Blogs Posts

Originally posted by Griggsy

Subjectivity underpins objective morality!
I take that paradox from John Beversluis's "C.S. Lewis and the Search for Rational Religion." To quote:" The Golden Rule [ I add and the Silver One, g.] is not a substantive moral rule from which we can deduce specific duties: it is a formal rule that requires impartiality.Its substantive moral is provided by are preferences; not as Lewis would have us believe, in the sense of whatever we happen

...

Originally posted by Griggsy

Shunyadragon, thanks. Now, then you use reason and facts, not necessarily what some holy book admonishes to do morally, eh?
This covenant morality for humanity ,as I call it , most Brtions follow rather than any derived from the Tanakh and the Testament.. It is consequentialist, deontological and uses the virtues.
The Ten Commandments, if followed , would set up a totalitarian state, in that the first four apply only to honoring Yahweh, nothing of importance for humanity.

...

Originally posted by Griggsy

Yo lunch, that sums it up!Faith doth that to people! We shouldn't have to need that grace and so forth. It's not what He wants, but what is good for us animals! Indeed, morality would contemn Him for permitting pointless evils when the lesser evil or the heavenly good present themselves! Yes, faith does make people take absurd positions.
Per the argument from autonomy, our level ,makes for our being independent beings, not the clay of a callous potter! This new argument answers the supernaturalist

...

Originally posted by Griggsy

Yo lunch, that sums it up!Faith doth that to people! We shouldn't have to need that grace and so forth. It's not what He wants, but what is good for us animals! Indeed, morality would contemn Him for permitting pointless evils when the lesser evil or the heavenly good present themselves! Yes, faith does make people take absurd positions.
Per the argument from autonomy, our level ,makes for our being independent beings, not the clay of a callous potter! This new argument answers the supernaturalist

...

Originally posted by zorathruster

Originally posted by Griggsy

1. I merely emphasize it as the definitive refutation of the free will argument.

2. Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism.

1. Free will I understand to imply that God allows free will which occationally contradicts "goodness" and therefore creation has evil as a part. This of course does not include "mal-occurance" such as hurricanes, floods, fires, disease which all appear to be out of the control

...