"Is All Truth Relative?" -- UB philosopher defends Christian perspective

[Tom Wanchick]

You are invited to the next WNY Apologetics Roundtable Discussion to be held on Sunday, April 5 at 6:30pm at Whitehaven Road Baptist Church (1290 Whitehaven Rd., Grand Island, NY 14072).

Our speaker will be Dr. James Beebe, philosophy professor at UB. Dr. Beebe will present a talk titled, "Is All Truth Relative? Can Something Be True for You but Not for Me?"

Dr. Beebe will examine the postmodernist claim that we should believe anything we want about religion and ethics, as long as it works for us. He will argue that not all beliefs can be equally valid; we should believe only what corresponds to reality in religion, ethics, or any other area.

The event is open to all, so feel free to bring a friend. Free refreshments will also be provided.

Thank you,
Tom Wanchick

[Flutter]

And how does he determine what is and isn't a valid belief system?

Does he require logical consistency?

What are his criteria for judging?

Just give me a brief outline so I know if he's worth listening too, or just another crackpot.

[Tom Wanchick]

And how does he determine what is and isn't a valid belief system?

Does he require logical consistency?

What are his criteria for judging?

Just give me a brief outline so I know if he's worth listening too, or just another crackpot.

Yes, he'll probably look at logical consistency as well as examine the idea that two conflicting claims can be true (e.g., that both the Christian God exists and the Islamic God exists -- both can't be true). In other words, he'll probably look at the law of non-contradiction and so forth.

Dr. Beebe's a very good speaker and you won't be sorry you came. You can ask questions of him in the Q&A session. Hope to see you there.

(For more info go to www.wnyapologetics.com)

[Tom Wanchick]

ttt..

[FREEDOM ONE]

Ladies and Gentlemen, it becomes apparent that many modern religious don't understand the concept of natural law, as used in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers, and as may be witnessed by observing nature, the greatest Creation of the Great Sprit.

Ask one of our Native American brothers and sisters about tenets of The Great law., adn you'll get real close. Reading Cicero, although it's harder to grasp, is also good. It's where the Constitution AND the declaration got its moral and religious bearings.

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/

Hope the conference went well Sir.

[mesue]

Ladies and Gentlemen, it becomes apparent that many modern religious don't understand the concept of natural law, as used in the Constitution by our Founding Fathers, and as may be witnessed by observing nature, the greatest Creation of the Great Sprit.

Ask one of our Native American brothers and sisters about tenets of The Great law., adn you'll get real close. Reading Cicero, although it's harder to grasp, is also good. It's where the Constitution AND the declaration got its moral and religious bearings.

http://www.xmission.com/~nccs/

Good luck in the conference Sir.

It wasn't natural law but common law.

[FREEDOM ONE]

Uh, no ma'am, it was indeed natural law, from which sprung common. I speak of the basic moral underpinnings of our Republic. They are not, as many assume , Christian.

[FREEDOM ONE]

If I may:

http://www.nccs.net/newsletter/apr97nl.html

and

http://www.nccs.net/articles/ril17.html


For your review ma'am. And my use of the word "sprung" was a play on that cute uplifting graphic of yours. As I get my shovels ready.

[mesue]

... I speak of the basic moral underpinnings of our Republic. ...

Which sprung from the common laws of England.

[FREEDOM ONE]

Cicero predates the English law by, oh, 1500 years or so. It's natures law, the law that can be witnessed by clear observation of nature, without human ego clouding ones judgment, by seeing things "in the moment". That's how the wise old owl Cicero did it.

But don't take it too far, it'll whack ur mind. Its why I call "God" She sometimes. A solo "HE" is simply illogical and contrary to the rhythms of nature, but the rest of the "modern" world seems to disagree. And kill each other over it.

[mesue]

Cicero predates the English law ...

England's laws were based on common law. Our founding fathers based our laws on common law.
My mind is not wracked, but thank you for your concern.

[FREEDOM ONE]

I meant mine, not yours. And they based it on natural law, not English common law. From their own mouths if you check the links.

[mesue]

I meant mine, not yours. And they based it on natural law, not English common law. From their own mouths if you check the links.

I know my American history. I thank you just the same.

[Jim Ostrowski]

There was more than one philosophical influence on the founders.

The most important was probably Lockean-type natural rights thought.

The key work is Bailyn's Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.

Bailyn maintained that ideology was ingrained in the revolutionaries, an attitude he said exemplified the "transforming radical libertarianism" of the American Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Bailyn

the major themes of eighteenth-century radical libertarianism brought to realization here. The first is the belief that power is evil, a necessity perhaps but an evil necessity; that it is infinitely corrupting; and that it must be controlled, limited, restricted in every way compatible with a minimum of civil order. Written constitutions; the separation of powers; bills of rights; limitations on executives, on legislatures, and courts; restrictions on the right to coerce and wage war—all express the profound distrust of power that lies at the ideological heart of the American Revolution and that has remained with us as a permanent legacy ever after. (Bernard Bailyn, "The Central Themes of the American Revolution: An Interpretation," in S. Kurtz and J. Hutson, eds., Essays on the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973), pp. 26–27.)

[Jim Ostrowski]

"radical libertarianism"

I love it!