Don’t take offense at the following. I am not trying to be mocking or insulting and I despise condescension above all else. But I do have questions.

None taken. I enjoy a good commenter and debate. I would never be offended by someone offering opposing or inquiring viewpoints as long as they’re respectful.

That being said, please realize that many of my answers below to your questions revolve around the fact that many of the points in the above entry are not thoroughly explored; this doesn’t necessarily take apart from what I was attempting to portray, but it does look sparse in particular sections where it seems I am making blanket, unthought statements when that isn’t the case.

What is a globally-accepted axiom? Can you name one? The word suggests that it is a statement accepted as self-evident by planet earth, or by everyone living on it. I’m surprised you believe such a thing could exist in light step 4. You simultaneously believe in universal principles and in moral relativity (4). They must be very important if your attempts at discussing controversies with your mother was rooted in them. What are they?

I view universally-accepted axioms to be the truths at the base of all knowledge — the mathematical system, cause-and-effect, logic itself. I suppose one could argue that these aren’t necessarily ‘axioms’, and I’ll give you that much. Perhaps that’s a bad word choice. The use of the word “global” was not necessarily meant in a literal sense; however, there are few words that mean “everyone/thing” and do not encompass some portion of our existence (global, universal, etc.).

Believing in universal principles and moral relativity are not mutually exclusive, however. I can easily believe that “1+1=2″, and know that this is true for every situation in every place in this known reality while still believing that the truth, “Murder is bad”, may or may not be universal but is, as far as I know it, the overwhelming majority. (My proclamations of truth to this reality/dimension/existence, just to stop all you metaphysics folks from getting your panties in a tangle — and lord knows I love a good twisting)

Moreover, what is a commonly-accepted truth? At this point, I get a bit confused on terms, so forgive me if I miss the mark. If you’re refering to the “global axioms”, well, the truth of 1+1=2 stands far and above a Biblical truth in that it is based in something that, when broken down, just simply has no doubt. If you were talking about the Step 4 truths, then what makes the truth, “Murder is bad” so much better than my mother’s Biblical truths? Fuzzier, but I think still workable, as you can argue it with logic that, while not without its doubts, would be difficult to refute. There’s many ways to approach it, of course, but one could be: Death in a natural fashion is part of life, based on what we have observed for thousands of years inside nature and its experiences. A “natural fashion” would mean that death exists for a purpose, whether as an end to life or a means for life to continue (in terms of deaths happening for food or for protection) — this is observable. Un-natural death is therefore bad because does not follow a purpose. Murder is unnatural death that does not follow a purpose. Therefore, murder is bad. Again, MUCH fuzzier, I’ll give it that, and I’ll never say that that particular argument is fleshed out completely, but even so, it could be fleshed to the point that few people would fail to see the logic in its conclusion.

What makes one so much better than your mom’s Bible?

My mother’s Bible, on the other hand, at the root of its statements and truths, still falls back on the fact that it was the thoughts and opinions of the men/women/children/gods that wrote it. That’s a hard fact to plow through, logically. If that wasn’t enough, many of the statements made within are “becauase I said so”, rather than having a basis in a logical argument. It’s not that they could be made — no doubt the abstaining from pork in the Old Testament could be shown to have health benefits. The problem comes in when the believer professes within these statements without accepting along with them a logical path to their truth, yet insists on arguing with these statements as if they were scientifically-derived fact when they are, in fact, belief statements. This does not necessarily make them wrong, but it does remove them from a logical argument in a hurry. That was the biggest basis behind my and my mother’s arguments about religion — we simply weren’t on the same argumentative page.

Is there such thing as an uncommonly-accepted truth or a commonly-unaccepted truth? These sound like one and the same to me. Certainly, say, Galileo and the heliocentric viewpoint is a good example. Uncommonly accepted in his time, but nontheless universal in the end. Do those things remain truths? If they are, are they the same kind of truth as your universal ones, or are they somehow less legitimate because they are less common or less accepted? I dislike the term “legitimate” because it is too…limited in terms of how to describe these sorts of truths. First, truths of these type (globally-accepted) are subject to change. But just because they are *subject* to it does not mean that they *must* change; indeed, properties that are tested and do not adjust the quantity of their truth value upon testing are more true than those that do. For instance, upon testing, the heliocentric view of the solar system proved, time and time again, to be correct. Thus, its truth value increased. It is not likely to ever decrease. The truth, “homosexuality is bad”, while accepted 100 years ago, under testing, has been changing for many people over the past 50 years and will likely continue to change in its value, because testing does not always render it to be true. I prefer to rate “global” truths in this manner — upon testing, what do they reveal?

Or is it just compatibility with “everyone else’s” impression of the world that you care about? What, in your mind, ARE these truths? You never name them. How does an absolute truth (something you also say you believe exists) fit into this scheme? I never use the term “absolute” as I rarely would ever say that anything is so. Second, I am not necessarily striving towards a universal view of the world; however, I do think that it behooves us all to examine our belief systems and put the truths we accept to the test.

The first time I saw actual logic in this entire article was when you spoke specifically on abortion. You have some clearly expressed thoughts on it. The same goes for gay marriage. Health care and education you expressed nothing but “they need to be better.” Terms like “going forward” are deliberately vague words used by politicians and bureaucrats to disguise a lack of thought or knowledge about their intentions for the future. I know you don’t want to be like them. And please do not assume that I have viewpoints such as them, either. Although I didn’t elaborate on healthcare and education as much as I expressed viewpoints and logic on abortion, that doesn’t mean I don’t have them — it just means that I didn’t care to go into them in this particular article. Also, I will freely admit that my viewpoints towards healthcare and education are not as well formed as abortion/homosexuality, so I did in this instance use the statement that I believe they need to change — I can name a million things wrong with each — but as to their solutions? On that I cannot profess to be entirely lucid.

Be careful the terms you use, and ALWAYS be precise in your language. If I had to venture a guess, I would have to say that you don’t believe in absolutes, but rather in an open-ended (directionless?) pragmatism guided by the rumblings of the herd. (Complaints about Democrats come to mind.) If that isn’t the case, you ought to make sure your language describes what you really think.

First, as I said at the beginning of my response, this article was only a brief foray into the very WIDE realm of this subject. To properly extrapolate on all points and flesh out all arguments, it would have been a very long writing, indeed. The problem with the Internet is that it doesn’t always express that feeling across to the reader — instead, you came away with the feeling that I went off half-cocked and half-cooked when I assure you that wasn’t the case. It was merely a short adventure into the subject in the hopes of sparking dialogue. While I am always precise in my language, and careful with my terms, I will never claim to be perfect, or to look at something later and then realize that I didn’t mean it that way at all. I, as many people do, constantly struggle with the effort of expressing that which is in my mind within the limits of written (and interpreted) language.

You are correct in saying that, at this time in my life and my experience and observation thereof, I do not, generally, believe in absolutes. Everything may be questioned and few things warrant a label of “really, really, freakin’ true” on them. I believe that most of our truths and beliefs are by convenience more than anything — I believe that my mother is the person in front of me because it is convenient to do so. However, I would reasonably have to prove it each time if I was to be true to the facts. I don’t have the patience to bother each time.

That being said, I do not think that convenience is a good excuse for examination of one’s self, beliefs, and understandings. While it helps get through normal life, when being introspective, you have to put away that shield and open yourself to the possibilities. This does not necessarily result in an open-ended or directionless pragmatism, but rather an examined one, subject to change within the bounds of applied logic and deduction. If my beliefs align with the “herd”, it is by coincidence, not convenience. This is what I’m striving for. How I am progressing in this pursuit is left as a reaction from the reader.

You care a lot about resolving these issues, and you’re a step above a lot of other people because you’re writing, which means you ARE in the process of thinking. I hope I helped.

Yes, you helped me examine my thoughts and writings, which is always good for me, no matter how much of my soul I had to burn to come back with reponses. I care a lot about examining — life, truth, beliefs, relationships, the physical, the metaphysical, the spiritual — all of these may or may not have significant amounts of truth to each of us, or us as a whole. Finding out what that is is not only fascinating at times, but may hold the key to greater inspiration, well-being, and progress. I won’t always claim to know even 1% of what everything is about, but I’m trying to continue to pursue onwards towards the goal.

PS:
Please do not construe my arguments against my mother’s “Bible” as being anti-religion or anti-Christian or anything even remotely of the sort. I have great respect for her and all religions for their various aspects that promote the advancement of the human and of thought and belief. However, I also believe that there are aspects of each that lead down an incorrect logical path and end up in a mental quagmire. The unfortunate aspect of religion is that it often is an all-or-nothing experience, one which I think limits us in our exploration of truths. If I find truth in Christianity, might I not also find truth in Buddhism? Islam? Judaism? Their limits seem self- and not logic-imposed; thus I prefer to try to separate the golden nuggets of truth and thought from them each and assemble them together, rather than relying upon one and throwing the baby out with the bathwater, all the while I’m sitting in a pool with floaters.

(Yes, this is a brief foray into this subject. No, I won’t go deep into it here, so don’t bother to say that I didn’t explore this well enough. I know that very well. I may or may not explore this subject further later, but for now…)

What is a globally-accepted axiom? Can you name one? The word suggests that it is a statement accepted as self-evident by planet earth, or by everyone living on it. I’m surprised you believe such a thing could exist in light step 4. You simultaneously believe in universal principles and in moral relativity (4). They must be very important if your attempts at discussing controversies with your mother was rooted in them. What are they?

Moreover, what is a commonly-accepted truth? What makes one so much better than your mom’s Bible? Is there such thing as an uncommonly-accepted truth or a commonly-unaccepted truth? Do those things remain truths? If they are, are they the same kind of truth as your universal ones, or are they somehow less legitimate because they are less common or less accepted? Or is it just compatibility with “everyone else’s” impression of the world that you care about? What, in your mind, ARE these truths? You never name them. How does an absolute truth (something you also say you believe exists) fit into this scheme?

The first time I saw actual logic in this entire article was when you spoke specifically on abortion. You have some clearly expressed thoughts on it. The same goes for gay marriage. Health care and education you expressed nothing but “they need to be better.” Terms like “going forward” are deliberately vague words used by politicians and bureaucrats to disguise a lack of thought or knowledge about their intentions for the future. I know you don’t want to be like them.

Be careful the terms you use, and ALWAYS be precise in your language. If I had to venture a guess, I would have to say that you don’t believe in absolutes, but rather in an open-ended (directionless?) pragmatism guided by the rumblings of the herd. (Complaints about Democrats come to mind.) If that isn’t the case, you ought to make sure your language describes what you really think.

You care a lot about resolving these issues, and you’re a step above a lot of other people because you’re writing, which means you ARE in the process of thinking. I hope I helped.