[split] Are Questions About God Important?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, of course. That’s the point you’re always trying to make. It’s been made. Understood.

But then you tried to use that the argument based on the premises I stated to make your point. I tried to discuss the argument. Then you dropped the argument to make the statements above. That is really just saying that you didn’t mean the argument or don’t want to continue making it because it doesn’t help you anymore.

I am going to try one more time to discuss the dilemma.

I couldn't possibly use your or the other posters subjectivist understanding of meaning or morality to make any point of my own.  I'm not a subjectivist.  

You know, as I was reading your post, I was trying to understand why we were talking across each other. When I got here, I realized what the problem is.

You take “nature” here to be the individual nature of each human being. If that’s what I was talking about, then you would be right. If you want to continue with that understanding of Nature, then that’s fine, but I won’t.

In Catholic thinking that’s not at all the case. Nature here is more like (may be the same as) the Natural Law that defines all of us. (I’ll use a capital ‘N’ to distinguish.) I thought the examples I gave would have made that clear. This Nature is objective. And not only in Catholic thinking. This is one of the truths that Catholics have brought to us from the Greeks.

It wasn’t until the 1700’s that the recognition of a Natural Law started to darken. Here’s a quote from the Encyclopaedia Britannica. (We’ll see if the link is allowed. Probably not. I’m still a newbie.)

I find "catholic thinking" thoroughly unimpressive.  The meaning we apprehend or the moral understandings we have based on -all- of our natures, human nature in total, is still subjectivist.  As opposed to relativist - which describes differences between groups of otherwise similar agents (like human societies).  Or objectivist, which does not refer to any subjects nature, god or man, one or many, to explain or justify the content of it's assertions.

Thus, I think my counter to the dilemma you proposed is valid with that understanding. (Well, it’s not my counter. I’m just posting it.) If you can’t discuss it with that understanding, then fair enough. We can stop.

I suppose we could continue under your understanding, i.e. there is no Nature. Human nature is subjective and individualized. However, that’s a different god than I profess. It might be an interesting discussion, but I’d probably agree with you pretty quickly.

While I appreciate the irony of a natural creature in a natural world claiming that there is no nature, that has nothing to do with me.  I'm absolutely fine with there being facts of human nature.  I'm even fine with there being facts of a gods nature.  For their to be human meaning, and god meaning.  I don't think these two sets of meaning (or one set, your call) exhaust the category of meaning.