t f p g+ YouTube icon

Come and See

Bookmark and Share

November 8, 2010 Tags: Christian Unity

Today's entry was written by Mark Sprinkle. You can read more about what we believe here.

Come and See

The 10th Chapter of Acts recounts the events surrounding the conversion of the first gentile Christians—those in the household of the Roman Centurian Cornelius. As an artist and a naturalist, I have always been delighted by Peter’s vision of the sheet with commingled clean and unclean animals. But my reaction to the story as a follower of Christ is somewhat more complex: it has by turns thrilled, comforted and convicted me, for at various times in my life I have been on both sides of what was actually a double-conversion—of Cornelius the pagan turning to Jesus, and of Peter the Jewish Christian also turning towards Jesus, but away from his surety in who was “in” and who was “out” of the Kingdom of God. In the context of the BioLogos project, the image of Peter being led reluctantly along the Lord’s path offers a corrective to the way many—particularly Dr. Al Mohler—have joined the debate over the compatibility of science and faith.

The visions Peter saw of the sheet were, prior to any revelation that he was being sent to a gentile household, offensive to his sense of purity as a devout Jew who respected and loved the Law. Add to this that Cornelius was not just a gentile, but a military commander in the hated occupying forces of Imperial Rome. Though Peter came to understand that the vision meant he was to make no a priori judgments about who could and could not be saved by the grace of Jesus, the command from the Lord to “Get up, Peter. Kill, and eat” was an affront to his identity and was in direct contradiction to what he believed set him and the other Christians apart from the rest of humanity in addition to their confession of Jesus as Lord.

He clearly didn’t like it and proceeded with some reservations, but he was at least open to the leading of the Spirit, and was prepared to set his own prejudices aside to see what God was up to. Soon enough, Peter recognized that God was again upending his understanding of reality as much as of the Scriptures, just as He had with the irrational-seeming idea of a Messiah who died, and then the even more outrageous fact of a resurrected Jesus. In the end, the Lord did more than instruct Peter to share the Gospel of Jesus with Cornelius’s household, He demonstrated that repentance and belief in the Gospel of Jesus were, alone, the prerequisites for belonging to the family of God by pouring out the Holy Spirit upon the men and women gathered under that Roman roof.

As Peter discovered, our theology is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is our collective and halting attempt to describe in coherent terms what we know of God by what we have seen of His acts and what we have read in His Word—and, above all else, by what we have seen in the acts of the Word, Jesus. And though it morphs into rules we try to impose on the divine and our neighbors, it does not in any way constrain the Lord who is constantly calling us in new ways, through new means, and telling new stories with the most unlikely characters. On the contrary, theology is put to the test not just by our logic, but by the witness of what God is doing in our lives and in the lives of others around the world. Evidence of the Spirit at work is the only true measure we have of our theology; all other measures, including whether it fits our carefully-reasoned arguments of who is in and who is out, are vanity.

But, in very public fora of late, Dr. Al Mohler of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary has been making it known that he regards those associated with the BioLogos project to be, at best “confused Christians,” with the implication being that we may be worse than unbelievers, dangerously leading the gullible to destruction. Despite his focus on the “logic” of our position vis-à-vis the Bible and his very specific definitions of both theology and evolutionary theory, the heart of Mohler’s claim that one cannot be a fully-functioning, authentic Christian and hold that God created using the process of evolution, is not, finally, about the compatibility of science and scripture, but about the power of the Holy Spirit. It is about the limits that Dr. Mohler has put on God’s ability to redeem and transform whomever He so pleases, in whatever manner He so pleases.

It is the same issue Peter faced when confronted with the vision of the sheet lowered out of heaven, which prepared him to meet Cornelius where he (and his family) were. Having seen the Holy Spirit poured out on these gentiles and former servants of Caesar, he had to ask, “Is there any reason why these should not be baptized?” In short, it is not a matter of whether Dr. Mohler (or Ken Ham, or Jerry Coyne, for that matter) find it reasonable or logically consistent or even in conformation with their readings of scripture, it is a matter of whether God has and is doing His redemptive work in the hearts, minds and lives of men and women who understand evolution to be a true material account of God’s creative work that does not in any way constrain God’s agency and sovereignty. And that is not an academic issue, but a very concrete and intensely personal one about the lives of those who hold views Dr. Mohler places outside the realm of truly following Christ.

Particularly coming from the head of the largest Southern Baptist seminary, Dr. Mohler’s repeated implications and suggestions, if not outright pronouncements, that I and anyone else who does not reject evolutionary processes are, therefore, not Christian in any but a nominal or diminished way, not authentic followers of Jesus no matter what we say and despite the evidence of the Holy Spirit both in us and working through us, seems to me to fly directly in the face of one of the central facets of Baptist tradition—that my salvation and relationship with the Father is not a matter for rulers or authorities or institutions to decide. Is there not a danger that 21st century ecclesiastical rulers and authorities might unwittingly oppose the Spirit through their all-too-human decrees, though their intention be to defend doctrines that are good and true and right?

We in the BioLogos community have on more than one occasion failed in our love precisely as Dr. Mohler and writers on all sides of this debate have. Nevertheless, our President, Darrel Falk, has repeatedly called (and been ridiculed from both left and right) for seeking unity among believers. I do not naively believe that we will miraculously come to a common understanding about the means God used in His creation, or how to read (or even translate) every passage in the Bible, or how best to organize our lives as believers together as Baptists, or Presbyterians, or Nazarenes, or Catholics, etc. Though such divisions, such divorces within the church are the surely result of the hardness of our hearts , our different theological and ecclesiastical traditions may also reflect God’s will and his desire to inhabit and work through all the myriad cultural environments in which we live, revealing and highlighting different aspects of His character in each. To the extent that we wrestle with each other over these issues with compassion and love, we demonstrate that even our conflicts may be redeemed by the Lord.

It is no small miracle that the Spirit is uniting a broken, diverse, and far-flung people into one Body, often—if not always—in spite of us, its members. In seeking unity we will see that the diversity within the Body formed by our common claim of being saved by the free, costly gift of God’s grace directs us towards a fuller understanding of the glory of God Himself and a greater humility before our brothers and sisters in Christ. Therefore, while it is problematic that Dr. Mohler so warmly agrees with Jerry Coyne regarding the ‘logical compatibility’ of evolution and religious belief, more hurtful for the Church is Dr. Coyne’s nearly gleeful account of the lack of charity within the Christian community. Dr. Mohler’s attitude and tone provide what Coyne and others take as another proof that our faith is a foolish and destructive lie.

So, recalling Peter’s conversion along with that of Cornelius, I invite Dr. Mohler to refrain from condemning (even by faint praise) those whom the Spirit has sanctified and is sanctifying, and through whom He is calling more of the lost to Himself. More, I invite him to join me at the table as a brother and to put off the too-common practice of acting as if we know everything we need to know about those on the other sides of these issues from what we read on-line.

As Cornelius asked Peter “to stay with them for a few days” to see what the Lord would be teaching them together, I invite Dr. Mohler to come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of people in the BioLogos community. Come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of specific, real live Christians in my adopted home town of Richmond, Virginia. Come and see what I have seen for years in the hearts and lives of men and women of faith directed towards the Lord by their studies of evolutionary biology, and who see the glory of God in the very process you find ugly and abominable. Come see the Spirit at work in hearts and lives focused and unconfused in their pursuit of Jesus and of His Kingdom.


Mark Sprinkle is an artist and cultural historian, and was formerly Senior Web Editor and Senior Fellow of Arts and Humanities for The BioLogos Foundation. A phi beta kappa graduate of Georgetown University, he received his M.A. and Ph.D. in American Studies from the College of William and Mary, where he studied how artworks embody complex relationships in different cultural contexts. Since 1996 he has been an independent artist and frame-maker, also regularly writing and speaking on the role of creative practices in cultural mediation and renewal, especially in the area of science and Christian faith. Mark and his wife Beth home-schooled their three boys, and are active in the local home-school community in Richmond, Virginia.


View the archived discussion of this post

This article is now closed for new comments. The archived comments are shown below.

Loading...
Page 7 of 11   « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »
Alex - #40004

November 15th 2010

@Steve,

I can’t speak for Martin, though I think that your accusations of his posts being “arrogant, supercilious, and unimaginative” is a trifle unfair.

You posit that humans are intrinsically worthy of respect.  That point is not self-evident.  You must explain what it is about humans that make us worthy of each others’ respect. In the case of Christianity, the answer is that all humans are created in the image of God, imprinted with His dignity and sustained by His grace.

You point to ‘positive outcomes’ that arise from the premise of respecting others.  But the Great Commandment reads, in part, to Love Thy Neighbor, so such outcomes hardly constitute unique support for your claim.

We agree on the conclusion: it is good to respect others. The difference lies in where we root that sense of intrinsic worth.  The answer to that question will take you closer to your real primary assumption.


Steve Ruble - #40033

November 15th 2010

@Alex,

Although it may be concealed behind smooth rhetoric, Martin’s position in #39868/9 boils down to, “My position is noble and respectable, while yours is incoherent and pathetic.” I don’t really care how graciously he phrases it; I feel entirely comfortable with my description of his behavior.

Your reply misses my point cleanly.  You say that it’s not self-evident that humans are intrinsically worthy of respect; I reply that it’s not self-evident that your god exists nor that he is worthy of respect nor that creation in his image would imbue the created with any worth.  That puts us at three non-self-evident assumptions to one, my lead.

Your last paragraph hints at the truth - I do, in fact, “root that sense of intrinsic worth” in people.  That is, I think that people intrinsically deserve respect because they do, in fact, intrinsically deserve respect, by virtue of being people.  That is, in fact, part of what I mean by “people”.  You seem to be saying that people do not intrinsically deserve respect - that they derive their desert from another source.  Why do you think that?


Martin Rizley - #40044

November 15th 2010

Steve, you say, “I. . .merely assume that other people generally ought to be respected. I can point to any number of positive outcomes which result from making that assumption. . . Please explain what is inconsistent within my rationale for respecting people, and why your assumptions have more inherent merit than mine.”
The inconsistency in your rationale is your use of the word ‘ought.’  How do you derive any concept of moral obligation (‘oughtness’) from that of utility or practical fitness to achieve a desired end?  The two concepts are not identical and one is not logically connected to the other. Just because a course of action is useful to achieve a desired end does not make it morally obligatory.  For example, it may be useful to commit a political assassination to achieve a desired political goal, but does that make such an action ‘morally obligatory’?  By what standard?  So, just because showing respect to other people serves the useful end of making the world a more peaceful or “functional” place, how does that place any MORAL obligation on anyone to respect (let alone, love)  their neighbor?  (continued)


Martin Rizley - #40045

November 15th 2010

I have no difficult conceding the point that certain behaviors lead to certain outcomes; but I deny that the atheist has any reason to insert the word ‘ought’ into his advocacy of those behaviors, as if certain behaviors were morally obligatory because they were ‘useful‘ or ‘desirable‘ to a certain group of people.  How can there be any moral obligation in a world which is ultimately meaningless and totally absurd?  Only a theistic worldview accounts for the sense of moral obligation that is universally confessed, by asserting that ultimate reality is not meaningless or absurd, precisely because it is not impersonal, but personal.  Therefore, personal relationships matter truly, because they matter ultimately.  An atheist cannot begin to say that personal relationships ‘matter’ in any ultimate sense, because life itself has no ultimate (that is, ’given’) meaning.  If God does not exist, then if I want to turn my life into a video game, take a machine gun, and blow away a bunch of human ‘accidents’ before I self-destruct, who is to say that such a way of investing my short, meaningless existence is any better or worse than another way?  (continued)


Alex - #40048

November 15th 2010

As regards Martin:

Surely it’s possible to maintain a truth claim without being accused of arrogance, and surely it’s possible to point out perceived inconsistencies in another person’s position without being called supercilious.

As regards everything else:

I may have missed your point, but you ignore mine entirely.  Nor can I take your scorecard of self-evident propositions seriously, when you don’t actually state your primary assumptions (and double-dip in counting mine).

My question is this: where, in your definition of “person,” do you ground a person’s intrinsic worthiness of respect?  You reply that it is “by virtue of being people,” which reframes my question as a statement.  This isn’t Jeopardy.

Please tell me you see the tautology in defining a person as “one deserving of respect” and grounding your respect for them in that definition.

We agree that our respect for others originates out of their intrinsic worthiness, that is, the essence of their humanity.  But to avoid a tautology, that humanity must be defined separately.

The discussion boils down to: what do you consider the essence of the human person to be?


Martin Rizley - #40050

November 15th 2010

After all, aren’t video games with lots of violence, blood and gore, etc., the most exciting of all, even if they are short-lived?  If I want to have a few minutes of violent excitement in this meaningless cosmos in which I live by blowing away a few ‘cosmic accidents’ before ending my own meaningless existence, why should I pay any attention to inconsistent atheists who absurdly wave the banner of ‘moral duty’ in my face?  They haven’t a leg to stand on, given their admission that the world came from nowhere and is going nowhere.
Now, don’t get worried, Steve!  I don’t really feel that my life is meaningless, and I‘m certainly not about to go out with a ‘blaze of glory’ in the senseless way that I describe, but that’s because I know that the world is not senseless, it is full of meaning, and I am meaningful, because I have objective meaning given to me by the eternal, personal God who created me and redeemed me from my sins.  I know that God, and you can know HIm, too; and if you do come to know Him, you will find that your own life is more meaningful than you could ever have imagined—eternally meaningful.


Dale Dijkstra - #40053

November 16th 2010

Mohler writes in response to this article that Biologos is, “... motivated, they insist, by a concern that a rejection of evolution puts Christians in a position of intellectual embarrassment. “
No, Dr. Mohler.  The issue is not embarassment.  The issue is truth.
As Evangelical Christians we hold a very high view of truth’s value, and an examination of the facts of nature convinces us that evolution as a biological process is true, beautiful, noble (cf. Paul’s admonition of Philippians 4:8).
We acknowledge that if true, then the idea of evolution raises serious hermeneutical issues.  But we choose to engage and wrestle with them.  The reductio ad absurdum to the alternative is the Scripturalist epistemology of Gordon Clark - that there is no truth outside the propositional truths expressed in Scripture.  We know that you too see the absurdity of Scripturalist epistemology.  We would point out that if Clark is wrong, then insisting that truth is found only in one hermeneutical construct would be even narrower and thus more absurd than Scripturalism.
This we must respectfully decline.


Martin Rizley - #40075

November 16th 2010

Alex,  You said, “We agree that our respect for others originates out of their intrinsic worthiness, that is, the essence of their humanity.  But to avoid a tautology, that humanity must be defined separately.”  That is very well put.  Everyone is agreed that persons are entitled to respect because of their intrinsic value or worth.  The difference, as I see it, is that Christian theism explains WHY people possess intrinsic value in a way that atheism cannot, by saying it is grounded in the fact that human beings uniquely possess the image of God.  That sets them apart from all other created beings, so that any malicious injury done to human beings is an assault on God’s image, and therefore, it represents an indirect assault on God Himself.  Of course, God’s merciful character means that mercy must be extended even to animals, for ‘a righteous man is merciful to his beast,’ but since they do not possess the divine image like people, animals are not entitled to the same rights as human beings.  Only Christian theism can explain this fundamental distinction between humans and beasts in terms of their inherent value and dignity.


Papalinton - #40083

November 16th 2010

Hi Alex
Re my comment on Jeffrey Dahmer
You say, “You seem to be both convinced that God doesn’t exist, and very mad at Him for not existing.”
No Alex, my comment to Martin was about highlighting the utmost stupidity of professing an omnipotent, omniscient god, along with the 80+% of believing christians in the US all believing that their god can do ANYTHING and is GOOD, while at the same time Dahmer is killing and eating people.  And even with all that cosmic power,  god,  the callous monster, does not even try to stop Dahmer from mutilating people.  Can’t even you Alex, see the massive cognitive disconnect in that scenario, where an all-loving entity with great capable power to do anything good, chooses depraved indifference in allowing Dahmer to eat people?  So, Alex what’s god goof for?

Equally Alex, your comment, “And if you read Hosea, then you’ll know the Biblical definition of the Church: a whore, who fails again and again to be faithful to her husband, but who is loved and forgiven, simply because her Husband wants her back.”
Just another case of belittling women; another misogynistic and reprehensible case of theological indifference to wantonly abuse womanhood as a comparator to the good male god.


Papalinton - #40096

November 16th 2010

@ Alex
In a comment to Steve you wrote, “But the Great Commandment reads, in part, to Love Thy Neighbor, so such outcomes hardly constitute unique support for your claim.”

The ‘golden rule’ Love your neighbour as yourself,  was known and practiced by people for SO much longer than christianity ever existed, and indeed was appropriated [stolen] by christianity and and been plagiarised as a christian commandment for two thousand years.  It was codified or systematised in the Code of Hammurabi well before christians even existed.  So get your facts straight.

At another comment, Alex, you ask, “The discussion boils down to: what do you consider the essence of the human person to be?”
My response: Choose any frame you wish, that is, other than the most spurious and untenable of all, the frame of christian theology.  Reason:  What makes christian theology any truer than islam, buddhism, hindu, rosecrution, bahai, Zen, animism, etc etc etc?

[cont


Papalinton - #40097

November 16th 2010

@ Alex   [cont]

Steve’s,  “people intrinsically deserve respect because they do, in fact, intrinsically deserve respect, by virtue of being people,” is perhaps the best and honest of answers without any need for further qualification.  As such it is recognised under common law.  Any additional crap such as the theistic notion of ‘essence’ is simply conjecture and is wholly a concept bound within the confines of theology with no extramural meaning of any value outside that field.

Cheers


Papalinton - #40106

November 16th 2010

Hi Martin

You say,  “The difference, as I see it, is that Christian theism explains WHY people possess intrinsic value in a way that atheism cannot, by saying it is grounded in the fact that human beings uniquely possess the image of God.  That sets them apart from all other created beings, so that any malicious injury done to human beings is an assault on God’s image, and therefore, it represents an indirect assault on God Himself.”

This is of course, Apologetical nonsense. And the notion of man being made in the images of the various gods has been a theme in human stories since the beginning of recorded history.  Indeed Xenophanes [Greek philosopher], and a near contemporary of Thales [another Greek philosopher, considered by Aristotle as the father of the greek philosophical tradition],  observed that,  “if cattle or horses or lions had hands .... horses would draw the forms of their gods like horses and cattle, like cattle”  [Kirk and Raven 1962: p169]

“Only Christian theism can explain this fundamental distinction between humans and beasts in terms of their inherent value and dignity.”  Unsubstantiated conjecture, Martin, and your comment abuses and disrespects the other 4-5 billion people alive today.


Alex - #40111

November 16th 2010

Papalinton,

“Cheers” indeed.

Re: Jeffrey Dalmer, here again, you call God a “callous monster” and berate him for his “depraved indifference.”  Hmm.

Also, I can’t help but wonder if you’ve even read the OT prophets, or the words of Christ, that you think the Christian God to be indifferent.  It seems as though you’re also ignorant of Christian theodicy, and the fact that virtually every Christian theologian has at one point struggled with the problem of evil.

I won’t deny—I freely admit!—it is hard to reconcile the Biblical image of a benevolent personal God to the evil and the pain we witness in the world every day. But we are satisfied by the resolution, by the realization that God permits us to commit evil—sometimes heinous, sometimes in His very name—because He would not drag us kicking and screaming across the threshold to Paradise, but gave us the choice to love Him of our own accord.

(cont).


Alex - #40112

November 16th 2010

(cont.)

Re: Hosea, of course, I shouldn’t have even bothered.  Who cares to contemplate a sublime image of perfect unconditional love and forgiveness when there are accusations of sexism and misogyny to banter about.  What fun.  When you’re ready to join the grown-up table, you’ll realize that I was describing MYSELF as the philanderer and the unfaithful one, and even if the gender roles had been reversed in the story it would still convey the divine charity of God.

Re: the Great Commandment, I really wonder what you mean by “getting my facts straight.”  I merely said that Christianity also calls us to respect (and, what’s more, to practice sacrificial love for) our fellow humans, so neither Steve’s philosophy nor the practical outcomes of his ethics is unique to his ideas.  I don’t say that Christians have a monopoly on moral behavior—did you even read my posts?—nor that those ideas were even original to it.

(cont.)


Alex - #40115

November 16th 2010

(cont.)

Finally, regarding the “essence of the human person,” this should be brief.

Naturally, at your behest we must exclude Christianity from all serious consideration, even while you seem to leave the door open to virtually any other form of non-physicalism or theism.  Again, hmm.

As for Steve’s answer, I disagree.  His was not the best answer, and remain in desperate need of qualification, because it’s tautological and didn’t even answer my original question.

I’m asking Steve, and I will ask you, to *define your terms.*  If you describe something as “intrinsically” A, then you’re saying that it is A by definition.  What is that definition? Call it “essence” or “quiddity” or whatever you want, the question remains: what do you mean by the human person?


Papalinton - #40161

November 16th 2010

@ Alex
You say, “Naturally, at your behest we must exclude Christianity from all serious consideration, even while you seem to leave the door open to virtually any other form of non-physicalism or theism.  Again, hmm.”

The issue here is not excluding the christianities and leaving open the prospect of other forms of theism.  Rather it is a question of which form of culturally-derived theism, which colour, is the true one?  Everybody, everybody in the world is an infidel, a godless creature and/or a non-believer to someone else, all bound for purgatory or an eternity in hell,  depending on their stripe of religiosity. 

If it is assumed, for argument sake, there are 1,000 religions in the world [and we know there are many, many more], each with an equal chance of being true and all at least to some degree mutually exclusive, then each religion has a 1/1,000 chance of being true, and a 999/1,000 chance of being false.  In other words, whatever you believed before the comparison, there is only a 0.1% chance of being correct and a 99.9% chance of being incorrect.  Even simple math is upsetting to religious credulity.

Come on Alex,  much of your commentary is personal, anecdotal, and unscientific.
[cont]


Papalinton - #40162

November 16th 2010

@ Alex   [cont]

These form of words:
.  benevolent personal God
.  Paradise
.  sublime image of perfect unconditional love and forgiveness
.  the divine charity of God
.  to practice sacrificial love

is theo-gargle at its most pristine, written to a theological formula that clearly distinguishes it from standard everyday speak.  It is a form of ‘speaking in tongue’.  Outside theist circles the invocation of this language is of little relevance as a useful form of descriptor.


Steve Ruble - #40186

November 16th 2010

Wow, I’m sorry that I wasn’t clear in what I wrote.  I thought I was, but since Alex and Martin both missed my point, I suspect the problem was with how I wrote it.  Here’s what I said:

I, on the other hand, merely assume that other people generally ought to be respected.  I can point to any number of positive outcomes which result from making that assumption, but, basically, I just assume it. [Emphasis added]

I had no intention of trying to justify my assumption by saying that I can construct post hoc, pragmatic rationalizations of it - indeed, I agree with Martin that such is -> ought reasoning is doomed to failure. 

I’m assuming the ought.  Is that clear now?

Anyway, since we all seem to agree that you can’t reason from an is to an ought, perhaps someone could explain how they reason from “there is a god” to “you ought to treat people respectfully”?


Steve Ruble - #40189

November 16th 2010

@Alex

Surely it’s possible to maintain a truth claim without being accused of arrogance, and surely it’s possible to point out perceived inconsistencies in another person’s position without being called supercilious.

Certainly.  But the appearance of arrogance in claim-making is ameliorated by the presentation of evidence that the claim is correct, and Martin admits that he cannot provide any persuasive evidence.  Pointing out inconsistencies is great, but it becomes supercilious when one tries to lock one’s opponent into specific, deleterious definitions, while hiding one’s own inconsistencies behind endlessly mutable definitions.  Martin seems to think that one standard of argumentation is appropriate to him, and one to me - and he gets to define what the words mean in each.

But to avoid a tautology, that humanity must be defined separately.

We need to avoid tautologies here? You better tell Martin…

The discussion boils down to: what do you consider the essence of the human person to be?

I don’t think I believe in what you call on “essence”. Perhaps you could explain what you mean?


Steve Ruble - #40203

November 16th 2010

Oops, I missed a post. #40115, to be precise. Sorry!

Alex, in response to your inquiry about how I define a human person: I’m not sure I can offer a robust definition. I generally think of humans as entities which belong to my species and have or have had something like the attributes of sentience and empathy. It’s pretty fuzzy. “People”, the word I focues on earlier, is even fuzzier to me, including only the latter part of the definition of “human” above.

I guess that, in the interests of being precise, I should say that what I assume is intrinsically deserving of respect is the possession of sentience and empathy (although I don’t know how I feel about one without the other).

Anyway, it seems like we have a puzzle here. Martin says that we cannot go fron “is” to “ought” (aand I agree). Alex, on the other hand, seems to claim that any imputation of intrinsic value (implying “ought"s) is an unacceptable tautology. The two positions together make it impossible to ever get any “ought"s about anything.  Alex, I think your position must go. We must accept that intrinsic value is assumed or asserted.

So, again, why are your assumptions superior to mine?


Page 7 of 11   « 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »