Morality Debate, Part 3
a.inner_seek {
cursor: pointer;
}
Matt’s response:
Matt: It’s absurd to think that Moses was required for people to know that killing is wrong. We live in society, we interact with each other, and we can see the consequences of our actions. That’s all it takes.
He agrees that truth is truth, regardless of what anyone thinks.
Truth is an emergent property of the universe. Morality arises from the interaction of thinking, reasoning beings in society.
Jacobse clarifies that if we know killing is wrong, it’s not because Moses delivered that law. He rambles on for a while about “narrative”, and how atheists can discover moral truths, before coming back to his central point: that he wants there to be an ultimate authority for what’s right.
He adds that he could enjoy a beer with Matt.
And then he turns right around and blames eugenics on “the atheist experiment” in the 20th century. This is the beginning of the Godwin theme that will make up most of his argument for the rest of the debate.
If I understand correctly, he’s saying that truth is a person. Which is patent nonsense.
Stay tuned for part 4, in which Matt FAQs up the priest.
(See what I did there? “FAQs him up”? No? Should I have gone with “Kung FAQ grip” instead?)
Sigh. I’m just not seeing that as “truth is a person.” Granted, that quote is pulled from somewhere so it probably has a context, but without the context “truth is a person” is not what I’m deriving from that statement.
Truth, like any other concept, is filtered through our own perceptions. One man’s truth (or woman’s) is not the same for another. It has a “personal dimension.”
I could say the sky is blue and someone else could say no it’s gray. We’d argue back and forth for a while until I realized that the other guy is colorblind. Both of us are right in our own perception of that “truth.”
I don’t think that he’s anthropomorphizing truth. I think he’s explaining shades of perception.
Haven’t listened to the debate, but Christians say that “God is Truth”, which means in that sense that truth is a person, ie. God. I assume that’s what he’s getting at.
It sounds dangerously like he’s at once arguing for an absolute truth and that truth is relative. Moral relativism from someone seeking a moral authority? Or, more likely, special pleading.