From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Reply to Gregg Skinner -- Christians and the Law
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 10:19:42 GMT

graham:
>By chosing like this and claiming some force behind your morality (eh: Jim>is a moral absolutist), are you not guilty of intellectual dishonesty?

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    No, I don't think I'm guilty of "intellectual dishonesty".  Yes, I'm
>    a moral absolutist, but that doesn't mean that I think *my* morals
>    are the absolute standard; the Bible is the absolute standard, or
>    actually, the teachings of God contained in the Bible.
>
>    My *interpretation* of that moral standard (which I happen to believe
>    is correct else I'd change it) is a close *parallel* to the absolute
                                         ________________ 
>    moral standard contained in the Bible.
 
I deleted the rest of the post because my point is perfectly illustrated 
by this quote of yours Jim. How do you know that your interpretation 
of the bible is "close" to God's intent? What yardstick do you use to 
measure closeness? I asked this same question of a Muslim reader and 
the Quran recently and did not get much mileage so perhaps you Jim 
may be able to answer this question satisfactorily. 
 
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Does this mean I have "moral relativism"?  Certainly not.  For moral
>    relativism recognizes no standard at all apart from that determined
>    by each individual.  The adherent of moral relativism is adrift in
>    a sea of moral possibilities.

My contention Jim is that you are in fact a moral relativist. That 
when you chose your particular interpretation of the bible you become 
a moral relativist so to speak. Your individual standard is your 
interpretation of the bible (you judge things *relative* to your
*interpretation* of the bible). In fact I will go further and say that
there is no way that a "follower of the bible" can avoid being a moral 
relativist. All followers must chose what they think the bible means 
and at this point they become a moral relativist. 
 
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    The moral standard taught in the Bible is like a solid pier that
>    one can tie one's "boat" (life) to.  With a "short rope"(careful
>    interpretation of the standard) tied to the "pier" (moral standard),
>    one will not drift (in a moral sense) very far from the standard.

Given that you have some error in your interpretation of the bible
(something you admit to) and that you do not have access to the actual 
meaning of the bible (you only have your interpretation of it), there is 
no way you can discern how far you have drifted from the standard.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Having an absolute moral standard, even if imperfectly interpreted,
>    is better than having no absolute standard at all, and being adrift in
>    a sea of humanistic moral choices.

But what is an imperfect interpretation of a moral standard? An
interpretation is quite simply a "humanistic moral choice" (to use your 
words).

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism