jondeval

Of course the Church has a well-known teaching with regard to this activity. Just like the Church has a specific teaching about artificial contraception. So the Church obviously says specific things about specific things.

The point is that the identical moral reasoning process is being applied consistently to all people, namely, sexual activity is to be avoided outside of a marriage open to children. Gay people are not being targeted by some sort of religious moral carve-out.

I think you are correct in emphasizing that the burden of the Church's teaching on chastity does not fall equally on all groups of people.

But it should be stressed that this is no way a consequence a specific teaching that targets people with same-sex attraction.

The root cause of the trouble is the fact that the Catholic Church has consistently taught something that is always counter-cultural, difficult, and even quite radical. Namely that the only proper place for sexual intimacy is within a life long bond between one man and one woman for the purpose of raising children.

> I think most rational people would see through that ...

Where is the inconsistency? A heterosexual man is called to chastity as well. If he acts against this by cheating on his spouse I don't think the CC would be 'condemning an intrinsic quality' he was made with.

The teachings of Jesus should piss everyone off in some way or another.

Apologies. I mistook you as someone looking to engage with the substance of the argument. Take Care.

Thanks for the response. Let me take your comments one at a time. Apologies in advance if it seems like I'm jumping around and cherry picking. I'm just trying to focus in on the key issues.

> if we define God as base reality, then God exists by definition.

Right. You are stating the conception of God that is advanced by Judaism and Christianity. Its succinct expression is put forth by Thomas Aquinas and can also be found in the thinking of Aristotle.

To get even more concrete, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that God is ipsum esse subsistens or roughly subsistent being itself.

> In that case why not just call it "reality" or "the universe"?

I think you're touching on a good point. Let me take each case separately because I see them as slightly different:

>> ... why not just call it "reality" ...

You sort of can. As long we acknowledge that reality is made up of things that are more and less contingent. For example I'm looking at my headphones as I type. I can say 'these headphones are reality'. Even though these headphones are real, we both know that they would be a terrible candidate for base reality itself since the headphones can't explain their own existence and are clearly contingent on other things in being. (similar to the teapot)

>> ... why not just call it ..."the universe" ...

Typically when people say "the universe" they are implying the sum total of all material reality as we observe it.

The question is: is this the best or even a good candidate for base-reality. I think the answer is no for a very simple reason. The universe changes. energy changes form, objects change in an emergent phenomena we call time, they move through space, there are stars and not stars, and atoms and not atoms etc.

Everything else that we know of or can conceive of that changes as much as the universe does is coupled to a more fundamental reality that is the cause and explanation of the change.

So the universe is real, like the headphones, it just can't be the best candidate for base-reality itself.

So what is a good candidate for base reality?

* For starters there is only one base-realty. If there were 2 or more then you would need something more fundamental to distinguish them.

* Whatever this base reality is, it's utterly simple. It has no parts since parts would require distinctions and more fundamental explanations to identify them.

* Base reality needs to be outside time and space, because of the whole can't change thing I eluded to earlier.

* Finally, anything that has the potential to actually exist in reality, is in some weird way already present in base-realty. This is just a different way of saying that base-reality is the cause (directly or indirectly) of all things. cause of all possible potential things -> all possible potentials -> all-potentials -> omni-potentials -> omnipotent.

So, by necessity there must be a base-reality that is at a minimum: one, simple, eternal, immaterial, and omnipotent.

We then assign (like a reference pointer :^) ), the english word God to whatever this best candidate for base reality is, being sure to acknowledge that we are really dealing with the best candidate.

const God = (maximally full expression of base reality)

> I don't get what the Romeo and Juliet example shows.

Apologies if this is not helpful. I offered this analogy to get closer the proper definition of God that I outlined above. In the same way Romeo and Juliet can never step outside of the play, we can nonetheless see that Shakespeare is the their creator and is in a sense closer to Romeo and Juliet then they are to themselves. You and I cannot step outside of base reality but it should be obvious that we are held in existence by something that is more fundamental then ourselves.

Let's leave aside the arrogant/not-arrogant portion of the thread for now and key in on your main point:

> If someone says they know there is a teapot in orbit around Proxima Centauri and I disagree with them, neither of us can prove or disprove the other. That doesn't mean we both have an equal claim to being right.

I agree with you. No person is rationally justified in believing in such a teapot without evidence. However, a teapot is a contingent thing. Meaning it's very existence depends on the existence of other things (tea, water, the ceramic material that makes it up, Proxima Centauri etc.)

I suspect (I could be wrong here) that you are tacitly implying that people who assert the existence of God are making a similar move.

Please keep in mind that God is by definition base-reality and non-contingent and so exists necessarily.

To illustrate the difference here with an analogy: If we witnessed an alternative rendition of a conversation between Romeo and Juliet where they attempted to prove the existence of Shakespeare, we wouldn't be surprised if they failed to find evidence for Shakespeare from within the play and their own character existence. But at the same time we would find their conclusion absurd if they thought they had successfully proved that Shakespeare did not exist. They are Romeo and Juliet after all.

An additional reason that drives me to use make on most new projects is the polyglot nature of many code repos. There are language/ecosystem-specific build tools: grunt, rake, etc. but often real world projects are a mix if different languages and to double down on just one language-specific tool feels unnecessarily constraining.

Having a build tool like make that is more closely aligned with the system level feels more natural for orchestrating build/test/deploy tasks that by their very nature contain more cross-cutting concerns.

You make some really fantastic points here.

> His argument doesn't make sense if Adam didn't really exist.

I think you are completely correct. CS Lewis provides and extensive set of thoughts about paradisal man in 'The Problem of Pain'. He does this in a way that incorporates an understanding that man evolved from lower common ancestors while attempting a faithful, albeit not literalistic view of the story of the garden. You may or may not have read those chapters, but either way do you think that a possible reconciliation along these lines can exist?

More concretely Pope Pius XII lays out just such a reconciliation in the encyclical Humane Generis that asserts two points: (1) The theory of evolution should be taken seriously and there is strong evidence that human beings evolved from a common ancestors with the apes and (2) The story of Adam and Eve is a story about a real event, although the language expressing the truth of the event should not be interpreted strictly literally.

If you're still on the thread I would be curious to get your thoughts.

What specific truth claim are you skeptical about?

I don't think the concept is morality is relevant in those extreme cases. It looks like we are more or less saying the same thing.

Apologies if I'm missing the main point. I certainly agree that consciousness + rational choosing must be a prerequisite for moral acts.

But I wouldn't concede that morality is a human invention like the computer. That would imply that it's accidental and not grounded in anything fundamental to our species or nature's laws.

Do you believe that choosing to feed your kids, or choosing to not kill someone are simply created constructs like the computer or the airplane?

Also, I think these two statements can be true at the same time: (1) The Moral Law is real and exists outside of our subjective experience and historical cultural evolution and (2) concepts like Karma are without evidence.

What were the reasons that made you embrace that change? Consistency is certainly admirable, but you can consistently embrace incorrect world views.

> Evidence: How many, many animals live and thrive is deeply immoral by human standards.

The fact that non-human animals live an existence of violent survival does not seem to be prima facie evidence for the nonexistence or incoherence of human morality.

Human beings are rational animals. The term rational here is being used in a specific and technical sense. Non-human animals are subject to the laws of nature in a manner that acts more directly on their passions. Human beings are also subject to the laws of nature, but the forces of nature are mediated by our rationality.

Animal Act: (1) Offspring are hungry (2) brings food to offspring

Human Act: (1) Offspring are hungry (2) Reflects and Decides to provide food (3) brings food to offspring

An act is deemed immoral if it is a misuse of the rational faculty for ends that are not in conformity with the laws of nature.

Human Act (immoral): (1) Offspring are hungry (2) Reflects and Decides not to provide food for selfish reasons (3) offspring go hungry

Animals suffer but they are not moral agents like human beings since there is no mediating rationality that can be misused for ends that are not in conformity with nature's laws. The phrase Nature's Laws is being used broadly to include physical, biological or evolved social laws intertwined with the essential characteristics of the species.

Secular humanism in its more radical and moderate forms since the French revolution has always been subject to the direct and straightforward criticism that as a philosophy it will eventually lead to an erosion of a shared reference frame and eventually an erosion of sanity itself.

What if this societal rejection of Truth that we are witnessing (and is summarized well by the article) is the direct result of the success of secular humanism?

I think this is the elephant in the room.