Peter

Corny but not a cornucopian. Enjoys mathematics a bit too much. 🇺🇸🇻🇦

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper *is

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper I agree, but this isn’t beside the point. I highlighted *all*. Why is it that you as an individual have a higher survival value when suffering is reduced for *all* people (as opposed to just some)?

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper More specifically, can you at least address my first point 1)? Why should this be true?

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper But *why* does it “not seem to track...”? If it’s trivial, why can’t you offer at least one explanation?

[Peter @percolatable]

@WildMouseG @getjonwithit According to some (tenuous) theories, yes.

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper 1) It’s not obvious empirically that preventing suffering for *all* human beings is optimal for survival.

2) Even if this was true, do you really think a hypothetically secular society whose economy was grounded in slavery would be readily convinced by such an argument?

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper Why is it important that all people have freedom and avoid suffering? Most cultures throughout the world have not believed this. I see no reason why a secular culture would have been otherwise, absent the contingent fact of having once been rooted in the right sort of religion.

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper All the original abolitionists made strongly religious arguments. I wonder what sort of arguments a secular one would have made?

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper My original point was just that the OP makes a fallacious jump from “the empirical sciences have had more success in understanding the physical world than religion” to “religion isn’t needed for moral matters.” Of course there may be arguments for this, but the OP’s is a bad one.

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper Do you think we would have ended slavery in a nonreligious world?

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper No, all this means is that there’s a nuanced middle ground position. (All this is irrelevant to my original comment, so I see know reason to go there.)

[Peter @percolatable]

@dilanesper It’s obviously true that Christians generally believe in the value of suffering. Nobody’s denying this. But it’s just willful ignorance on your part to act as though this is the *only* reason for being pro life. There are many others.

[Peter @percolatable]

@xwanyex In fact, a similar thing could be said of slavery back in the day. The abolitionists (once a minority voice) had the correct moral “intuition” because they had put in time on an issue that most others took for granted.

[Peter @percolatable]

@xwanyex Even on these terms, intuition generally becomes more reliable the more you think about, discuss, and grapple with the matter at hand. And the fact is hard-line pro-lifers have put in more time on this issue than anyone else. No reason to think that their intuition is wrong.

[Peter @percolatable]

@kiefsherwoodlvr @dilanesper Ever heard of thou shalt not kill?

[Peter @percolatable]

@Nyct0phil3_x Personally I don’t believe anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth will be condemned. The thing is though this is actually hard to do and we need the right kind of help. That’s where my faith comes in. My two cents.

[Peter @percolatable]

@Nyct0phil3_x … between different religions can’t be by accident either. But my interpretation of this would more be in line with C.S. Lewis’ idea of “good dreams” in Mere Christianity. Many religions point in the right direction but aren’t “the direction”.