Posted: Apr 27, 2016 11:25 pm
igorfrankensteen wrote:The problem, of course, is that effectively no-one has a set of simple principles which are also comprehensive, or a set of clear priorities to govern what happens when principles clash, as any even vaguely useful set of principles obviously will.
I do.
So give me a taste of what your principles are, and the meta-principles which describe their clear priority order
John Platko wrote:People with different worldviews may well share some principles - maybe the more so the simpler that principles are - and someone in thrall to their own principles may find someone else appealing to some of those very principles and emphasizing convenient ones in order to try to persuade the person a particular decision is acceptable or good.
Again, if they are "in thrall" to them, then they aren't THEIR principles. I went over that before.[/qute]
So they are 'meta rules, which people should follow in order to live up to them, without being constrained by them?igorfrankensteen wrote:
For example, an atheist who knows they are one, and knows what kind of one they are, will not be successfully manipulated by appealing to the will of God. However, someone who has only worked out that they don't like being told what to do by people, but who hasn't figured out if they believe in God or nit, might be tricked resentfully into giving 'the will of God" the benefit of the doubt.
My turn to note a typo. I meant to say who knows WHY they are one. Changes the whole thrust of the paragraph.
Does it?
Surely someone who simply 'doesn't believe that gods exist' will fail to be influenced by arguments claiming that 'God' wants X in respect of the 'God wants' claim, even if they may well consider the X on its own merits as a suggestion made by other humans?
Why should what 'kind' of non-god believer they are make a difference, beyond possibly influencing whether or not they have bias against the suggestion of X due to the attempted claim?
And even in that respect, self-reflection on the kind of non-god-believer they are doesn't seem to do much beyond possibly providing insight into their likelihood of having such bias.
Where do 'principles' come into all that?