(June 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I love sifting through posts to find the hidden turds.

Quote: In order for you to have the decent society you prefer you are going to need moral appeal to a fictitious entity as determinate of right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.

-another "Why be good?" from a catholic.....   

Sure, a person -could- make that appeal..and many do.  There's no necessity, no need.  If you feel a need, then...by all means, continue to do so.  Whatever keeps your hands from strangling people is a-ok with me.

Ha ha. "I have gained this by philosophy, to do without being commanded what other do for fear of the law." - Aristotle

I am arguing a person must make such an appeal otherwise they will act according to subjectivity (in which every act is right) or they will be acting according to utility (in which case the action is right based solely on the end and not the means).

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: I would say science as a field of study is reliant on positing a plug of gaps argument. Then by assuming the plug and further analysis it affirms or rejects the plug not in accordance with the objective truth but rather the effective truth (a big distinction as made earlier by noting that which looks, walks, and quacks like a duck is not necessarily a duck while being effectively a duck).  Now the limitation of science as expressed is that it does not determine the truth of the matter as much as it determines, which fanciful explanation is most effective in describing the anecdotal observations.

Just as in your quantum mechanics example the gap is filled with virtual particles that effectively facilitate our understanding of spooky action at a short distance between actual particles until such time as they are effectively dethroned by a better fanciful explanation.  Give the current gap filler of virtual particles we then proceed to assume this is true and extend virtual particles to construct the entire quantum foam upon which quantum processes occur.  In this way virtual particles are serving as the quantum god of gaps.

I've sometimes felt this, too. I think much of science is narrative-based; accounts of how animals "could have" or "must have" evolved this or that trait, for example, are often based on a speculative understanding of how members of a species might have interacted with their environment. They are then taken as a story of "how it happened," and the "might have" gets kind of brushed under the rug.

However, science at least has the advantage of being malleable, something religion can't be. That's because the foundation of religion is based on the deification or near-deification of its founders, whose words are therefore set in stone. As a catholic, for example, you must see that much of the Bible is tribespeople BS, and it will take quite a lot of intellectual tap-dancing to reconcile those ideas with that of an all-powerful God.

Scientists are fine with saying, "Newton had X wrong," or "Einstein failed to anticipate the true implications of Y." But I don't see how you really have that option. Are you willing to stand up and say that the Bible is imperfect, and that much of it is incorrect and/or fabricated?

(June 15, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 15, 2015 at 3:36 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I love sifting through posts to find the hidden turds.
-another "Why be good?" from a catholic.....   

Sure, a person -could- make that appeal..and many do.  There's no necessity, no need.  If you feel a need, then...by all means, continue to do so.  Whatever keeps your hands from strangling people is a-ok with me.

Ha ha.  "I have gained this by philosophy, to do without being commanded what other do for fear of the law." - Aristotle

I am arguing a person must make such an appeal otherwise they will act according to subjectivity (in which every act is right) or they will be acting according to utility (in which case the action is right based solely on the end and not the means).

-then get to arguing that, rather than stating it contrary to any number of examples given. So, lets get to the heart of this trilemna, eh? It's either

A: person appeals to a fictitious entity
B: person acts according to subjectivity
b2 in which every act is right (lol......classy, btw)
or
C: person acts according to utility
c2 in which every action is right (still classy)

That about sum up my options? That the entire breadth of the field? You haven't tried to take liberties with any of that, I assume? I couldn't, for example, mention that our moralities (you and I, specifically) are subjective....and that many of your acts are wrong? I could not concede that your fictitious appeal might help you to keep your hands off other peoples necks..that you might need it, and still tell you that if god is why you keep your hands off a persons neck that you are morally defective?

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote:

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Nice job ... and so it remains to be seen whether or not this can account for the creation of a universe. This is obviously a super-interesting topic (for science geeks anyway, and although I'm a molecular biologist, I've taken quite a few physics courses, as you had to for EE). So I wonder how the possible existence of a multiverse effects the theology of the Catholic church?

I doubt it will have little impact.  Omnipresence and all.  Argument will likely attest that just as one person may engage in multiple chess games so to might God engage in multiple existences.  Also the latest version of the multiverse which I have heard was M-Theory.  By which infinite number of Universal membranes exists in 11th dimensional space and at times collide with one another creating any number of "big bangs" by which properties of one universe may be transferred to another.  Naturally as correlation is set between God and the single proactive cause without cause of all it would be argued that God is the cause of the 11th dimensional space (which is why you did not see him when you flew into the clouds )

God of the gaps goes multiverse (can't wait for the Marvel movie about that one)

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: It even remains to be seen whether or not some other underlying cause exists (i.e. even if this hypothesis is largely true, is there something else causing things like quantum fluctuations)? The answer is of course ... we don't entirely know. But it is possible that this hypothesis describes a non-particle space that represents the end of the chain of causation (though I should say, one major problem I've always had with cosmological arguments is they're premised on human intuition, and I'm not a fan of measuring scientific possibilities against human intuition, since humans really only have the capacity to understand things, roughly speaking, between grains of sand and mountains, we did not evolve in a way that enables us to understand quantum mechanics intuitively, as I'm sure you'd agree).

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: While agree that we were not able to intuitively understand quantum mechanics.  I have faith in the transcendental nature of the human intellect to understand that which is beyond direct anecdotal sensibilities.  It is for this reason why I am in agreement with Kant and not willing to limit myself to synthetic aposteriori alone as evidence or proof in order to further understanding and seek to have synthetic apriori supported by what is experienced (less we say the equations which state the Moon, Uranus, and Neptune should and are not there actually prove what is there is not).

Kant was Nietzsche's shoe shine boy

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Personally, I've accepted the fact that we don't know everything. In my mind it's okay to say that "we don't know" ... more investigation is needed, without feeling the impulse to attribute these things to the myths of our ancestors. For me, an analysis of religion starts with, well, an analysis of religion. What do they claim today, what were they claiming yesterday, the day before that, the century before that, and so on.  

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: In like manner I accept there is much I do not know and will continue to work to understand.  As I said much earlier in this thread; God cannot serve as the foundation of an argument though he may be the conclusion.    However, I do contest your means of analysis of religion.  I think religion like science should evolve with our understanding of the world (that was why religion, specifically Catholicism, has been a ardent supporter of scientific study and learning.  To understand the Creator by means of the creation).  Otherwise I would say what does science claim today, what did it claim yesterday, the day before, and a century before?  Seems like a snake oil salesman refining their pitch right?

This is a ridiculous argument. Apples and oranges (to say the least).

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: And the fact remains that religious theology continues to rely on a god of gaps argument, and by now so many of those gaps have closed, the credibility of these arguments are strained.

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: I would say science as a field of study is reliant on positing a plug of gaps argument. Then by assuming the plug and further analysis it affirms or rejects the plug not in accordance with the objective truth but rather the effective truth (a big distinction as made earlier by noting that which looks, walks, and quacks like a duck is not necessarily a duck while being effectively a duck).  Now the limitation of science as expressed is that it does not determine the truth of the matter as much as it determines, which fanciful explanation is most effective in describing the anecdotal observations.

Just as in your quantum mechanics example the gap is filled with virtual particles that effectively facilitate our understanding of spooky action at a short distance between actual particles until such time as they are effectively dethroned by a better fanciful explanation.  Give the current gap filler of virtual particles we then proceed to assume this is true and extend virtual particles to construct the entire quantum foam upon which quantum processes occur.  In this way virtual particles are serving as the quantum god of gaps.

Generally the new fanciful explanation subsumes the old rather than refutes it or the old fanciful explanation is considered a special case and not refuted by the new, in such a manner as to be consider a shifting of the goal posts. By your argument science becomes untrustworthy due to the great majority of fanciful explanations being bullshit or being subsumed into new theories in continuation of bullshit under another name.  So should you continue to buy the snake oil science is selling?

Bottom line, science works. You confirm aspects of physics every time you turn on the light switch, it's science that's enabling you to communicate via the internet, science cures disease ... religion tells fairy tales. Many may find those fairy tales soothing, but when they get sick they don't run to their priest do they?

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Moreover, I like Pope Francis so much that I really don't want to spend very much time criticizing (he's almost as left wing as I am, with the exception of issues like gay and reproductive rights, albeit I understand that no Pope could change the churches position on these issues in a credible way, but even in these sensitive areas, he's not very dogmatic, which again is commendable).

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: Funny thing is I am not a fan of Pope Francis.  I think he is too ambiguous in what he states such that people construe things from him that he is not saying.  I have heard tons of people tell me how he is changing the Catholic Church for the better and has said things that no pope before him would have.  I will be the first to tell you he has not said anything different than was understood in the 30+ years I have been catholic.  It was always held that Atheist and Agnostics may go to heaven (It is called men of good faith), that any number of persons of immoral conduct are welcome in the church (condemn the sin not the sinner), clergy are asexual so there is no such thing to us as gay or straight clergy.

No such thing as gay or straight priests? Hahaha ... thanks, I needed a good laugh

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Quite frankly, I'm far more interested in having a decent society where people care about each other as opposed to wasting huge amounts of time and energy battling with religionists over questions that we'll probably never resolve. I'd be happy enough if people became a little more skeptical, to the point where they no longer feel like they have a mandate from a god instructing them to commit murder or inhibit the rights of others and so on (as far as I'm concerned, I love our Bill of Rights, and I think that people have a right to their beliefs, again, as long as they're not impeding the rights of others).

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: On this we are in agreement.  As the original argument of this thread started out and was supported in the long post to Nestor, to endeavor to have a decent society by means solely of ethical restriction is to result in a society focused on the ends rather than the means of conduct.  In order for you to have the decent society you prefer you are going to need moral appeal to a fictitious entity as determinate of right and wrong, not just legal or illegal.

Of course the laws are written by the establishment for the benefit of the establishment, hence, I'd agree with you (although I'm sure we're talking about two very different things).

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Like the Catholic church wants to say that a small collection of cells, which are not sentient in any reasonable sense, somehow comprise "life" ... and as absurd as I may think that position is, I'm not bothered by the fact that people hold this view, I'm only bothered when these views inform our public policy). This is why we have a judicial branch of government. To enforce our Bill of Rights, which is to say that we're a secular democracy founded upon a separation of church and state, and thus where religious dogmas appear in our public policy, our court system should strike it down. But then, our courts are only as good as the justices who sit on the bench, and there's always the possibility that we could return to a dark and theocratic society (especially in a reactionary culture, where the religious feel threatened by the encroachment of other faiths, like Islam, and instead of dealing with that threat in an enlightened way, it's very easy for a society to reflexively go down the path of tribalism).

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: 1.  Umm... the bill of rights is heavily based on the rights determined of persons by the Catholic Church during the inquisitions throughout Europe (in order to avoid witch hunts) and the rights outlined in the Magna Carta as determined and written by the Catholic Church.  YOUR WELCOME
2.  In accordance with the law the bill of rights may be amended by means of constitutional change by which the religious dogma of the majority (which is not contra to public policy but is generally considered public policy) may supersede the authority of even the Supreme Court.

So the catholic church did the inquisition, and then takes credit for ending the inquisition? Well done catholic church, well done ... Machiavelli would be proud

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: At the same time, I'm real apprehensive about Pope Francis' call for a truce of sorts with atheism (I think that really reflects a church that's worried about the increasing secularism of Europe, and to a lesser extent, the US). Pope's die, our next Pope could be another Benedict type (or worse), and so I'm not gonna team up with the RCC just because the current Pope seems like a really nice guy, who seems so devoted to socialism that he might be willing to roll out a sleeping bag and do some protesting with us. Nonetheless, I have worked with Catholic groups (and some Episcopalian clergy members) during occupy wall street (which I was somewhat involved in), and consider many of them to be good friends (I've maintained those relationships, because they're good people who give a shit). And incidentally, I've always viewed Jesus as the first famous anarchist (and I really think that somewhere along the way, some Roman inserted that bullshit about 'give to Caesar' ... since it's so inconsistent with everything else Jesus said, and so obviously self-serving for the then existing Roman government). I'm willing to view Jesus as an anarcho-socialist superhero of sorts, just not a godman.

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: I really think people misinterpret the give to cesar part.  Simply because they do not properly recognize who is Cesar.  Most hold it to be the government, but what it is properly understood to be is us, human society.  We are Cesar!  This is why Jesus later states to reconcile with your brother before you seek to reconcile with god, there are two great commandment and in the second lies the first (love one another as I have loved you).  I swear to God every time I hear someone say "We God has forgiven me" I want to drop kick them in the face.  God is not the only one you offended so he can forgive you all he wants, but you still have to reconcile with the rest of us!

I think the passage is clearly aimed at subservience to the state ... totally inconsistent with everything else Jesus preached, but conveniently, very consistent with the interests of the ruling power structure that made christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

(June 15, 2015 at 4:23 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I've sometimes felt this, too.  I think much of science is narrative-based; accounts of how animals "could have" or "must have" evolved this or that trait, for example, are often based on a speculative understanding of how members of a species might have interacted with their environment.  They are then taken as a story of "how it happened," and the "might have" gets kind of brushed under the rug.

However, science at least has the advantage of being malleable, something religion can't be.  That's because the foundation of religion is based on the deification or near-deification of its founders, whose words are therefore set in stone.  As a catholic, for example, you must see that much of the Bible is tribespeople BS, and it will take quite a lot of intellectual tap-dancing to reconcile those ideas with that of an all-powerful God.

Scientists are fine with saying, "Newton had X wrong," or "Einstein failed to anticipate the true implications of Y."  But I don't see how you really have that option.  Are you willing to stand up and say that the Bible is imperfect, and that much of it is incorrect and/or fabricated?

It is like the film Clue:
https://youtu.be/SRd55I46th8

Do not forget the rest of my quote:

(June 15, 2015 at 3:31 pm)Anima Wrote: Generally the new fanciful explanation subsumes the old rather than refutes it or the old fanciful explanation is considered a special case and not refuted by the new, in such a manner as to be consider a shifting of the goal posts...

Scientists are very loath to say a previous theory is wrong and not as malleable as you would think. I am sure you may read that most theories are not accepted within a 20 year period of being posited, especially if that theory seeks to overturn a theory which has served as the bedrock of much of our understanding. In fact the correspondence principle holds that, " that a new theory should reproduce the results of older well-established theories (which become limiting cases) in those domains where the old theories work." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correspondence_principle). I am also sure you may read how people who have posited controversial theories have had their careers ruined even though they were actually right. Do not forget scientists are people too.

I have no problem admitting the bible is imperfect. Again I am not an evangelical, protestant, or bible based christian; so I do not subscribe to sola scriptura. The bible was made for a certain purpose (which is not literal interpretation) and generally those groups do not use it for what it was intended for. With that said the spiritual, allegorical, moral, and anagogical sense of the text is held to be true even if the specific literal details are not held to be true and perfect. I have to say I get a kick out of people criticizing the church for "shifting the goal posts" and for "not being malleable". When the former implies the negation of the latter. Now in order to build anything the foundation may not be shifting. I think we can all agree on this in regards to religion and to science.

"Its to be held as true even when it isn't true. "

-and with thus, you have -completely- abandoned any expectation of my considering your opinions on the matter well reasoned, or you as a reasonable person.

(June 15, 2015 at 8:41 pm)francismjenkins Wrote: God of the gaps goes multiverse (can't wait for the Marvel movie about that one)

It will be in 3D (so you know the studio really has faith in it!! <Bah-dump-bump> )

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Kant was Nietzsche's shoe shine boy

Nietzche was Hitler's biggest critic. He was pissed Hitler waited so long to start killing Jews and was not killing more! (argumentum ad Hitlerum)

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: This is a ridiculous argument. Apples and oranges (to say the least).

Sounds like we got a couple of fruits. I wonder if they have somethings in common while still being different?

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Bottom line, science works. You confirm aspects of physics every time you turn on the light switch, it's science that's enabling you to communicate via the internet, science cures disease ... religion tells fairy tales. Many may find those fairy tales soothing, but when they get sick they don't run to their priest do they?

Bottom line is reality works. Science is our effort to give explanation to it working. But, surprise, surprise, reality works even if we do not have an explanation for it!!!

HA HA!! Indeed they do. We will ignore that they are likely running to a Catholic Hospital, but it is called the anointing of the sick!!! (It is one of the seven sacraments )

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Of course the laws are written by the establishment for the benefit of the establishment, hence, I'd agree with you (although I'm sure we're talking about two very different things).

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: So the catholic church did the inquisition, and then takes credit for ending the inquisition? Well done catholic church, well done ... Machiavelli would be proud

Actually the Catholic church did not start the inquisitions. Inquisitions were started in various countries by their respective monarchies (after all the establishment does what is in its benefit). Eventually the church entered into the various inquisitions (there is more than one) throughout Europe to put a stop to the witch hunts. Upon entering in the church established the rights you so love such as: The right to have an evidentiary hearing, right to know the charge, the right to face your accuser, the right to trial by jury, the right to an equitable and informed defense (right to an attorney), the right to have a judge recused, and the right to an appeal to name a few.

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: I think the passage is clearly aimed at subservience to the state ... totally inconsistent with everything else Jesus preached, but conveniently, very consistent with the interests of the ruling power structure that made christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

That would be the official religion with the conversion of Constatine in 313AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great). Which is to say after about 300 years of killing christians for fun.

"Constantine was the first emperor to stop Christian persecutions and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin...ous_policy)

I am surprised at you. I thought you would agree with this passage. What it is clearly stating is that one should not use their religion as an excuse to violate the law! Or if you like separation of church and state (which was created by the Catholic Church as a means to protect the State from the Church. As it was common for the Spare of the Heir and the Spare to enter into the clergy. So if you were a prince and a bishop you had to renounce your title as bishop in order to act as prince or king.)

---

(June 16, 2015 at 12:28 am)Rhythm Wrote: "Its to be held as true even when it isn't true. "

-and with thus, you have -completely- abandoned any expectation of my considering your opinions on the matter well reasoned, or you as a reasonable person.

Context matters

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Kant was Nietzsche's shoe shine boy

(June 16, 2015 at 1:40 am)Anima Wrote: Nietzche was Hitler's biggest critic.  He was pissed Hitler waited so long to start killing Jews and was not killing more! (argumentum ad Hitlerum)

Which tells me you haven't actually read any Nietzsche (who broke many friendships with fellow Germans, including the famous composer Wagner, due to their antisemitism).

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: Bottom line, science works. You confirm aspects of physics every time you turn on the light switch, it's science that's enabling you to communicate via the internet, science cures disease ... religion tells fairy tales. Many may find those fairy tales soothing, but when they get sick they don't run to their priest do they?

(June 16, 2015 at 1:40 am)Anima Wrote: Bottom line is reality works.  Science is our effort to give explanation to it working.  But, surprise, surprise, reality works even if we do not have an explanation for it!!!

HA HA!!  Indeed they do.  We will ignore that they are likely running to a Catholic Hospital, but it is called the anointing of the sick!!!  (It is one of the seven sacraments )

You're almost there

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: So the catholic church did the inquisition, and then takes credit for ending the inquisition? Well done catholic church, well done ... Machiavelli would be proud

(June 16, 2015 at 1:40 am)Anima Wrote: Actually the Catholic church did not start the inquisitions.  Inquisitions were started in various countries by their respective monarchies (after all the establishment does what is in its benefit).  Eventually the church entered into the various inquisitions (there is more than one) throughout Europe to put a stop to the witch hunts.  Upon entering in the church established the rights you so love such as:  The right to have an evidentiary hearing, right to know the charge, the right to face your accuser, the right to trial by jury, the right to an equitable and informed defense (right to an attorney), the right to have a judge recused, and the right to an appeal to name a few.

So it wasn't an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX circa 1232 for the suppression of heresy. According to your college, Wikipedia, It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government? Hmmm, so you guys are now in bed with the likes of Texas. When the history books debunk their mythical view of history, they simply revise the history books. I've never been quite sure how this is different from just burning books, as authoritarians always need to do to sustain power.

(June 15, 2015 at 8:43 am)francismjenkins Wrote: I think the passage is clearly aimed at subservience to the state ... totally inconsistent with everything else Jesus preached, but conveniently, very consistent with the interests of the ruling power structure that made christianity the official religion of the roman empire.

(June 16, 2015 at 1:40 am)Anima Wrote: That would be the official religion with the conversion of Constatine in 313AD (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_the_Great).  Which is to say after about 300 years of killing christians for fun.

"Constantine was the first emperor to stop Christian persecutions and to legalise Christianity along with all other religions and cults in the Roman Empire." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantin...ous_policy)

I am surprised at you.  I thought you would agree with this passage.  What it is clearly stating is that one should not use their religion as an excuse to violate the law!  Or if you like separation of church and state (which was created by the Catholic Church as a means to protect the State from the Church.  As it was common for the Spare of the Heir and the Spare to enter into the clergy.  So if you were a prince and a bishop you had to renounce your title as bishop in order to act as prince or king.)

---

[quote='Rhythm' pid='965761' dateline='1434428919']
"Its to be held as true even when it isn't true. "

-and with thus, you have -completely- abandoned any expectation of my considering your opinions on the matter well reasoned, or you as a reasonable person.

No that's the interpretation you people just pull out of your asses

Jesus was a good boy, he worked hard, paid his taxes, and played by the rules. Duh ... Jesus was an anarchist, and incidentally, I have far more in common with Jesus than you people ever will.

#nogodsnomasters  

francismjenkins:

So it wasn't an ecclesiastical tribunal established by Pope Gregory IX circa 1232 for the suppression of heresy. According to your college, Wikipedia, It was active chiefly in northern Italy and southern France, becoming notorious for the use of torture. In 1542 the papal Inquisition was re-established to combat Protestantism, eventually becoming an organ of papal government? Hmmm, so you guys are now in bed with the likes of Texas. When the history books debunk their mythical view of history, they simply revise the history books. I've never been quite sure how this is different from just burning books, as authoritarians always need to do to sustain power.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
May I inquire as to which Inquisition are you referring to?  

1200 France and Northern Italy
1400 Spain or Portugal
1500 England, the Netherlands, Mexico or Peru
1600 Germany or Italy
1700 Japan
1800 United States

Anima is correct in his statement in that there are several Inquisition thought history that were not all established by Papal Bull but local/ Kingly governments.

Many forget that there was also Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shinto Inquisitions throughout.

Many of the common and repeated ideas of the Inquisition are more on hearsay than historical facts. Recently, with the opening of both the Spanish and Vatican archives, there is a massive historical reexamination of this time in history; this new information on the Inquisitions has shed new light on what the Inquisitions really was and what were its actual functions.

For example, historians are finding that the Inquisition could not try non-Christians, that is to say those who were not baptized Christians. Jews, Muslims, Buddies, Hindus, and other faiths were untouchable, (never were they tried by the Inquisition because they could not be). Keep in mind that the full intent of the Inquisition was to reconcile the lost soul back to the Church. Both the Jews and Muslims that were tried by the Spanish and Portugal Inquisitions were Converto's" those who have converted to Christianity but was assumed to privately practicing their old faith.

(June 15, 2015 at 4:45 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 15, 2015 at 3:48 pm)Anima Wrote: Ha ha.  "I have gained this by philosophy, to do without being commanded what other do for fear of the law." - Aristotle

I am arguing a person must make such an appeal otherwise they will act according to subjectivity (in which every act is right) or they will be acting according to utility (in which case the action is right based solely on the end and not the means).

-then get to arguing that, rather than stating it contrary to any number of examples given.  So, lets get to the heart of this trilemna, eh?  It's either

A: person appeals to a fictitious entity
B: person acts according to subjectivity
b2 in which every act is right (lol......classy, btw)
or
C: person acts according to utility
c2 in which every action is right (still classy)

That about sum up my options?  That the entire breadth of the field?  You haven't tried to take liberties with any of that, I assume?  I couldn't, for example, mention that our moralities (you and I, specifically) are subjective....and that many of your acts are wrong?  I could not concede that your fictitious appeal might help you to keep your hands off other peoples necks..that you might need it, and still tell you that if god is why you keep your hands off a persons neck that you are morally defective?

Hmm. To put it in a similar manner I would say it is as follows first I argued:
1. A person acts according to ethical utility, an argument to numbers, which leads to immoral actions.
2. A person makes an appeal to authority in order to override the appeal to numbers to engage in immoral actions.
3. The authority appealed to will not be supported by direct explicit empirical proof and thus may be considered fictional.
4. Thus, one must appeal to a fictional entity (their person, conscience, schema, or deity) in order to have an authority to override utility.

Then I argued:
1. An appeal to authority, where the authority is subjective results in a morality based on whims.
2. An appeal to authority, where the authority is objective (in actuality or proxy) results in morality that overrides whims.
3. A person engages in the act believed to be subjectively best/correct/right.
4. Under subjective determination all acts are right; under objective determination all acts are not right.