🚀 go-pugleaf

Starbuck wrote:

> As an interpretive matter, what value to economists place upon family
> relationships, patriotism, and the enjoyment of sunsets? How much should a
> man sell his wife or daughter for?

Irrelevant. I'm not  interested in defending utility theory, I'm just pointing
out
that it is a nonreligious value theory, and so the claim that religion has
exclusive
authority over matters of value, and science may not comment on them,  is not
even
how things stand at present, let alone how they might look in future.

> >>>Many persons are convinced that their life (and the world around them) is
> meaningful.<<<
> >>>So what? E.g. maybe that's more or less inevitable given the way our
> brains work.  That wouldn't make it true.<<<
>
> I submit that the way our brains work is VERY pertinent to what is "true".
> The fact that many persons do find meaning and purpose through religious
> faith indicates that it does speak to a certain kind of "spiritual truth"...

Suppose the way our brains work also predisposes us to be rather easily
rendered xenophobic. Would xenophobia then also be spiritual truth?

> which may be different from empirical truth.. but it is certainly just as
> valid as "Truth"... even if of a different type.

I.e. we want to believe it, so it is "true" -- just maybe not empirically true,

some other kind of true.

Then try this version out: I want to be rich. I mean, I really *really* want to
be
rich. Therefore, I will win the lottery. This may not be an empirical truth,
but it
is certainly just as valid as "Truth"... even if of a different type.

:-)

>I  purport that the meaning of the universe (contrary to the clever opinions
of
>Douglas Adams) is that of a Transcendent Intelligence who has a personal and
>ultimately benevolent interest in all of us.

A Trancendent Intelligence responsible for sickle cell anemia and other genetic

diseases doesn't seem very benevolent.

But I asked for your evidence.  You offered none.

--
Alan McGowen