The funny thing is…nsfl still has never given me what the basis of his morality is (well aside from “empathy”–but if I don’t empathize with him then why should his morality trump mine?).That's funny. First, I didn't know I needed to give you, specifically, my "account" of morality. Second, I agree with the ancient Greek philosophers (esp the Stoics) what the virtues are. Therefore, I can apply the yardstick of the virtues to make things simple. Third, I have explicated at length my grounding of morality in the values of survival and minimization of harm -- see here.
The simplest way to break it down is this:
1) Human beings exist
2) They will either co-exist peacefully in societies or compete violently in anarchist states
3) It is better for human beings to co-exist peacefully in societies than compete violently in anarchist states.
4) In order to bring about (3), morality is necessary
I ground morality in survival and peacefulness. I do not like pain and suffering. I do not want to suffer and experience pain. Therefore, (3) is the logical choice. Due to the symmetry of society, we must be moral to others if we want them to be moral to us -- if we want to survive and live as painlessly as possible, we must symmetrically apply that ethos to our neighbors in society. That leads to Confucius rule: "Do unto others"
My presupposition is, then, that I want to avoid pain and violence, and so (3) leads to morality. I developed the "value" of avoiding pain and violence a little in another exchange with Manata.
So nsfl spends lots of time criticizing believers for being hypocrites (he even links to a site that shows a whole twelve of them!) yet he hasn’t established why hypocrisy is wrong in the first place.This is an easy and obvious one: internal critique of Christian beliefs.
He criticizes people for not obeying the Scriptures while A) he does not obey Scriptures, B) he doesn’t believe Scriptures, and C) he has no reason from his worldview to criticize us for not obeying Scriptures. (By the way, I think if you’re looking for a definition, part A about would be the definition for hypocrisy…).Again, internal incoherence. Aside from that, I agree with some of the principles and morals of Jesus' teachings. They line up with my own moral intuitions and conclusions.
But the totally ironic part is that nsfl doesn’t even believe what Haggard did was immoral in the first plac; it was only what he said that was immoral. Yes, nsfl thinks he’s immoral for denouncing homosexuality while practicing it, but Haggard was not immoral for actually behaving that way.Christians believe it immoral to do both. I believe it immoral to advocate discrimination against persons who do some thing X when you yourself do X. Basic rank hypocrisy.
Furthermore, nsfl somehow presumes that if Haggard is immoral then all believers must be immoral too (the fallacy of composition); thus, because one of our “leaders” is a hypocrite (and I note that he wasn’t my leader anyway) then we are hypocrites too.Where did I say that? My charges were against those with "moral superiority complexes" who do "nothing to alleviate human pain and suffering" instead choosing to "send money to Haggard and Dobson". If you fall into this category, then I call you a hypocrite based upon the teachings of your own Jesus, based on what he called a hypocrite, and what he commanded his followers to do.
How this follows is anyone’s guess.I can't guess either? But there is a separate argument about whether or not the believer's claim to have an indwelling Spirit of God in them is observationally falsified by virtue of their own claims about the result of such a thing, versus the reality of such a thing. (2 Cor 5:17)
Apparently, nsfl seems to think it makes a might good argument against Christianity, as he’s quite able to get his dander up and rip on Christians who would support Haggard but wouldn’t feed a homeless person. (Again, how he got that conclusion is beyond me: I can look at who runs our local soup kitchens and who actually works in them: 95% Christians.)It's not a "good argument against Christianity" in general, but a rip on these people who claim to have superior morals and donate their time and money to the cause of discrimination and intolerance, rather than charity. You have combined the two pieces that I was keeping separate, and thus mischaracterized my argument. If someone does work in a soup kitchen, they are not the same rank hypocrite as one who only spends their time and money discriminating and promoting intolerance.
But hey, I guess it’s easier to yell “hypocrite” than to actually engage in important philosophical discussions on issues. So, nsfl, you’re a hypocrite. I win. :-)First, you made a strawman of my argument. Second, since when have I not engaged in those issues? The links above show plenty of "engagement". Third, I actually demonstrated the hypocrisy of a Christian who claims superior morals but does not follow the commands of Jesus with regards to serving and helping others; and only instead acts like a modern day Pharisee. How can you demonstrate internal incoherence (hypocrisy) in my own worldview? What virtue am I not following that I claim that I should?
________________
Technorati tags: God, Religion, Politics
