This is an ongoing discussion over morality and its usefulness (or lack thereof) in pointing people to the God we find in the biblical text. We didn't set out to discuss the moral argument per se, but it quickly got steered in that direction. The discussion partners are myself (C. Lambeth), and a close personal friend (EL).
Thanks for reading.
-CL
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
While it encompasses a wide range of related topics, the discussion below is essentially about the moral argument for (and against) God. If a reader is not familiar with it, the argument tends to go something like this: Since most of us have an innate sense of right and wrong (that we shouldn’t rape and torture the defenseless for example), and since these base-line notions seem to transcend times, locations and cultures, we might say that they point to a universal and objective moral standard. According to the Christian paradigm, this inherent moral code is because we were created in God’s image. Furthermore, (via Thomas Aquinas) the moral argument includes the basic idea that unless we have some common grounding of what is ultimately good or evil, labeling anything with those adjectives or “better” or “worse” would be without meaning. Thus, the only way for anyone to call something “good” is because we have an inborn understanding of the ULTIMATE good which is rooted in the God of the Bible who, by his very nature, IS good.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, because of corruption (sin) we sometimes disagree on what is “good” or “evil.” This does not mean that there is no standard, but rather that we often fall short of it. This is exactly what our experience and the Bible would lead us to believe. Furthermore, because Christianity is quite dynamic, Jesus’ followers can me moving closer to (or farther away from) his ultimate standard of good at any given moment in time. I think that all of us are willing to admit that sometimes Christians get it wrong. Thankfully, the Holy Spirit will not give up on us and can speak and redirect those who are willing to listen to him.
Usually, even if people do not agree with the “moral argument’s” conclusions about God, they can understand or even be challenged by it because they recognize that things in the world are not as they should be. Indeed, because they have experienced evil and its various manifestations, some people even find Christianity’s perspective to make the most sense of the world they live in and find its leading figure (Jesus) quite compelling as the ultimate redemptive force for the train-wreck our world is mired in.
Until recently, I had always thought that the presence of good or evil in life would be a point of contact with just about anyone and that it could start a conversation about faith if only given the chance. While I was certainly wrong to think that “evil” is universally recognized as such, its ability to initiate a conversation about faith has proved to be fairly reliable. What follows below is a conversation about evil and good between myself and a good friend, EL, who identifies with atheism.
This is a part of our larger faith-dialogue, and EL has graciously given permission to post the correspondence. What started this particular section in our dialogue was a political article sent to me by EL concerning then presidential candidate Barak Obama. While I unwittingly deleted the original link EL sent me, the one listed here is remarkably similar: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27481680/
One of his brief, early emails (2 below this one) was lost, so I tried to remember the gist of what he said, but this is clearly identified, and none of his words have been edited anywhere, save for basic flow additions and privacy concerns, which are always indicated by being offset with brackets [like these].
The thread is long (and hopefully not finished), but one step at a time. Welcome to the discussion.
-CL
EL,
ReplyDeleteHave you considered that from a Native American perspective, you and I are also of "illegal" lineage?
We got to vote 2 weeks ago. Another uniqueness of Oregon: everybody votes by mail. No lines, no hassle and 3-4 weeks to get 'er done.
Go O!
-CL
Unfortunately, EL’s email was lost here so I do not know the immediate context of the comment included below. As best as I can recall, E said something to the effect of:
ReplyDeleteCurrent Americans have the ability to defend themselves and that if the Native Americans had possessed tanks, missiles etc. they would have used them to defend their territory.
Here’s a copy of my response to that email:
“Yes indeed, but do you think that Western Europeans' settlement of the Americas has ultimately been a good thing or a bad thing?”
-CL
1, I don't believe in good or evil, and 2, it doesn't matter. We're here now. Fait accompli. It would be nice if what happened to the Indians didn't happen to us also, in my opinion.
ReplyDelete-E
No good or evil? Interesting. But I doubt you live consistently in that way of thinking. In a similar vein, if right and wrong / fair and unfair don't exist, then it isn't such a big deal if Mexicans (or the Taliban either for that matter) round us all up and start gassing and shooting us? Or vice versa? Sorry, but I'm not on board there.
ReplyDeleteAs an only slightly related issue, did you ever read my last two responses in our faith conversation?
-CL
Well, of course it matters, because we are us, but there's not some higher mystical purpose to it. You're the one trying to equate us to the Indians by saying there is no such thing as illegal immigration.
ReplyDelete-E
No, I didn't try to assert that there is no such thing as illegal immigration at all. Of course there is. Neither did I invoke some "mystical power." However, I think that we need to be aware of our own history and be careful about how we judge and treat illegals... be cause we were once illegals too. Much evil results from our thinking more highly of ourselves than we ought (on a corporate and individual level) and from dehumanizing people who are not us.
ReplyDeleteI'm not [always] a fan of Mexican culture, [it should also be noted that I am not always a fan of USAmerican culture either] especially how it abuses the environment and women, but I also recognize that the [immigrants] who come here are trying to improve their lives. It matters to them because it's them. I am not sure I would act any differently if put in their shoes. Mexico has significant problems.
It seems that the most hostile anti-immigrant factions are those who are afraid of change and the unknown (weak). Change can be difficult, but it comes nonetheless. That isn't to say that we should roll over and play dead, but neither does it mean that we need machine-gun turrets on the boarder. There has to be a solution somewhere in the middle, but let's not be ignorant of our history or forget where we came from and how.
-CL
So, if I understand correctly, we need to let the Mexicans overwrite our culture because 400 years ago our ancestors did the same to some other culture?
ReplyDeleteScrew that. I am so tired of the liberal multiculturalist agenda. It's not a matter of right and wrong, it's a matter of little-r republican Jeffersonian ideals, which an English white anglo-saxon protestant culture steeped in Roman heritage birthed upon this continent and which is utterly lacking in the backward superstitious paternalistic one-party mentality that is latin american culture. I'm sure they think their culture is superior. I prefer mine and would like to keep it that way, regardless if someone interred the Japanese or did something nasty to the Indians or whatnot at some point in the past. Why is that so hard to understand?
No, you didn't understand correctly. Here's what I said that you seem to have missed:
ReplyDelete"[This] isn't to say that we should roll over and play dead, but neither does it mean that we need machine-gun turrets on the border. There has to be a solution somewhere in the middle, but let's not be ignorant of our history or forget where we came from and how."
If we follow our own example then the US should just continue to limp along until it is finally weeded out on its own and overrun with the new faces of the south. If anything, I am suggesting that we not follow the precedent our nation set for the Western hemisphere in centuries past, and as a corollary, that we break the cycle of death and imperialism that seeks to smack everybody around until they can see things our way. I don't have any silver bullets, but I do know that it's wrong to mistreat people just because they are different from us. Surely our world can find some middle ground here and there.
-CL
I think I understand all too well. History has taught us that might makes right, and the victors write the history. I am suggesting that we take the example of the Indians to heart and refuse to allow Mexicans (and others) to do similar unto us.
ReplyDeleteAs for good/evil, just because I don't believe in some man in the clouds looking down and deeming this righteous or that blasphemous doesn't mean that I don't acknowledge the existence of pain, learning, knowledge, death, etc. Just as Rome was once the light of civilization, the shining beacon of democracy, the epicenter of culture and research amongst a world of barbarians, so now is the USA the leader in all these areas amongst a world of decrepit Europeans, militaristic Chinese, and backward/medieval arabs. John McCain has fought for and sacrificed most of his adult life for those ideals. We turn our back on them at our peril.
E,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. What you wrote is more of the rational approach I have come to prefer (and expect) from you. Nonetheless, I am worried for our country's self-respect (and the respect for humanity too) that our nation may sacrifice in order to prevent "Mexicans and others" from treating us as we have treated them. Much evil can be done in the (originally pure) motive for self-defense. What is the right amount and how much is too much? Humans have been really bad at answering those questions appropriately.
As for good and evil, neither do I believe in "some man in the clouds looking down and deeming this righteous or that blasphemous." That is an ignorant caricature of Christian ethics, not altogether dissimilar from a person calling Obama a terrorist.
Methinks thou dost protest too much. I wasn't dismissing christians or your particular subset of beliefs per se, but rather any belief in superstitious bugaboos as the proper guiding determinant for human behavior, be it the Wahhabist Allah, the polytheistic latin american interpretation of Catholicism, or whatever else have-you. But if the shoe fits.…
ReplyDeleteDoes your "acknowledgment of pain" mean that you judge it one way or the other? Seek to avoid it or embrace beauty and peace? Why?
ReplyDeleteWell, being abstract concepts, I wouldn't really put beauty or peace in the same category as pain. Pain is a specific, biologically evolved neurochemical response in a carbon based organism; I tihnk all but the most deranged of humans (and, for that matter, animals,) know what pain is and when they're experiencing it. In contrast, the other concepts you mention are quite subjective; according to all reports, the world trade center hijackers felt that they were experiencing beauty and peace in their act of martyrdom, but I bet a lot of people would disagree that that was what they were feeling, and rather that it was insanity, psychopathology, rage, hatred, or your favorite generic negative catch-all phrase "evil." For what it's worth, I suspect that they probably in fact did feel quite at peace and in a beautiful transcendant state, though it was based on superstition-derived delusion. But to answer your question, no, I do not "judge" pain as good or evil, but being that I am neither deranged nor a masochist, of course I follow my evolved programming to avoid it because I find it unpleasant. Generally speaking, I would prefer that the largest possible number of humans experience the least amount of pain, because I have a general desire for community well being (also a trait evolved for group benefit.) However, I am in no way troubled by the need to torture, maim, or kill a particular subset of individuals as a deterrent or preventative to their harming humanity as a whole. Let us have more heads on pikes, I say.
ReplyDelete[Regarding nationalistic pride] I don't share your optimism for all of the categories you listed as part of the USA's leadership. While we are certainly contributors to these things, we are not the only ones. And I am not suggesting that "we turn our backs on them." I hope you didn't hear me say that (because I didn't).
ReplyDeleteSadly enough, we are often also world leaders at treating other people poorly and caring only for ourselves or those who might provide us with political or economic opportunities.
I on the other hand have no problem with this. The pie is only so big and it can only be cut so many ways. Perhaps some day in the distant future through technology and academia we can grow the pie big enough for everyone to have all they want. My personal pet theory, influenced heavily by the writings of Isaac Asimov, is that robotics are our best option, for through artificial intelligence we can all have an army of slaves to serve us without compromising human dignity in any way. Perhaps some day there will be no humans working in any type of manual or menial labor, but every human life can be committed to the pursuit of arts, literature, knowledge, and leisure. Until that day comes, however, and as long as the world has only the limited pie, I am in favor of sending the marines to take it for the United States.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about Democracy being the best? Does this not involve an essential judgment of good, better, best and bad? And what happens when a Muslim world-majority "votes" for the demise of the Western Tradition? Yikes. And "militaristic Chinese"? That sounds about right, well, until we consider which nation has a larger military budget and which nation sells more munitions and weapons to feed world "(in)security." The USA wins both prizes. Not that the Chinese are guilt-free either, but this is like the pot calling the kettle "black." Ironic that France, UK, USA, China and Russia are the world's biggest military producers and sellers AND the 5 permanent members of the so-called "security council." Our world is in serious trouble.
ReplyDeleteI say it [democracy] is the best, although only when combined with republicanism, capitalism, libertarianism, and rooted in the white anglo saxon judeo-christian heritage. (I will grant the Romans an exception to this last qualifier due to them having been around prior to the judeo-christian heritage.) Screw those ignorant muslims who want to vote only for further ignorance.
ReplyDelete”And ‘militaristic Chinese’?”
That's actually a misnomer. It's just that american labor and parts are more expensive than stuff made in china. the US army costs more than the chinese army for the same reason that toys made in the US cost more than toys made in China.
I have little doubt that McCain would do ok as a president, but not great. I think Obama is the best chance we've had to be really different for awhile. Maybe since Carter, but ah well, I'm sure you can't get on board with that either. But Palin is the crazy one that scares me [as VP], and McCain is old. Shiver.
ReplyDelete-CL
C,
ReplyDeleteOn this we agree. Different you want, different you're going to get. In spades.
I wouldn't worry for our "self respect". Compared to genocide of the Indians, interrment of the Japanese, and whatnot, a bit of shipping mexicans back to their homeland and imprisoning a few terrorists at Guantanamo is small potatoes. Ameriacns tend to look back at our past through rose-colored glasses; but the Constituional Convention and Bill of Rights notwithstanding, things are more egalitarian in this country today than they have ever been.
Even so, we still have a long way to go. And genocide and torture does not just effect the recipients. It also impacts those who use it. As I have said before, “Much evil can be done in the (originally pure) motive for self-defense.”
ReplyDeleteWell, there you go with the good vs. evil stuff again, which has as much meaning to this conversation as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I'll just say that I beleive there's a clash of cultures going on, and that ours is superior in terms of human advancement, knowledge, and progress, yet it risks losing out to more aggressive and less enlightened cultures due to this lily livered navel gazing and lack of will. Perhaps it is the destiny of all enlightened democracies to eventually succumb to barbary, but I would like it to be otherwise. I hate to keep referring back to a singular example, but I really think in all of history the Romans had it about right. Promote education and openness whenever possible, but whenever the remotest threat to civilization appears, snuff it out ruthlessly and without remorse. Otherwise the poets get their butts whipped by the barbarians.
ReplyDeleteGood and evil, right and wrong has everything to do with this conversation. The previous statement is rife with implicit thinking that your position is “right” while those who think differently are “wrong.” We’ll explore this more later on.
ReplyDeleteI would agree completely with your previous post’s quote if you substitute “real Christianity” in for our culture: Christianity “is superior in terms of human advancement, knowledge, and progress, yet it risks losing out to more aggressive and less enlightened cultures due to this lily livered navel gazing and lack of will.”
You must be joking. Why would an all supreme god and his divinely ordained faith of Christianity have anything to worry about from the heathens? Are you so insecure in your faith? If you’ve really got god on your side, what’s the worry?
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about God worrying? He may be saddened by some of our choices, but he is not threatened by them. In that sense, God has nothing to worry about. You are partly right though, my faith could be stronger, but I wouldn’t say that I am “insecure” in it. I would prefer to think that sometimes (in my better moments) that I can just humbly say that I don’t have all the answers. Jesus actually esteemed those who knew they didn’t have it all together. I don’t mind belonging to their number.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, “having God on my side” doesn’t mean that everything is always sunshine and lollipops. This is a mistake that children and immature Christians (and outsiders) assume all too frequently. The biblical text tells its audience that “all men will hate you because of my name” and “in the world you will have trouble” and “you will be handed over to be persecuted and put to death.” But the beauty of Christianity is that our God doesn’t ask us to endure anything that he wasn’t willing to be subjected to himself. We don’t need to look any further than the cross. When we hurt, our God has not absconded. He is with us in the midst of our pain. You won’t find that in too many other religions. Off the top of my head, Mormonism is the only one that even comes close.
But earlier you said:“ I on the other hand have no problem with this [treating other people poorly and caring only for ourselves]. The pie is only so big and it can only be cut so many ways. [...] My personal pet theory, influenced heavily by the writings of Isaac Asimov, is that robotics are our best option, for through artificial intelligence we can all have an army of slaves to serve us without compromising human dignity in any way. Perhaps some day there will be no humans working in any type of manual or menial labor, but every human life can be committed to the pursuit of arts, literature, knowledge, and leisure. Until that day comes, however, and as long as the world has only the limited pie, I am in favor of sending the marines to take it for the United States.
[This, along with the previous posting, lead me to write:]
Well, ok, but all of your thinking seems to be totally egocentric and selfish, based on what benefits you (and those who are like you) most. Doing what we've always done is going to bring what the world has always gotten: hatred, abuse, death and destruction for most, while some soak up the sun and live in luxury. I am not ok with belonging to either group when a better alternative is possible. I refuse to give up working for that better vision. If that means I have to give up some luxuries then so be it. A life spent in pursuit of material (pre-landfill) fodder is a life wasted.
I was particularly interested in your quote,
"...I am in no way troubled by the need to torture, maim, or kill a particular subset of individuals as a deterrent or preventative to their harming humanity as a whole. Let us have more heads on pikes, I say."
Ironically enough, this is the exact same kind of "reasoning" that Muslim extremists use. So much for the superior, non-barbaric, enlightened civilization that you claim to esteem. I suppose that the difference between you and them is how one defines "harming humanity." But unless there is an objective value of evil and good, it's all might makes right.
Kudos to you for trying to be faithful to your atheism. After all, if there really is no God, then of course there is no higher authority to appeal to in terms of morality. So-called "right" and "wrong" are merely human constructs where majority rules or where deviousness and destruction do. But as I've said before, you don't seem to be living (or arguing) consistently with your philosophy. You keep appealing to things like knowledge and progress, but you don't define how you measure them or against what standard. Judgement calls are all over your visions for an ideal society. Good and evil has everything to do with these degradations. You also seem to have forgotten to list materialistic humanism and evolutionary altruism in your little list of "superstitious bugaboos."
I too see parallels with our own empire and that of Rome. Do you know what major factors led to their downfall? How about over expansion, government corruption, fiscal irresponsibility, the extreme value of entertainment and perpetual abuse of those who were not Rome in culture and ethnicity? See any similarities between them and our modern version of Western Culture? Surely you know that no empire has ever stood. There is no reason to think that the USA will change any of that, despite our faith in nuclear capabilities or our other areas of alleged "superiority."
You and I obviously have faith in different things and ideas. I'm not sure what all of your top faith-categories are, but I will say that mine is not in our government, not the survival of my retirement account and not in our nation's perpetuation. I hope all those things work out, but they're not where my ultimate values are.
-CL
“egocentric and selfish” :
ReplyDeleteWell, yes. That's human history distilled to its essence, isn't it? Even most people who often seem to be acting benevolently out of religious faith, such as nuns and volunteers at homeless shelters and so forth, are really doing so because they want to get to heaven and/or not go to hell. If their religious beliefs instead encouraged them to be obnoxious and hateful in order to go to heaven, they'd behave differently. We see this a little bit with the more extreme christian fundamentalists and their hatred toward gays and bombing of abortion clinics, and of course with the muslim terrorists. But the point is, yeah, everyone is motivated by their own agenda. So what? I'm just cutting the bullshit and calling a spade a spade instead of deluding myself into thinking I'm some kind of saint for acting in such and such a way. I worry about myself, my friends, and my family foremost, and after that my country, and after that, the well being of humanity as a whole, and after that the well being of lesser species. And, I suppose, were we to encounter intelligent aliens, I'd put them in the hierarchy after humans but before lower animals.
E,
ReplyDeleteIf aimed at Xianity, your “self-deluded sainthood” comment misrepresents that faith. The shoe doesn’t fit.
As for Christians trying to live out their faith as means to “get to heaven and/or avoid hell,” please see the side discussion that attempts to clarify that misunderstanding:
http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2009/01/christian-motivation-responding-to.html
-CL
[...] certainly, the true Christian church (even if not your radical protestant offshoot) believes in elevating people to sainthood based on their good works.
ReplyDeleteMaybe I’ve misunderstood you here, but sounds like you are connecting works with salvation again and that’s not how it is. All Christians are saints. I could offer you a verse or two if you’d like. Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox Christians are together on this, although some saints are given more status than others. I imagine that you are referring to the venerated sainthood of Catholicism that is often misunderstood by Protestants and other non-Catholics. Some people may mix up the theology behind it, but the original idea behind “praying” to a patron saint was to ask him or her to speak to God on the live-earth-person’s behalf. For a more contemporary picture, this would be sort of like having a relative as a top presidential advisor. A non-status relative might say, “Hey, would you mind asking the president if he would look into this for you (me)?”
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the “good works” as I think you mean them, have nothing to do with salvation, but everything to do with the saint’s particular specialty while on earth. Hence, brewers who were experiencing problems with their ale or tavern would petition Saint Arnold to take their “case” before the almighty because Arnold knew the business better than anyone else and could empathize.
-CL
[earlier Corbin said] “Doing what we've always done...” :
ReplyDeleteYep. Life is nasty, brutish, and short. You gotta look out for your own, and after that try to be as nice as possible to your fellow creatures when possible.
“I am not ok with belonging to either group when a better alternative is possible.”
Agreed.... so I'll be on red alert for that magical day when a better alternative is possible. Karl Marx had a nice idea for a while about how to make it happen but it turns out it caused a lot more death and pain than libertarian capitalism after all, so I'm not particularly enthusiastic about further utopian experiments. Like I said, my money is on robotics. Until then, I'll be watching my back.
An alternative is already available, and you should be happy to note that it doesn’t require any magic (or inflated military spending either). We can simply treat others the way that we want to be treated. We love our neighbors and enemies alike. There are no laws against these things. We are often just too afraid to love, so we play hate games and label them “protectionism.” I know it’s a risky proposition, but I am fairly convinced that, in the long run, love is far less risky than hate. Love ultimately wins.
ReplyDeleteAh, but until we have robotic slave labor or something similar, somebody still has to clean the toilets. Let me tell you, nobody likes to clean toilets, especially other people’s. But it has to be done. So getting it done requires a hierarchy, which includes poor people who are willing to scrub the toilets and rich people who are able to slough off that labor by hiring/forcing the poor. And we need police, because not everyone is nice and some people will steal and kill if the rules are not enforced. And we need money, to keep track of who’s done how much work so no one takes more than his share. Etc. etc. etc. So, sure, be nice to people. Love if you please. But don’t pretend that that will bring us to utopia. Read about all the utopian experiments conducted in the 1960s by idealistic young people trying to live for love and reject materialism and culture; they all failed spectacularly. I’d recommend “American Experience: The Summer of Love” as a good overview of what happens when too much of this silliness and hopeful thinking gets going around – and no, it’s not all about sexual love, although that is one component of it. (It runs on PBS from time to time; not sure if it’s on DVD but I bet you could find it.) Anyway, I’m not sure what this has to do with your attempts to prove that there is a god.
ReplyDeleteWho said anything about love bringing a utopia? Of course some people will take advantage of those who love peace, but I wouldn’t call it silliness. Indeed, I suggest that it is the people who think that their selfishness and power can bring lasting happiness are the ones who are silly. My decision to pursue peace and the love of God and neighbor may not usher in utopia on its own, but it won’t hurt either. I nevertheless refuse to go along with the lies that the world is selling.
ReplyDeleteAs you have said, everybody dies; I’m just saying that I’m far more comfortable dying as a lover than living (for awhile) as an evil dictator. When this life and world is all one has, then subduing others for one’s own security is a game that makes a lot more sense. When this world is not all we potentially have, then that game becomes a fool’s errand that brings much (avoidable) damage. You can’t see it at the moment, but love truly does win.
And you’ve misunderstood me. Never have I made any attempt to “prove that there is a god.” That would be sorta like me accusing you of trying to prove that atheism is true. I have faith in Jesus, and I have great reasons for doing so, but that is altogether different than proof. This is not to say that faith implies any sort of weakness. But since you claim to be so committed to calling a spade “a spade,” I think it would be best if you did so without trying to shelter your pet ideologies from the storm. And if you are able to muster the requisite boldness to see and claim faith for what it is, you will find yourself in good company. For there are many of us who are open about faith.
Boiling out the haughtiness and condescension from the above, I’m unable to identify any actual argument or point you’re trying to make here. Can you please clarify.
ReplyDeleteCalling " a spade a spade" is your phrase. I even deleted your expletive: "bs." Why are you willing to launch these phrases at others but suddenly become indignant when they are directed back at you? I have no desire to attack you, but neither do I want to be attacked and then have you cry “fowl” when I play at defense.
ReplyDeleteBut to clarify: You have faith that there is no God or gods. Unless you can prove it, you and I have faith in different conceptions of reality. So for you to say that others are “delusional” merely for having a different take on reality is a non sequitur.
[earlier, you (CL) said that:]
ReplyDelete“I refuse to give up working for that better vision. If that means I have to give up some luxuries then so be it. A life spent in pursuit of material (pre-landfill) fodder is a life wasted.”
One man's waste is another man's.... not waste. Life is lived in the, um, eye of the beholder, or something to that effect. I quite enjoy my life. And mind you, it's not just about material possessions. There's quite a bit of enjoyment of drugs, drunkenness, obscenity, and debauchery in there as well, and of course also some more licits pursuits such as tourism and travel and fatherhood. All in all it's about the best that one can manage in our limited 80 years or so that we have to play with. At least, I find it to my liking. Some people enjoy bowling, art history, and needlepoint. To each their own.
[CL:] “Using the exact same kind of "reasoning" that Muslim extremists use.”
I wholeheartedly disagree. They base their reasoning, such as it is, on the faulty premise that there is a mystical intelligence, not knowable to the human mind, which has divinely ordained their behavior. Since they act from a faulty premise, their conclusions are faulty and their behavior ultimately not conducive to their own interests or the interests of humanity. I on the other hand look purely at the tangible real world effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for my own benefit. To name the most obvious and popular example, I think you would agree that a fair amount of killing and maiming was necessary for the USA to fight off Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, no? I think all reasoned observers can agree that this was a just and proper use of force and brutality even if atheism is accepted as true; we need not get into any esoteric arguments over whether there is a god and which side he might have been on vis a vis good and evil in order to say that we were justified in that fight.
[CL:] “So much for the superior, non-barbaric, enlightened civilization that you claim to esteem.”
I don't see how this conclusion follows in any way from your previous clauses. Please clarify your meaning.
[CL:] “I suppose that the difference between you and them is how one defines ‘harming humanity.’"
I would respond that no, I base my decisions on reality while they base theirs on superstition. If there is an Allah as they define him, then suicide bombing is a good thing. If there is not, there is not. Their views are wholly dependent on the validity of their non-verifiable supernatural beliefs.
[CL:] “But unless there is an objective value of evil and good, it's all might makes right.”
True to a point. I would argue that the US under Roosevelt, flawed though it was, was subjectively superior to Germany under Hitler, for it created far less human suffering, among other things. Similarly, I feel strongly that the US under Obama will be a disaster compared to what it could have been under McCain. But you're right about the lack of objective meaning in the absence of good and evil. It's hard to wrap one's mind around, and I think that's why so many people need the crutch of superstition. It's hard for the human mind to accept that things are just random, that nasty deeds go unpunished, and that life isn't fair, and most dishearteningly, that the beauitful organic complexity that one's own self has taken so long to develop, educate, and refine will one day expire and decompose into nothing but dust. Truly a tragic and horrific prospect. Most people shrink from contemplating it and prefer to create concepts such as good and evil to shield them from the stark reality of it. But that doesn't make it any less true. To take an example, child molestation is generally regarded in our culture as the lowliest of crimes. However, there is a tribe in Papua New Guinea where heterosexual and homosexual relations between preadolescents and adults are considered normal and desirable parts of socializing and growing up. While a citizen of our culture will absorb the cultural viepoint and feel violated and ashamed if they are "molested," all sociographic studies of the primitive tribe have indicated that its members are remarkably free of any kind of psychological complex due to their early and numerous sexual experiences. So, is sex between adults and children objectively bad? I would argue no, that it is only a curiosity of our culture that we have so embedded that concept into our morality, just as it is a curiosity of that tribe that they have assumed a different moral code.
Papua New Guinea. I’d really like to see this study too. Not that I think it doesn’t exist, but this is the third time I’ve heard a person use that poor land of bizarre moral debauchery and extremism used in support of different ideological examples. Apparently PNG is a happening place.
ReplyDeleteI’ll try to dig this up for you. I learned about it almost 15 years ago in a college anthropology class, so the memory on the specifics is not fresh. A quick google search on primitive societies and sexual practices just now revealed hundreds of polygamous tribes worldwide
ReplyDelete(http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite/worldcul/Codebook4EthnoAtlas.pdf)
and an age of consent set by law at 13 in South Korea of all places…. And of course, it is questionable how much a remote primitive tribe would follow the statutes passed by the distant capitol anyway, so I think the point still stands that moral standards are relative. A similar example I learned about in that same anthropology class which, for some reason, I do happen to recall the specific name of the tribe, is the Inuit Indians of northern Canada, who until the last few decades practiced infanticide.
(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n22_v146/ai_15952600/pg_1?tag=artBody;col1)
This is not because the Inuit were mean, nasty, immoral people, but rather because they lived in an extraordinarily harsh environment where the weakest members of the tribe often had to be abandoned so that the stronger might survive. Please tell me this is not the first time you are hearing about the Inuit; it is the popular case example taught almost universally in Philosophy 101 courses to demonstrate moral relativism and that even the taboo on child-murder is not universal. If this is the first time you are hearing about it, you are seriously not getting your money’s worth at that school. Anyway, I’m not sure how you expect this conversation to go anywhere if you’re going to impugn my honesty.
EL,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the concern for my education; I appreciate that. And yes, I am very aware that there is a subjective, cultural component to morality. If you think that I’ve said the opposite, then you haven’t been paying much attention. But let me speak to the first link you provided: It merely catalogues data encountered. It makes no hypotheses about why or under what circumstances, and I could not find anything in its pages that suggested your notion that “...heterosexual and homosexual relations between preadolescents and adults are considered normal and desirable parts of socializing and growing up.”
What is more, Papua New Guinea is only mentioned one time in the article and with no reference to anything sexual. The only things I can conclude from this link is that you didn't read it or that you sent me the wrong one.
But even if [the sexual practices you assert in some dark corner of the world are carried out], it doesn’t provide evidence that the Christian understanding of the world we live in is wrong. In fact, this confirms its veracity. The world we encounter is broken and fallen from its original, good state. If someone read the Bible, with no life experience at all, this brokenness is exactly what they would expect to find.
-CL
[CL:] “...it doesn’t provide evidence that the Christian understanding of the world we live in is wrong.”
ReplyDeleteOr that the Islamic understanding of the world we live in is wrong. Or that the flying spaghetti monster based understanding of the world is wrong. You can’t prove a negative. So what? There are an infinite number of fictional deities whose existence you can’t disprove. That’s a long way from providing any kind of credible argument for religion, much less your particular brand of it.
Ah, but you have shifted the subject. We were not discussing proof for Christianity. We were talking about the foundation for ethical decision making, morality, right and wrong, good and evil. There is no scientific test for ethics, and there is no scientific methodology by which utilitarianism can be measured either. There is just the data of what is and then there are our attempts to understand that data. In the case of Christianity, these human efforts have also encountered the revelations of God, and it has lead to a particular understanding of these themes. Sans God, atheists have engaged in remarkably similar pursuits, but this is apart from science and apart from belief in God, so it has yielded some every different theories and conclusions. Indeed, we cannot prove a negative. But can you prove a positive in this dimension of our conversation? Can you prove that it is ethical to subjugate youth (or anyone for that matter) for the sexual desires of others? We believe different things here, but that only means they are faith positions. And they cannot both be right. But what you have said here is true, there are different theories on why moral codes and ethics are somewhat universal (even if not completely uniform). But how does this support your atheism?
ReplyDelete[CL:] “In fact, this confirms its veracity.”
ReplyDeleteUhhhh… say what? I have noticed a troubling trend in your argument to simply claim that everything supports your position. The bible says god created the earth? Well, that proves god exists. Oh, there is a scientific case for evolution? Well, that proves god exists, he just used theistic evolution. Einstein has a theory of relativity? Oh, well, that proves god exists because an intelligent creator had to have created someone as smart as Einstein. Etc. etc. etc. If you’re simply going to assert without basis that everything confirms your thinking, there’s little for us to talk about. You may find this type of argument persuasive, but I doubt anyone else will be swayed by it.
EL,
ReplyDelete“Without basis” ? Does this mean that you can connect the dots for me and show how evolution disproves God’s existence or that Einstein’s life is evidence that an intelligent designer does NOT exist? Can you see the duplicity of your argument here? And why do you keep insisting that I am trying to “prove that God exists”? Never have I made such a claim.
But yes, I freely admit that everything we have discussed thus far supports my faith that the God of the Bible exists. If I denied that the God of the Bible exists and then discovered that all my arguments against him were inapplicable, I might be “troubled” about it too. But instead of putting “proof” in my mouth, you should hear me saying that, “Until I encounter something that truly challenges my Christian world-view, I have no reason to alter it.” This is anything but proof on my part, but it is a complete argument from silence on the part of atheists, and that is the type of argument I do not find very persuasive.
Regarding the “veracity” of the Christian understanding of morals, what I mean is that the presence of evil in the world and the existence of some cultures that have gone terribly wrong simply do not discredit my faith or what the Bible would lead us to expect. The same cannot be said of Buddhism, strains of Hinduism and general pantheism altogether, for these religions assert that all evil is merely an illusion meant to distract us from true reality: that everything is One. As best as I can tell, your own brand of atheism is not altogether different in this category since you deny that there is anything “evil” or “good” in the world. I cannot accept any of those faith positions, and one of the reasons is because I have such a strong reaction against evil when I witness it or hear about it. I know that evil is real because I have experienced it.
Humans are created (perhaps via evolution) as inherently moral creatures.
We are fouled up via evil (or sin or poor choices or whatever you want to call it) and thus do not always act accordingly to the morality that we were initially created with. Created for “X”, nevertheless, “Y”. Papua New Guinea (PNG) just seems to have a little more “Y” than most of the rest of the planet. This doesn’t mean that what they do is good.
Although the PNG example is pretty edgy on its own, let’s go even further. Let’s assume that there is yet another tribe in that territory that decides it’s a good thing to poke out all the eyes and ear-drums of their baby girls so that they don’t ever learn to challenge or talk back to their men or whatever. Can you not say that this is wrong on some fundamental level as a seeing, hearing, semi-independent human?” Perhaps you will say no, and that is your prerogative, but I question the sincerity of such a response because it does not resonate with my own experience of morality. But just because we get morality wrong sometimes does not mean that we can never get it right. I can say, that I know that this ear/ eye poking and evil are real without having to prove it scientifically, because science is not the only way we can come to knowledge.
I’m not sure what you mean by “inherently moral,” but I think I disagree with your meaning here. First, we are not created, and creation is nowhere supported by evolutionary theory (although I grant that you can sufficiently contort creation theory to make it align with the theory of evolution if you really strain both yourself and the words of the bible.) Second, like all creatures, from bugs to buffaloes, we simply follow our evolved pleasure/pain response matrix. It is neither moral or immoral, unless, as I have discussed at length, you simply equate pleasure with morality.
ReplyDelete[CL:] “We are fouled up via evil (or sin or poor choices or whatever you want to call it)”
Disagree. This guilt/sin/evil thing is a Christian complex. There is no evil in the sense you mean it and most people, in accordance with their evolved altruistic impulses, basically act decent most of the time, whatever their religious beliefs.
[CL:] “...and thus do not always act accordingly to the morality that we were initially created with. Created for “X”, nevertheless, “Y”. PNG just seems to have a little more Y than most of the rest of the planet. This doesn’t mean that what they do is good.”
Agreed. It is neither good nor evil. It simply is the situation that has evolved under those particular circumstances. I shrug indifferently in its general direction.
[CL:] “Although the PNG example is pretty edgy on its own, let’s go even further. Let’s assume that there is yet another tribe in that territory that decides it’s a good thing to poke out all the eyes and ear-drums of their baby girls so that they don’t ever learn to challenge or talk back to their men or whatever. Can you not say that this is wrong on some fundamental level as a seeing, hearing, semi-independent human?”
A perfect example, and thank you for bringing it up. You are presumably aware that your own Judeo-Christian heritage espouses the ritual mutilation of the penises of young baby boys? Defend that reprehensible practice, you morally wrong monster, you. Don’t worry though, Jews and Christians aren’t alone in the ritual sexual disfigurement of their young. In Africa, the only difference is that young girls get the business end of the knife rather than young boys: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_circumcision
But for purposes of your hypothetical example, let’s go with the dubious assumption that gouging an eye or an ear is somehow worse than gouging a penis or clitoris. This dovetails nicely with what I was saying about the Inuit. If you insist on your objective moral standard, certainly being murdered by your parents is yet another degree worse than being gouged in any particular place on your body but allowed to survive. So the Inuit are even worse people than your eye and eardrum and penis and clitoris cutters, by your argument. But I would say that we should not judge the Inuit, for they are acting subjectively in their own best judgment. If there were indeed a tribe which countenanced the gouging of eyes and ears, it would not transpire randomly; there would undoubtedly have been good local reasons for it at one point, just as there were probably good reasons for circumcision.
[CL:] “Perhaps you will say no, and that is your prerogative, but I question the sincerity of such a response because it does not resonate with my own human experience of morality. “
I regret that you have such a hard time even believing that I might disagree with you. I think this is the fundamental problem we keep coming back to. You are so convinced of your own correctness that not only can you not agree to disagree, you can’t even bring yourself to believe that I truly have different beliefs than you in the first place. Well, believe however you believe, but I assure you, I find the concepts of good and evil as you would define them to be implausible in the extreme; I find the existence of a MITS [Man In The Sky] to be even more so; and I reject the assertion that there is an objective moral standard.
[CL:] “But just because we get morality wrong sometimes does not mean that we can never get it right. I can say, that I know that this ear/ eye poking and evil are real without having to prove it scientifically, because science is not the only way we can come to knowledge.”
Disagree. Please explain how you just “know.”
EL,
ReplyDeleteOk, I am going to work backwards to forwards on your last post and its quotes:
I know evil in ways very similar to how you know you love your kids and other people in your life. I am assuming that you do love because I have experienced this as well. I hope that our contact with this is not as divergent as our awareness of evil’s presence has been. In light of our discussion on the scientific method, I thought that you were able to see that even science leans heavily upon a few faith assertions and is not the only way we can “know” something. Do we need to discuss that part further?
I don’t have a difficult time believing that you disagree with me. If anything, it’s obvious that you have faith in very different things and people than I do. What I AM having a hard time grasping is HOW you consistently deny that there is a “right and wrong,” “good and evil.” So far, the foundation for your argument is incomplete and seems somewhat circular. Maybe it will become more clear as we continue to dialogue.
My own awareness of evil is from my experiences as a human. Previously, I would have bet that yours was remarkably similar. I don’t need a theory at the gut level to know evil when I see it, but when I encountered the world-view of the Bible, and it validated my reaction to evil, things started to click. Even younger children know wrong when they see it and they don’t need to be taught about utilitarianism or various other faith-positions to do so. They just know it. I know it too, and in this category, Christianity simply gives an adequate framework of why some of us react to evil as we do. I embrace the assertion that there is an objective moral standard because it resonates with my experience as a human. Atheism denies some of these core experiences and is hence disconnected from reality. Thus far, it has presented an innocuous challenge to Christianity.
Inuits and Baby-Killers: Once again, this is not an insurmountable challenge to Christianity. I read the article you referenced, and this is what caught my attention:
“Reliance on female infanticide varied with the scarcity of game and the need for risk-taking male hunters, who could provide for their parents and siblings as well as their wives and children... .”
It doesn’t sound like they decided that killing baby-girls was a happy thing, but a necessary thing for survival. Are we to believe that if food was plentiful and the arctic was a mild 72 degrees that they would still persist in the practice and do it with joy in their hearts?
Creation is amiss. There are problems in life, and nothing is perfect. Christianity is pretty clear on this. If we consider what the Bible tells us about Jesus, it is obvious that sometimes God allows evil to happen in order to bring about a greater good. And yes, I think he is the only one qualified to make such decisions perfectly. Oftentimes, humans think they are serving the greater good, but turn out not to be, especially when the “greater good” really turns out just to be their own pettiness, selfishness or personal edification. The article you referenced on female genital circumcision comes to mind.
EL,
ReplyDeleteMale Circumcision: You might as well argue that it’s wrong to cut out a malignant tumor. The morality behind body altering procedures is dependent upon the validity of reason, choice and health needs of the recipient, although these do not always operate in tandem, especially when the recipient is not capable of making the decision. Adult, male converts to Judaism would often elect to be circumcised in order to belong to the group. I imagine that doing so as babies, an event that none of us could remember, is far preferable as means for circumcision.
Even so, do you think that you and I underwent the knife as babies because our parents were devout, Torah observing Jews? In Western culture (and perhaps many others) circumcision was long believed to be a health issue. We might even say that scientists and doctors had applied the scientific method and peer review to support their conclusions. In fact, you told me not too long ago that a baby boy you knew had to be cleaned and cared for in extra special ways because he was not circumcised and things could easily get infected. The following seems to be a fairly unbiased health-assessment of the practice for males:
http://kidshealth.org/parent/system/surgical/circumcision.html
Of course I recognize that the practice was initiated by Israel, primarily as means to signify the continuation of the covenant established between Yahweh and Abraham, but unlike the female genital mutilation, in the vast number of male circumcisions, it has no long-term health effects or quality of life infringements. If your point was that a degree of subjective cultural practices is involved with what is termed “right” and “wrong,” then I agree with you. Nevertheless I maintain that culture is not the only arbiter of the moral standard that most of us are created with. It is oftentimes appropriate to say that some cultural practices are wrong and need to be stopped because they do not comport with the objective moral standard, even if we cannot yet see that standard perfectly. For example, the cultural moves you cited in Nazi Germany and Japan were wrong and needed to be stopped. We might say the same thing for the present “natural developments” (genocide) in Darfur or perhaps even our own cultural movement towards war mongering and self-destruction through unchecked consumption and waste.
You said:
”There is no evil in the sense you mean it and most people, in accordance with their evolved altruistic impulses, basically act decent most of the time, whatever their religious beliefs.”
I disagree. There is evil in the sense that I mean it. And if evolution is indeed how we were created, then any altruism that might have developed through it is surely a case for a created moral order. We’re not arguing about the data here, but different faith frameworks that lead us to interpret the same data differently. And how do you define “decent” behavior? What objective standard are you using?
No contortion of what the Bible says is necessary to reconcile evolution with scripture. In fact, I think the exact opposite is true. We’d have to force the text do some pretty weird things to have it say how exactly God created the universe and all that is in it. You have asserted that we were “not created,” but what evidence do you have to support that hypothesis? Do you “know” this, or do you believe it? If it is the former, then help me, so that I may know too. If it is the latter, then it is faith, and I have faith too.
[earlier you said:]
ReplyDelete“Kudos to you for trying to be faithful to your atheism. After all, if there really is no God, then of course their is no higher authority to appeal to in terms of morality. So-called "right" and "wrong" are merely human constructs where majority rules or where deviousness and destruction do.”
Or benevolence and enlightenment and generosity. Or whatever.
[CL:] “But as I've said before, you don't seem to be living (or arguing) consistently with your philosophy. You keep appealing to things like knowledge and progress, but you don't define how you measure them or against what standard.”
That's because I don't measure them or define them against an objective standard because I don't believe there is one. I think knowledge and scientific progress are the bees knees, but eloquent arguments can certainly be made to the contrary. I've freely admitted that my predisposition for certain concepts and actions is most likely the result of my DNA programming me in certain ways to be clannish, altruistic, aggressive, etc. If a muslim terrorist wishes to kill me to stamp out my subjective values and propagate his own, I won't quibble with the moral foundation of his actions or superiority/inferiority of his beliefs. I'll simply try to kill him preemptively.
[CL:] “Judgement calls are all over your visions for an ideal society.”
Yes. All life is a subjective judgment call.
[CL:] “Good and evil has everything to do with these degradations.”
Not at all. Please present your argument in support of this questionable leap of logic.
[CL:] “You also seem to have forgotten to list materialistic humanism and evolutionary altruism in your little list of ‘superstitious bugaboos.’”
Because they are not superstitious. They are documented biological processes which have been confirmed through numerous scientific studies. I suppose one could argue that the scientific method and entire biological/geological history of the earth is itself a superstition (in fact this is exactly the argument advanced by Young-Earth Creationists, among others,) but I don't find that argument credible. Once you start down that slippery slope of thinking, you can't even prove that all life is not a dream or an illusion on the Holodeck of the StarTrek Enterprise. So in summary, I find it convincing that biological processes which have been demonstrated in peer-reviewed scientific experiments actually exist, while omnipotent supernatural beings have not met that bar. That is why I Would put them on different "little lists." Others may disagree, but that's my take.
[CL:] “...parallels with our own empire and that of Rome.”
These are popular, but shallow and ultimately inappropriate comparisons. I've actually done quite a bit of research on this particualr question. I would certainly agree that Rome holds some cautionary lessons which we should heed. Sadly, the biggest lesson was that of Caesar and the death of the republic in favor of an Empire, and we repeated that history almost word for word what with the Civil War and the creation of the Imperial Presidency under Lincoln, up to and including the assassination of the tyrant on the Ides of April. It gives me chills to think of the paralells. I recommend "Are We Rome" by Cullen Murphy for further fascinating reading on this subject.
[CL:] “Surely you know that no empire has ever stood."
Rome stood for an awfully long time. In some ways, its heritage is still with us through the Roman Catholic church. I don't know that there's any absolute rule of human behavior which says no nation can last forever (and you rightly point out that nuclear weapons certainly introduce a new variable,) but I agree that the history is not encouraging. Still, can we not hope that the USA and our moral and philosophical heritage lasts as long as possible, even if not forever? This is just idle speculation, but I personally think that just as the republican ideals of ancient rome eventually became embedded in our own constitution, transmitted via the vessel of judeo-christian heritage, it will be our own american-originated religion which will carry our values onward into the future, to future nations of which we can only dream and perhaps even other planets, long after the nation we now know has ceased to exist. Yes, that's right, I'm referring to mormonism, as american a religion and as thorough an embodiment of our spirit as has ever been created. I fully expect it will come to be synonymous with America over the next few hundred years, just as Christianity eventually overtook rome. It still needs to tame down some of its wild impulses a bit first, such as polygamy and so forth, before it can become fully mainstream. The early christian church had to wrangle with much of the same radicalism and settling-down, including polygamy... I would encourage you to read "Lost Christianties" by Bart Ehrman.
[CL:] “You and I obviously have faith in different things and ideas. I'm not sure what all of your top faith-categories are, but I will say that mine is not in our government, not the survival of my retirement account and not in our nation's perpetuation. I hope all those things work out, but they're not where my ultimate values are.”
Well, as long as it makes you happy and doesn't hurt anyone. But if it leads you to counterproductive behaviors, that's where I get concerned.
EL,
ReplyDeleteInteresting point about the Mormons. The most subversive lies are often the ones that most closely resemble the truth. Mormonism certainly qualifies. And you are right to make the connection with Ehrman’s work. While I haven’t read his stuff directly, a brief perusal of editorials and dust-jackets indicates that he focuses on aberrations of Christian groups in the 3rd and 4th centuries. This is not unlike the Mormon heresies of the 19th century. Let’s not forget that people groups can call themselves whatever they want. I can call myself the Supreme Galactic Dictator, but that doesn’t make it true. Mormons will often try to pass themselves off as Christians. That some of the general public thinks Mormons ARE Christians is a testimony to the effectiveness of their propaganda machine, but the Mormon conception of the Trinity is something that few educated Christians will fall for.
You provided a lot of opinions in your response above, but for the moment, let’s get back to your vision of the future and robots bringing everyone luxury. This is an interesting conception of future hopes fulfilled, but it suffers from the same malaise that many, well-intended Christian visions of heaven do. Namely, it defers hope and real progress to an undisclosed future event (or events). Subsequently, it releases us from any obligations in the present other than to just get by or “watch our backs.”
Not at all. Science has thousands of years of track history of progress. Refrigeration, electricity, space travel, medicine, heart transplants, washing machines and dryers, and many thousands of other things which have improved our lives and/or made them longer and healthier. It is entirely reasonable to assume that future advancements will trend in that same direction, and one day we may be able to live 500 years in the lap of luxury with minimal effort. Religion has no such track record of achievement, and in fact has in many cases run counter to human progress and knowledge (Catholic opposition to heart transplants, Muslim hatred and vandalism of thousands of Afghanistan’s cultural artifacts, opposition to stem cell research, etc.)
ReplyDeleteHave you seen the Pixar movie “WALL-E”? It’s kind of an interesting conception of what you seem to be proposing here. But that’s a slightly separate issue. But yes, your vision still defers its ultimate goal (good for everyone) to an undisclosed point in the future. Even if science has made some improvements in the past and present (and I agree that it has), the vision you have for the future is pretty far off. Some would say that this could also be said of Christianity: it has made some progress over the millennia, but it’s not finished yet. Nevertheless, we don't have to wait for some undisclosed future event for this to begin. Jesus is available right now.
ReplyDeleteI am amazed that you have highlighted science’s gifts to humanity while conveniently leaving out the destruction it has made possible. You also fail to mention how much death, suffering and destruction has been wrought by non-Christian religions and philosophies, along with secular nations, heads of state and atheism in general. And you briefly mention the damages of religion without considering the good that Christianity in particular has fostered. Did you really think you were being fair or objective in your assessment?
Yes, Xianity has done some terrible things (but so have non-Christian ideologies) and again I posit that “Christians” who do evil are not following Christ at all when they do them.
Track records: Let’s not forget that it was committed Christians who brought us the scientific revolution in the first place because they (unlike pantheists) recognized the difference between creator and creation. You can’t really dissect a worm if it could be your great-grandfather, after all. Since Christians were the majority of the first wave of rational, enlightenment scientists, would you capable of letting them take credit for some of your “thousands of other things which have improved our lives etc.” Maybe Christians aren’t so bad after all.
I am not making a case for all religions. Most of them are wrong, your criticisms of them are apt, and I happen to agree with you. And by the way, opposition to stem-cell research is not universally opposed by Christians.
But even if we had robotic servants who could suffer no human-rights infractions and bring luxury to everyone, it still would be a fairly limited hope in comparison to the peace and restoration that Jesus offers.
And Allah offers, and Wotan offers, and Bhudda offers, and Joseph Smith offers, and the flying spaghetti monster offers, and……
ReplyDeleteThis is a fundamental logic misstep. One belief system’s falseness does not equate all other belief systems’ falseness. I am ill equipped to talk about Buddhism in depth, but I suspect that you are as well. Let’s stick with Xianity and atheism for the moment, no? We can get to these others later if you’d like. But by your own denial of legitimate good and evil, I fail to see how you can really call robotic luxury-for-all as an improvement.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be having a lot of trouble comprehending my point on this, so let me see if I can clarify this one last time before I give up.
ReplyDeleteWe have evolved to feel pleasure and pain. The things we interpret as pain or pleasure are a consequence of the environment in which we evolved, that being an oxygen and carbon dioxide rich atmosphere with an average temperature of 72 degrees, etc. For example, we feel pleasure when we drink a nice cool glass of water, and pain when we stick our hand in a fire, because those responses help promote our general welfare and survival. It is certainly possible, indeed even probable in the quadrillions upon quadrillions of galaxies that exist, that there is other life which has evolved with quite different pleasure/pain matrix of responses. There may be a planet of fire-beings for whom fire is pleasurable and a drink of water would mean instant death. From such a radically different starting point, that species would almost certainly have a very different set of moral values of proper behavior than we do. The possibilities are limitless… some beings on our own planet, notably the black widow spider, have evolved to be cannibalistic and without any detectable altruistic impulses whatsoever toward their own species, and seem quite untroubled by it. So yes, it is all absolutely relative, but in our case there are things that we have evolved to interpret in a positive manner, such as snuggling by a warm fire, the feeling of victory after having completed a difficult challenge, holding your newborn child, eating a large and delicious meal after being extremely hungry, etc. Similarly, we experience negative things, such as frostbite, burns by fire, hurt feelings due to nasty words, depression and anxiety, the loss of loved ones, etc.
Ok. I’m with you on just about all of this, although it is pretty unlikely that carbon-based organisms would die if exposed to H2O. But who knows? Not me. I also agree that creatures who were not created with an inner moral compass are not subject to moral accountability standards.
ReplyDeleteThe important point is this: None of the above interpretation of good/bad, positive/negative, etc., requires a MITS [“Man in the Sky”] to dictate some sort of objective religious standard of behavior. It’s relative to humanity’s evolved circumstances. If we can agree that good = pleasure and evil = pain, then yes, I will agree with you that good and evil exist. But I don’t think that’s what you meant at all. When you say good and evil, I think you are referring to an objective theistic standard of following “good” commandments and covenants of god and avoiding the “evil” temptations of Satan. If you can honestly say that “evil” includes such things as a mosquito bite or falling down and skinning my knee– then we agree that there is such a thing as evil. If you insist on imbuing the word with the spiritual connotations that it generally retains in popular conception, as in a deliberate malevolent force lurking all around and preparing to perpetrate misdeeds, then no, I do not believe in evil in that way.
ReplyDeleteWhen I see a serial killer or mom who has murdered her kids, I do not see “evil” in the sense I think you see it at all. I see someone whose evolved mental circuitry has gone haywire, perhaps because of a chemical imbalance, perhaps because they were damaged by abuse at a young age, etc. Certainly, that is “sad” or “unpleasant” or “bad” in a subjective evolutionary sense. This sort of thing is what I mean when I say “good” or “bad.” I don’t think that’s what you mean at all, but please correct me if I have misunderstood your conception of good and evil.
You are not too far off here. But what I need you to understand is that “an objective theistic standard” is not antithetical to your basic understanding of evil. Furthermore, the presence of evolution and a moral code that has its roots in the God of the Bible are not odds. It would be far more difficult to reconcile the two if they were diametrically opposed to one another, but they are not. One expounds and clarifies the other.
ReplyDeleteSimilarly, part of evil IS mosquito bites and skinned knees. These are sources of pain and wounds, and they are indicative that something is amiss in the world. Pain tells our brains that something is wrong. Christianity affirms this. Perhaps we are only disagreeing in magnitude and not order. If skinning a knee represents a problem and pain, then rape, murder and dropping nuclear weapons on people (for whom they would cause pain) is surely within the same order, even if at a different magnitude.
I still have made no assertion about a “Man in the sky” or a fork-tailed, red-suit wearing, pitch-fork-happy fiend either for that matter. Satan is only a small part of the equation, but oddly enough, you are the first one to have mentioned him in our conversation here. My primary evidence of good/ evil is my own experiences with it and the vicarious experiences of others. I tend to gravitate towards Xianity because it resonates with the world that I experience and does so far better than competing faith claims.
Besides magnitude, what is the difference between a “killer mom” and a skinned knee? What if my understanding of good and evil can connect with your notion of a haywire mental circuit? This could be the result of evil in the same way that a still-born baby is the result of evil, not because the mom didn’t pray the “right” prayer but because our whole system is wildly out of order. Some Christians tend to make subtle distinctions between moral evil and natural evil (think rape vs. cancer), but when traced back far enough in the paradigm, ALL evil has its roots in a creation that has rebelled against its creator. Anything that works against that original created order is what I call evil.
Now you may say that it is Satan (by the Bible’s own admission) who has caused all of this rebellion, and I won’t disagree with that understanding of Christianity. However, the tragedy of the garden (if you will) is not that it happened, but that it happens. Whether it is Satan or humans who rebel is somewhat secondary. The fact is that each of us has rebelled against God and are in need of restoration to our pre-”fall” condition. In the Christian paradigm, humans cannot do this on their own. Good “works” won’t get us there, so the creator is required to step in and provide the way back for his creation to be restored. If there was another possible way, I’m pretty sure that God would not allowed himself to be needlessly tortured and executed.
You are saying that no god is involved in this process and I am saying that Jesus (the triune God of the Bible) is. Whether God’s involvement is through evolution or in spite of it is relatively unimportant. Maybe we are saying remarkably similar things after all, even if we disagree about their source?
-CL
Because humans have evolved their intelligence beyond animals to a point of self-awareness, we have been able to adapt and manipulate our pleasure/pain response in some cases to where it is enjoyable for reasons that no longer benefit us for evolution. For example, masturbation and sex with birth control serve no evolutionary function, but play upon that pleasurable programming tied to a biological drive nonetheless. This in no way means that the pleasurable aspects of sex are divinely inspired or objectively desirable.
ReplyDeleteOk, but neither does it follow that they aren’t. I am not following your argument here.
ReplyDeleteAs for luxury for all being the guiding moral value, you should study Utilitarianism. Here’s a good place to get started, with numerous references to philosophers more esteemed than I and the supporting arguments much better put than I could phrase them:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
I learned about it in a college Philosophy class on Ethics many years ago, and it is one of many workable moral belief systems that have been postulated which do not require a MITS but rather only some logical reasoning. A version of Utilitarianism is the morality I adhere to.
As per your reference, I looked this up, and here’s the root definition I found:
ReplyDelete“Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.”
Well, great. Now who gets to “sum” it all up from a privileged and universally unbiased platform?
Utilitarianism, apart from a higher authority, is deficient as an explanation for ethics since it requires a judge to decide what is best, and humans can’t seem to agree on who this judge or judges should be.
EL,
ReplyDelete[Earlier in this conversation you tried to dismiss any belief system that incorporates] “superstitious bugaboos as the proper guiding determinant for human behavior...”
[I responded by saying that,]
“...you also seem to have forgotten to list materialistic humanism and evolutionary altruism in your little list of "superstitious bugaboos."
[And then you replied with,]
“Because they are not superstitious. They are documented biological processes which have been confirmed through numerous scientific studies.”
But there are three problems here:
1) It’s old news that science is not as objective as some of its faithful adherents try to assert.
2) Where are the “documented biological processes which have been confirmed through numerous scientific studies” that support your claims about rationality and personal preference as the proper guiding determinants for human behavior?
3) I am not contesting evolution in general, nor the age of the earth.
-CL
Certainly, there are frauds, such as Piltdown Man. There are charlatans of the atheistc stripe just as there are charlatans of the theistic stripe. But science is self-correcting. It encourages inquiry and correction and peer review and research and critical thought. But contrast this with Christianity, which actively encourages people to accept the Jesus narrative on blind faith and to not think about contradictory evidence because it is trickery of the devil. Or with Islam, which tends to violently oppress free thinking. This is the sort of thing that leads people to believe the world is 6000 years old and that there is no such thing as global warming. (I give you credit for at least advancing far enough out of the Christian box to reject those crackpot views.) Here, I will indeed refer you a bit to Dawkins, who as a trained scientist is more eloquent on this topic than I; I believe it is the very first chapter of his book where he contrasts the continually growing and self-correcting body of knowledge imparted from scientific research with the unproductive and stagnant body of spiritual theology. Since I doubt you’ll take me up on reading that, however, let me put the matter to you more concisely: If you were diagnosed today with severe cancer, and you were offered the option of treatment with the latest scientific breakthrough with medical technology, would you accept it? Or would you say no and just sit around and pray? If you answer yes, then let’s concede the point that science has a lot going for it.
ReplyDeleteThat’s just Dawkin’s first chapter?! I suggest, based on your reflection of his work, that Dawkins has no idea what he is talking about. I hope you can extricate yourself from his drivel long enough to see this. Maybe you will since you obviously recognize that “religious charlatans” exist and do not represent the whole of Xianity. This is a slam on Dawkins, not you; just so we’re clear.
ReplyDeleteChristianity is also self-correcting. The Bible is a somewhat linear story, so it doesn’t leave us where it started. It represents a progression of God’s teaching his people how to live and why, but because flawed and slow-to-change people ARE involved, it also represents God’s patience in bringing us closer and closer to a better understanding of who he is and what we are created for. Sometimes we are moving forward and sometimes we are falling backwards, but God’s Holy Spirit is involved with his people and he seeks to continually partner with us to help the church grow and mature. And growth is measured in a host of ways, not always numerical, people or financial growth.
I freely admit that the church has made catastrophic blunders in the past and likely will make more in the future, but this is the result of sinful people’s presence (and yes, I am part of the problem). But people are also part of the solution, especially when we respond to the Holy Spirit’s (HS) leading. Looking back on history, we can see certain individual’s and groups’ sensitivity to the Spirit’s leading in new directions as they reform the church and cast off its previous, erroneous positions. Martin Luther, William Wilberforce and Desmond Tutu come to mind, as do the (small) groups of Christians who opposed the crusades, inquistions, and U.S. slavery. Some of the things the church has believed in the past were false, but I argue that this is not to pin the responsibility on God. It is we Christians who are responsible for misunderstanding God and his text, but this does not cause him to force us to do his will or to give up on us altogether. We believe in God, but he also believes in us, that when we are seeking him and sensitive to his HS, that we will get it right on occasion.
The same principle applies to science as well. Sometimes it gets things right, but sometimes it gets things wrong. And I don’t recall saying that science didn’t have much going for it. Indeed, since scientific breakthroughs can be a gift from God, there is not necessarily a split between “trusting God” and “trusting medicine.” We can trust in God and his ability to work through medicine. But science’s self-correcting nature DOES highlight how much faith it depends on. New evidence comes out that corrects and replaces a previously "proved" scientific truth. So now we all get on board and throw the dethroned over the rail. All well and good. But what about the poor people that took the previous dictum as truth? They were believing in what was tantamount to a lie, even if an unintentional and useful one. And what about the possibility that new evidence will overthrow the self-correcting feature we just discovered? It seems that there is no end to the mistruths, new truths and former truths. History is awash with examples of belief in now deposed "truths." This is not to say that science is completely invalid, but it is dependent upon faith, just as theological positions are. Legitimate progress can be made in both fields.
The difference among “self-corrections” between science and Xianity is that science leans upon scientifically testable evidence to overturn prior faith commitments and Christianity relies upon sensitivity to the Spirit, which admittedly is far less testable among dissenting peers. Xians over the millennia have certainly fallen victim to thinking the way they relate to and understand God should be the way that EVERYONE else does too, and that they have the corner on the market of understanding the Spirit as well. I do not intend to condemn any of them for this fact alone (I sometimes have made the same mistake), but I will say that whenever the church becomes too static and stagnant, the Holy Spirit will burst out in new directions and create reform and restoration movements among people who are willing partners.
Nonetheless, these new movements of the Spirit can be tested to a certain degree with the broader experiences, traditions and scriptural foundations of the church. He may amend or complete previous covenants with his people, but he will not be divided against himself. God will always call good “good” and evil “evil.” And when the Spirit moves, he does not often do so with only one person. In fact, apart from Jesus, I can’t think of any single Church personality that the Spirit moved in for a new path or lone movement.
Even then, there is a significant difference between Jesus and the likes of Mohammed and Joseph Smith. For those latter two men developed all of their religion’s writings on their own, whereas Jesus didn’t write anything down on papyrus/ paper that we know of. Indeed, it was the witnesses of his life and ministry who wrote about him. Nobody else saw or reported Mohammed’s and Joseph’s secret “angelic” meetings. History is full of charlatans claiming to be something special. I do not validate them.
And please stop implying that Christians are not allowed to ask difficult questions about our faith. Ask as many hard questions as you like. I have been doing the same thing with Xianity, and this is partly the motivation for this conversation. Without someone else to challenge me and who doesn’t think the same way I do, it would be difficult indeed to ask very good questions. We’ve got nothing to lose and everything to gain.
To turn back to the science issue:
ReplyDeleteAny philosophy of science student whose education is worth more than the paper of their diploma should be familiar with Thomas Kuhn. Ironically enough, many materialists are completely oblivious to his work. Don’t make the same mistake. I’d recommend a quick perusal of him on Wikipedia if you are new to his stuff. [My] #2 & #3 [above] poke around some of Kuhn’s work.
-CL
I looked him up on Wikipedia, as you suggest. He is “an American intellectual who wrote extensively on the history of science and developed several important notions in the philosophy of science.” There are several paragraphs on his contributions and achievements, and a brief snippet that he was accused of plagiarizing something from one of his colleagues. I’m not sure what your point is. Are you trying to imply that because this fellow may (or may not) have been a plagiarizer, that all science is invalid?
ReplyDeleteLet’s not confuse biographical information about the author with the substance of what he explored. Kuhn has offered that science does not operate independently from its scientists. Although it can periodically emerge from their language and cultural predisposition, it does not always do so, and at those moments we have cause to be mildly suspicious and uneasy. No data interprets itself. It always is filtered through a human (fallible) mind, language and cultural values first. Kuhn’s thesis was not that all science in invalid at all, but rather that it is not independent of its subjective researchers.
ReplyDelete[You (CL) asked:] “2) Where are the “documented biological processes which have been confirmed through numerous scientific studies” that support your claims about rationality and personal preference as the proper guiding determinants for human behavior?”
ReplyDeleteHere’s one: http://www.livescience.com/animals/070625_chimp_altruism.html You know how to use google; I’m sure you can find others.
EL,
ReplyDeleteI read the referenced article, but it doesn’t confirm altruism as the “proper guiding determinants for human behavior.” Admittedly, it makes a case for evolutionary altruism, but it does so without saying anything about why it is better to its alternatives. Furthermore, as per the quotes below, the article confirms what I have said all along: culture is not the original source for our inherent sense of right and wrong (altruism in this case):
“This suggests maybe culture is not the only source of altruism.”
You assert that God is not involved; I contend that he is. Evolution fails to address either position. Science has nothing to say about God other than how he might have created our universe. Science is not atheistic or theistic of its own accord. Charlatans like Dawkins would have us ignore the philosopher behind the curtain in the lab.
Here’s another quote from the article you cited:
“...what distinguishes humans and chimps is not whether or not chimps have altruism but how fragile altruism might be.’"
Could it be that humans better resemble “God’s image” than apes and that people thus more readily pursue altruism? I think this is a possibility.
Or will atheism allow you enough free will for faith in these things? Can science lead us to nuclear power AND tell us how it should and should not be used? Maybe you can help me emerge from my “superstitious bugaboos” that ask me to treat others as I want to be treated. Show me a scientific test for ethics.
Again, I would refer you to utilitarianism, and ask that you stop writing your own arbitrary rules for my atheism. But more to the point, ethics and science are two totally different things and you know it, so of course science does not have any requirements for how nuclear technology might be used. You might as well ask what do you get when you add the number 7, the letter G, and motor oil? Let us suppose that the fire-beings I dreamed up early in this response do not exist individually and reproduce in a sexual manner as we do, but rather exist as sentient pulses of radioactive energy, endlessly combining and recombining in such a manner that concepts of individuality, birth, and death as we know them do not exst. It would hardly be “moral” or “immoral” to drop a nuclear bomb on them since it would only alter their pattern of recombination. For their part, they would probably have a hard time understanding that it was wrong to drop a nuclear bomb on us, (since our atoms would simply decay after our death and would eventually be absorbed into some other organism which would live again, so what’s the problem?)
ReplyDeleteNow, I know you’re going to object that my fire-beings don’t actually exist, and you’re probably right. But please stretch your imagination a bit and recognize my point that in a universe of infinite complexity, there are very probably all kinds of creatures whose ethics are wholly subjective, as determined by their unique evolutionary circumstances, and we are no different.
Utilitarianism would suggest that it would only be immoral to do something to those creatures which would cause them pain in their own scheme of reckoning (unless such pain were offset by greater absolute gain elsewhere.) Similarly, by Utilitarianism, it would be wrong to pointlessly drop a nuclear bomb on new york today; Hiroshima and Nagasaki 50 years ago are somewhat more up for debate. I think a rationally considered approach to all of the above, based on observable reality and logical induction, is superior to the idea that the MITS wrote down a bunch of rules thousands of years ago which still hold sway today. In fact, if you really base your ethical standards on just doing what you’re told in the bible, and you have no considered reasoning beyond “following god’s word” behind your actions, I find that truly scary. Honestly, is “god told me to” really the only reason you behave yourself and don’t rape and kill at random? If your ethics are based on blind subservience and mine are based on reason, I definitely say that mine are superior. And I would also ask you why you only obey the more popular commandments and have arbitrarily discarded some of the stuff about not wearing clothes of mixed fibers, etc.
Thank you for the big “IF” that you included in your last post:
ReplyDelete“If you [only use God’s word to] behave yourself and not rape and kill at random...”
These “Ifs” don’t apply, so to answer your question, no, “God told me so” is not the only reason that I behave as I do. Where did you get that notion?
But I wasn’t writing a rule; I asked a question. Surely you are open to your belief system being questioned. I’ll follow it up: Are you saying that your brand allows free will for faith in these things? It’s good if it does. While I can infer that it does, I was legitimately curious because many atheists say that absolutely nothing transcends its physical matter. Free-will becomes a chimera or illusory (and untestable) notion since everything we feel, say, think and do are merely the effects of impersonal causes all the way back to whatever was before the big bang. Synapses fire and we react to stimuli. Chemicals just react and react. Everything is the blind result of impersonal matter driving us about. This is why Dawkins’ seems to be so hopped up about his (yet to be discovered) “memes.” As best as I can tell, his basic assertion is that Christians don’t really choose their faith, but rather that they are genetically inferior because their DNA has not yet eliminated this “useless” religious code. For you to buck the trend of many atheists is indeed encouraging. I believe in free-will too! Maybe I’ve misunderstood Dawkins here. Perhaps you could help me see it better?
I looked up utilitarianism, thanks for the reference. I didn’t realize that the “for the greatest number” part had been dropped, as in: “the greatest good for the greatest number of people.” In that sense, the concept does not correspond with the definition of altruism at all. Do you know how scientific studies handle the discrepancy?
I’m glad that you can easily see the inadequacy of science to offer any kind of ethical direction. That is not the impression I got when you said that you intend to dismiss “any belief in superstitious bugaboos as the proper guiding determinant for human behavior,” and then followed it up by linking your preferences with a “biologically evolved neurochemical response in a carbon based organism.” Maybe I’ve confused the connection here. If so, I apologize. If you acknowledge that the proper guiding determinant for human behavior goes beyond science and enters into the realm of faith, then we are not so far apart after all.
Ethics largely deal with the individual and how he or she responds to a subject or situation that is beyond themselves, be it other people or things like the environment etc. Maybe you will answer this, but it seems that if you rule out science as the guiding force for ethics, then you can’t really stand on evolution in support of them either. This again causes me to question the usefulness of the chimp article for your point. So can you tell me where “ethics” come from or what they are grounded in? How can we compare one notion of ethics against another? I can not yet see how such distinctions can be asserted against others without appealing to a higher power.
But let’s talk about my ethical standards and the Bible. Again, you’ve got it backwards and let your assumptions and poor understanding of Christianity lead you to faulty conclusions. Have I ever said that “I don’t rape etc. just because the Bible told me not to?” By the way, I think you’ll be hard pressed to find that specific commandment in the text. I could be wrong, but I digress. Let me be as clear as I know how to be on this issue. I try to adhere to the code of ethics in the Bible not because it tells me so, but because it resonates with how I was created. It reflects and guides my innate sense of right and wrong. I don’t need the Bible any more than you do to tell me that it’s wrong to torture babies or push old people down the stairs.
Granted, there are certainly some things in the text that clarify what might otherwise be perceived as ambiguities, but I have yet to encounter anything (especially in the NT) that is at odds with my own God-given understanding of right and wrong. If atheism requires me to believe that there is no such thing as good or evil, then I simply do not have enough faith to be an atheist and I am surprised that you do.
You mentioned the OT and clothes of multiple fiber sources. If you really want to get into a theological discussion on this, we can. I’ve gone there before with others, including some Christians who think that we shouldn’t eat pork or other “unclean” animals. But I suspect that it would be so foreign to you that you would lose interest. If you want, I can send you a copy of a response I wrote to a Peak church goer who engaged me on the issue of unclean food. He refuses to give me permission to post his original letter, but I’d be happy to make my response available to you.
With regard to your “fire-beings” (another great word picture, by the way), the utilitarianism you described actually comes pretty close to the Xian concept of morality. You said that “it would only be immoral to do something to those creatures which would cause them pain in their own scheme of reckoning.” Objective ethics (Xianity in my case) remove that “in their own scheme of reckoning” bit of the definition. This would render it as follows: “It’s immoral to cause creatures unnecessary suffering.” It is the end (treating others well), more than the means (how we accomplish that treatment) that is important. This is not antithetical to our own, ingrained sense of right and wrong as humans, created in God’s image via evolution.
[CL said:]
ReplyDelete“3) I think you’ve misunderstood me on evolution. I am not contesting evolution in general, nor the age of the earth (I’ve answered this issue before). ”
Good, we’re making progress. Although if you adhere to theistic evolution, I have to ask you, what possible reason might an all-powerful god, who presumably could have winked the world into existence at his whim (or over a 7-day period as his alleged book claims,) have had to instead use a cumbersome billion-plus year process of trial and error? What was up with that whole “dinosaur” episode? Was god practicing, in which case his infallibility is in question, or was just farting around on a lark, in which case he’s awfully cruel to starve them all out with an asteroid impact? What’s the point in writing a book that encourages people to think the world was made in 7 days and is 6000 years old, then using an evolutionary process that to all appearances contradicts that narrative and makes people have to choose between reason and faith? Is god just TRYING to help Satan convince people he doesn’t exist, or what? How do you explain that some evolutionary processes as yet are unfinished, such as stereoscopic vision (this is why so many people need glasses) or the now-useless “goose bumps” reflex we retain to warm ourselves from when we were coated with a matte of fur? Why did two people who did not know right from wrong, eating a fruit, cause millions of years of god’s creatures to endure violent, unpleasant lives and deaths of subsistence? (Many of whom, such as innocent bunny rabbits, were completely non-culpable in the whole fruit eating debacle?) Why did god, who could have designed evolution any way he wanted, design it in a way so that poor baby elephants die from hepes?
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27645133)
The more you think about what evolution teaches us versus what religion teaches us, the more you realize they are mutually exclusive. Theistic evolution is a cop-out. Pick one or the other and stand by your beliefs, I dare you.
EL,
ReplyDeleteWould that be a DOUBLE dog dare? :)
A challenge! Huzah! Indeed, we ARE making progress. These are valid questions, but they reflect a certain degree of biblical interpretation on your part. Can you show me the verse in the Bible that states the age of the earth? If you firmly believe that the creation account in Genesis is a literal description that works through 6, 24-hour periods, please present your argument and I will consider it. I freely admit that I could have gotten things wrong here.
But would you be open to an alternate interpretive framework for the first 11 chapters of Genesis? To say that theistic evolution is a “cop-out” means that you are choosing a specific interpretive framework for those early chapters and trying to control how others might approach it. Since I lean towards a different interpretive approach here, I have to ask: How is interpreting allegorical texts as allegories a ‘cop-out’? It seems to me that the cop-out is forcing a rigid understanding of a text that its original author(s) never intended, especially when that imposition is just so it can be attacked. This is a classic straw-man fallacy, and I do not feel compelled to defend a view that I do not hold. For a fuller discussion on the creation account, please see the discussion on the Hebrew word “yom” in another area on this blog: http://thepeakcommunity.blogspot.com/2008/12/discussion-with-atheist-friend.html
If you can’t easily locate the particular posting, let me know and I’ll paste it in this thread.
As for the dinosaurs, this is certainly an interesting area for speculation. To be honest, I don’t have any idea what exactly transpired or why. However, there are a few things to consider. For one, an entity whose existence is infinite and timeless has no reason to make things happen on a specific timeline just so his creatures can squeeze him into their reckoning of the way things ought to be. A few trillion years isn’t a big deal in infinity.
It seems far more significant to us because of our comparatively short life-spans. Although both a human and a mayfly are finite creatures we might be able to draw a loose parallel between their situation and that between God’s and humanity’s. A mayfly lives for no more than a few days. Assuming that I could communicate to one at all, would it be able to understand if I told it that I was studying at school for a 3-year degree program? The sheer number of mayfly lifetimes that would take would be so dizzying to my little winged friend that anything else I might say about the program is likely to be lost on him. But since my telling him about the education process is to explain what will come after graduation, why not avoid the unnecessary and confusing details of time and use a measurement that the fly could relate to, a “short-span of time” perhaps. If I used something that he could grasp, then I could move on to the important stuff and this would not make me deceitful any more than a parable to elucidate an important point makes the parable-teller a liar. There is no reason to equate allegory or parable with falsehood. I affirm that the first eleven chapters of Genesis (and indeed the Bible) are true, but not in the same way that some elementary Sunday School teachers might have their children believe.
Secondly, Christians have very good reasons to believe that God allows bad things to happen, but also that he is very willing to step in and change things up a bit to ensure that creation “doesn’t get away from him.” I don’t know if there’s any concrete reason to say that God purposefully caused the majority of the dinosaurs to die off, but I don’t know if there are any solid arguments to say that he didn’t either. It’s totally ambiguous and a non-issue for the events and importance of Jesus' life. Same thing for the age of the world. I believe we have good reasons to believe in a 15.4 billion year old universe (give or take a few hundred million), but if it turned out to only be 10,000 years old, it wouldn’t change anything important about my understanding of Jesus.
But back to the dinosaurs, it is a mistake on our part to assume that God meticulously controls every aspect of every moment of creation. Given a few basic perimeters, life certainly has the appearance of being able to sustain itself without angels and demons and miracles hiding behind every blade of grass. I would suggest that this is all part of God’s creative brilliance. Even so, it does not follow that things can’t go wrong since evil / sin has broken loose upon creation. Sin works its own effects in both moral decisions of sentient beings and in what has traditionally been called “natural” evil, you know, things like deadly hurricanes and diseases etc. Maybe even flaming, dinosaur-destroying, killer asteroids too.
Nevertheless, God, as a sentient entity, can choose to stir the pot from time to time to ensure that his creation will ultimately be as he intended. There are several theological debates over free-will and the problem of evil, particularly concerning why God prevents some actions but allows other horrible events to occur. Maybe we can talk about some of those things later, but in Christian circles, regardless of which side of those arguments a debater is on, everyone agrees that God can (and does) step in to direct things when they might otherwise run an irredeemable course. From a biblical perspective, I hope we can agree that Jesus’ rescue mission falls into this category, and from an Old Testament perspective, Noah’s Flood certainly fits the bill as well. God changes things to match his plan, and he can also use things that he didn’t specifically cause to bring about good. Indeed, that is a promise that Christians have in Romans 8:28. Nowhere is it appropriate to assume that what we would call “natural phenomenon” had to be done by God or could not have been caused by him. He can work through natural processes and event timing, but he is not required to (or prevented from it either).
(For the moment however,)
What I contest is the questionable leap that you have made regarding evolutionary ALTRUISM. But maybe I’ve gotten this wrong. Show me some of these peer reviewed articles that unanimously prove that all cases of altruism (and their exceptions) are mere evolutionary features. I am particularly interested in how killing healthy, productive, non-threatening people and how saving enemies and the non-reproductive, especially at the potential loss of the rescuer’s productive livelihood, fits this claim.
Here’s one from the National Academy of Science of the USA. Since it is the premier science organization in the world, perhaps you will find it acceptable: http://www.pnas.org/content/80/2/515.full.pdf+html .
ReplyDeleteI encourage you to get to Googlin’ if you’d like to find more. It’s not hard.
EL,
ReplyDeleteDid YOU read this article? It made no assertion that cases of altruism have been unanimously proven to be evolutionary features. In fact, it doesn’t even mention saving enemies and non-reproducing specimens at all. Furthermore, the article’s author says that his work stands in opposition to other scientists’ predictive models and that “agreement between these predictions can be resolved only by restricting the model so that no more than two behavioral options are available at a time.”
Only 2 options? This isn’t exactly concrete or connected to real world situations. Even so, I’m feeling charitable. Let’s assume for the moment that all cases of altruism ARE evolutionary features and that we CAN test for them. Even If God only used and uses evolution to bring about creation, then it would still be accurate to say that God endowed his creatures with a desire and propensity to serve others, especially those less fortunate than themselves.
It might appear that what we have here are different theories that attempt to explain the same data. So if you refuse to appeal to faith, not only does your position require unanimous, scientific support of your theory, AND unanimous refutation of competing theories that explain the same phenomena, it also requires you to prove that none of these explanations or their authors and peer reviewers are biased or exercise any subjective criteria in their research and writing methods and that they have never employed a mistruth (intentionally or unintentionally), and that it would be “wrong” for them to do so when assessing their results. Finally, the position also requires proof that all of the researchers’ senses were 100% reliable for 100% of the time. If you can do any part of this, then I am truly interested in seeing it.
But before you go on that wild goose chase, you should be aware that evolution, even if it was “proved” to encompasses your notions of altruism, is not in and of itself antithetical to the Christian faith. In fact, it may simply be the vehicle through which God created humanity “in his image” which, by the way, includes a distinction between good and evil.
Indeed…
ReplyDeleteSee my [next] comments on the weakness of theistic evolution as a wimpy compromise.
What on earth are you talking about with this “if you refuse to accept faith, you have to have… unanimous this and perfect certainty of that?” No two people will be in 100% agreement about anything. You know perfectly well that you’re setting up an unattainable strawman. OF COURSE there are different theories about how best to treat cancer; does that mean you would reject the recommendation of your doctor in favor of going without treatment? What if he tells you that there is an 80% chance he can cure your ills, but if you do not take the medicine, there is only a 5% chance you will survive? Is 80% “not certain enough” for you? What if 98% of the doctors in the US recommend you get treatment, but there are 3 wackos in Arizona who believe in holistic healing with herbs instead? Will you ignore the 98% because there is not unbiased 100% reliability 100% of the time?
That is the good thing about science, it not only doesn’t abhor questioning and reconsideration, it actively encourages it. It is open to revision and correction when a better theory comes along. As I’ve mentioned, for hundreds of years, it was thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth; when new evidence was presented and new instruments were available, theories were revised. If we had still adhered to the old theories, our NASA missions certainly would have been a disaster, wouldn’t they? If you want 100% reliability, you’ll be stuck at Level 1 for ever and ever. And I have to laugh at the hypocrisy of your making these demands of science when your own school of thought is much more completely and thoroughly riven with disagreement. Here’s a great recent article about pious Christians brawling with each other at Jesus’ tomb over some obscure theological dispute: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27639792/)
EL,
ReplyDeleteBut you have mistaken my point. I don’t recall saying that all Xians believe the same thing or that they never squabble about theological differences. Nevertheless, just as variance among scientific theories does not necessarily undercut scientific foundations, neither do theological disagreements prove that Christianity is false. Christianity, like science, is very open to questioning. It was not always that way, but that was people’s fault not God’s. I certainly don’t mind considering questions at any rate. Indeed, this is one of the main ideas behind our dialogue.
Mormons and Muslims tend to view questions as heretical displays of doubt, and admittedly some Xians will make similar moves, but all through the OT and the New we see believers and doubters asking tough questions. Yes, there are times when Jesus chastises his disciples for having such “little faith” but we also need to remember that these disciples KNEW better. Jesus had proved himself over and OVER to them, and yet they persisted in their doubt. I don’t blame him for being so frustrated. He responded with similar disdain for the Jewish teachers of the Law; they just didn’t get it, trying to be the masters in the presence of THE Master. If anything, this should demonstrate that “proof” does not often create lasting faith on its own.
But contrast this with Jesus’ tender care and patience for people who had not seen what the disciples had seen. For honest and sincere seekers who were encountering him for the first time, Jesus is filled with love and compassion. Have you considered that some of Jesus’ last recorded words were in the form of a passionate and difficult question to God the Father? Questions about Xianity are fine. I say the more difficult questions the better; let’s bring as many as we can. I’m not threatened by them. I hope that you feel similarly about your atheism.
Your reaction’s passion has helped make my point: both of us have faith, albeit in very different things. It would only be hypocrisy if either one of us denied that our respective positions were rooted in these faith commitments. I am glad that you can acknowledge that science is not as iron-clad or bullet proof as some might otherwise have us believe. Trusting it 100% is indeed a “wild goose chase” that many embark upon.
And concerning science’s own openness to questions, that is true to a point. But are you willing question your faith commitment that the universe is “closed”? To ask this does not involve any suspension of your other commitments to sensory perception being somewhat reliable. Again, I share this faith in sensory perception (to a degree).
But let’s get back to the moral argument on good and evil. You’ve said that you are not using the same kind of logic to attack Muslims that they use to attack the West:
ReplyDelete[EL:] “Since they act from a faulty premise, their conclusions are faulty and their behavior ultimately not conducive to their own interests or the interests of humanity. I on the other hand look purely at the tangible real world effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for my own benefit.”
and later on that:
[EL:] “If a muslim terrorist wishes to kill me to stamp out my subjective values and propagate his own, I won't quibble with the moral foundation of his actions or superiority/inferiority of his beliefs. I'll simply try to kill him preemptively.”
But the problem here is that you claim to have and esteem a superior, non-barbaric, enlightened civilization and modus operandi, but it is fundamentally similar to those you seem to loathe. Even if you try and make a better case for how your differences are, in fact, differences, the end result is the same. You are just intent on taking what you think is a different path to get there. I’ll even grant that the “reason” behind the means are slightly different, but if the means and ends are the same as theirs (violence and death), and if you refuse to acknowledge a higher authority for your position, you are merely engaging in special pleading for it. As such, the basis of your reasoning for death and hostility in general remains as the exact same kind of "reasoning" that Muslim extremists use: You don’t like the way they think and operate, and you believe your system is better, so you want to kill them. I’d love it if this is not what you mean, so please correct me here.
I don’t know why this seems to be so hard for you to understand. There is a fundamental difference between basing your actions on something that is real and something that is not real. Their conception of proper behavior requires a MITS, mine does not.
ReplyDeleteImagine two men, lost in the desert. They have mere minutes to live before expiring from dehydration, but they could live a bit longer by conserving their energy and remaining in one place, hoping for a rescue. So the key decision is, crawl off in search of water, or remain in place? They suddenly each spot an oasis over the next row of dunes, just at the end of their crawling distance. And they each set off toward their respective Oasii. But the first man’s Oasis is a real one, while the second man’s was just a mirage. So the first man’s choice was proper and served him well, because he based his thinking on actual facts. Alas, the poor second man perishes, because the data he accepted as a starting point was faulty, and therefore all his subsequent decisions and actions were tainted. (And actually, it’s worse than that; a closer example would be that the second man didn’t see an oasis at all but believed god had told him to crawl off in that direction anyway.)
I refer you back to my original point per my original email, which I thought was pretty clear:
“They base their reasoning, such as it is, on the faulty premise that there is a mystical intelligence, not knowable to the human mind, which has divinely ordained their behavior. Since they act from a faulty premise, their conclusions are faulty and their behavior ultimately not conducive to their own interests or the interests of humanity. I on the other hand look purely at the tangible real world effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for my own benefit.”
Again, to put this in the simplest possible terms: Beliefs and actions which are based on the alleged directives of a fictitious MITS are inferior to beliefs and actions which are based on one’s logic and actual observations of reality.
E,
ReplyDeleteI agree that actions based on a fictitious god are inferior to ones grounded in reality. I suggest that the God of the Bible IS reality, so your argument falls a bit flat. But more on that in a moment.
I am really impressed by your fidelity with narratives, metaphors and examples. I mean it. I am a bit jealous. The ability to develop analogies and stories is a unique gift that many great speakers and preachers have. That’s a handy talent.
However, there are three problems with your desert sands story:
1) These two schleps didn’t know what matched reality until they got there. I could just as easily turn the table and insert a metaphysical Christian “salvation” in for one of the oases. If we presuppose that the Christian paradigm matches reality and thus was the true oasis, and that the other fellow lived according to his faith in atheism, when they got to their respective destinations, then the Christian would be rescued and the atheist would perish.
2) As much as it fails to understand Christianity, I will momentarily allow the God of the Bible to substitute in for your “MITS” caricature. Can you support your assertion that God is a “fictitious MITS” since this is the philosophical linchpin that every other part of your argument hangs upon. Will it lead you to sand or living water?
3) Whose “logic” are you pleading for? Yours or Muslims’? How do you decide between the two? You are operating from a different paradigm. You appeal to Western logic, they appeal to Allah.
You have said that:
“Their views are wholly dependent on the validity of their non-verifiable supernatural beliefs.”
It is interesting that you mention “verifiability.” Do you remember the non-verifiable premises that all of science banks upon at its most elementary level?
-CL
As you well know, I’m an economist and businessman by training, not a scientist. I smell a trick question with this, so I’m not going to take the bait. Please just state your point.
ReplyDeleteNo trick questions here. You know that I am not a scientist either. We don’t need to be. Here’s the point: science depends on its blind-faith that our senses yield reliable data. There is no way to test this that is independent from using the senses it seeks to test. It goes round and round, but there’s no where to get off. Science, at its most fundamental level, is non-verifiable. If you can see that, then perhaps you can see that your critique against Muslims is also critique against your position:
ReplyDeleteIn the case of atheists, the non-verifiable, supernatural belief is that miracles are not possible and there is no God or gods. Indeed, they come to this conclusion by denying evidence that challenges their faith. With regard to science (regardless of belief about God or gods), the the non-verifiable belief is that sensory perception is reliable.
-CL
I suspect what you’re leading up to is another variation of your argument that there’s no way to demonstrate that my beliefs are more valid/verifiable than theistic ones. So let me respond thusly: At its most core philosophical level, it is true that an extraordinary skeptic could argue that nothing except himself is verifiably real. “I think, therefore I am,” is about as far as anyone can go without raising at least some miniscule iota of doubt about reality. Other people or objects could be figments of one’s imagination, or illusions deliberately placed there by some unknown nefarious force, etc. (The movie The Matrix comes to mind.) So you have a fundamental decision to make: Do you trust the senses and intelligence that you have, or do you skeptically reject them?
ReplyDeleteYou have to accept that when you see another person, it really is another person; when you see a fire it really will burn you if you step on it; because you woke up today a 30 year old man, you will probably not wake up a 50 year old woman tomorrow, etc. And let’s acknowledge something further: This faith is misplaced and in error for some people: Schizophrenics’ senses tell them that they can fly and see through walls and become Jesus, so they harm themselves and become unable to function properly in society. So perhaps the skeptic who rejects everything his senses tell him is indeed the most prudent of all.
But I have subjectively decided that I am probably not schizophrenic, that there are probably no alien holograms controlling my perception a la The Matrix, and that trusting what I can see, touch, smell, hear, and feel as real, is a wise move, and I therefore accept the world as I perceive it to be real.
The next step is to learn to deduce conclusions from secondhand documentation and observation. For example, we cannot see or touch atoms, but some proper calculations and understanding of their nature allows us to manipulate them to useful ends. To branch out to other fields, it may be a strain for some people to accept that the Earth is round or that George Washington once lived, but with the appropriate scientific instruments or historical scholarship these things can be deduced to a reasonable level of certainty with some effort.
That’s where I think the line should be drawn: At what can be observed firsthand, and at what can be deduced or proven through methodical inquiry. Anything else, that which can not be seen, touched, smelled, tasted, heard, deduced, or proven, falls into the category of supernatural (outside the known laws of physics) and this is the realm of omnipotent gods, fairies, dragons, trolls, demons, holy spirits, evil spirits, etc. To my mind, that is a bridge too far, and those things seem to me to be obviously rooted in the verbal traditions of a time when human science and knowledge was nonexistent and when superstition against the many unknowns in the world seemed a valid and appropriate defense from it. Others, yourself included, disagree with that in varying fashions, but I do not find their arguments persuasive.
Faith Level 1 – I think, therefore I am. Self-evident.
Faith Level 2 – Reality is basically as I perceive it. Requires trust in one’s senses.
Faith Level 3 – Reality is as I deduce it. (e.g., “Everything I have ever dropped has fallen downward, therefore in the future, things are probably not going to fall upward.”) Requires trust in one’s own logical processes.
Faith Level 4 – Reality is beyond my abilities to perceive and deduce and comprehend, and requires my acceptance of a supernatural/divine narrative without basis in the laws of physics as I have consistently ovserved them.
To me, it seems obvious that the reasonable place to draw the line is after level 3, and I don’t get why so many people have such a hard time with this. (For some mentally retarded people, it might be reasonable for them to stop at level 2. For schizophrenics, Level 1.) For anyone to get into level 4, though, requires a degree of whimsy that I don’t subscribe do. Apparently you do. And if that works for you, I guess that’s ok, but I do think it’s a loss to society that you’re putting so much of your life’s energy into fantastical speculation rather than benefitting the world by becoming a doctor, lawyer, engineer, etc. (I guess I can say, on the plus side, religion does seem to pacify the poor and dispossessed enough that they remain willing to scrub my toilets and change my oil and so forth, confident that they’ll be compensated in the next life. Without that opiate, I suspect they might mutiny, so for that much, I am grateful.)
I must counter that atheism also depends on a degree of “fantastical speculation” to support its own faith that God does not exist (unless you have any evidence for this, of course. Do you? Insert complaint that it is impossible to prove a negative here). Similarly, I might suggest that people who only live for themselves are not really benefitting the world either. Doctors and Christians have both decided to fight against what is wrong in creation. And while they might fight on different fronts, it’s fairly obvious to me that both can contribute to making the world a better place, especially since some doctors double-dip in the goodness by being Christian medical practitioners. In light of your earlier reference to Mother Teresa, I am somewhat perplexed that you deny Christians’ service and believe that it is of no benefit to the world. I am also confused how you can feel justified in saying that some professions are better than others if you refuse to acknowledge “good” or any standard that we might measure it by in the first place.
ReplyDeleteBut wow, your previous posting was quite a breath. It appears that you are finally laying hold of a faith claim or two. This is progress. You have faith. I have faith. Some of it even overlaps a bit (science). I have to reiterate that I believe our senses can yield reliable data and starting with our own thoughts and perceptions is the best (only?) place to start. Nevertheless, Descartes’ philosophy as you have described it suffers from the potential downfall into solipsism. You mentioned the self-delusion of some mentally handicapped people. How do you know that you’re not one of them? I’m sure that you think you’ve already answered that, but it highlights the problem of solipsism. Since I agree with a few of your faith positions, I’ll try and stay focused on the differences. If it helps our friendship any, I affirm that you are not mentally impaired (sans alcohol anyway). :)
Maybe I am confused here, but as you have framed it, trusting science is about “Level 2” not “Level 1” perception. With regard to that 2nd level, scientists have to assume that it (along with #1) is valid for them to move forward. This is not a bad move to make, but it is no different than the Christian who assumes the same things to move forward. And they use the exact same category, namely, that their senses (along with others’) are reasonably reliable. I am not anti-science. Indeed, I would not be alive with out its innovations. But the next component of “Level 2” is where atheists (but not necessarily “scientists”) and Christians part ways: atheists have faith in a “closed” system (nothing outside of physical existence), whereas Xians have faith in an “open” system (one where God can stir things up a bit). Each side then operates dogmatically according to this “Level 2” faith and tend to interpret much of the subsequent data according to their a-priori faith commitments. Have you considered that a Level 2 commitment to a “closed system” is philosophical and suffers from a disconnection with anything the scientific method can provide? (Will someone please tell Richard Dawkins?); it’s an argument from absence tantamount to saying, “If I didn’t see it, it didn’t happen.” This doesn’t get us very far in any field we can think of, science included. Throw off the shackles of our beloved home state!
Nevertheless, dogmatic faith positions do not mean that people can’t switch sides and change those “Level 2” commitments. I suggest that many doubters switched to the side of an open system when they witnessed things like Jesus’ resurrection. Even then, miracles do not often create lasting faith. From a biblical perspective, it is only when miracles are coupled with the Holy Spirit’s movement that people accept Jesus. Additionally, miracles do not have to be witnessed per se in order for the Holy Spirit to bring a person to faith. For example, I have not seen the resurrected Jesus (yet), but I have good reason to believe that this resurrection event occurred nonetheless.
Your faith and “Levels of Perception” fail to address a few key issues. I’ll try to offer as brief of a summary as I can:
1) My faith as a Christian faith relies on your first 3 premises or “Levels.” I am a highly skeptical person, and I doubt I would initially believe a miracle had happened if just anybody came up to me on the street and told me about it. In fact, I have discounted several, well meaning Christians’ stories of the miraculous because they didn’t add up very well or the person proved to be unreliable in other aspects of their life and reporting of events. Personally, I have never witnessed what most would define as a miracle, although I certainly think that my wife is a gift from God, as is my survival from childhood and the recent thing in the place that one time in Colorado. But those do not necessarily entail any obvious suspension of what you would call “natural” laws. Nevertheless, we cannot lump the testimony of all eye-witnesses everywhere at all times together. Some people tell the truth while others embellish and still others are plain deceitful. But after careful consideration, it is MY powers of deduction that has led me to place faith in the stories encountered in the New Testament. Could those documents accurately relate real events from 1st Century Palestine? Yes, yes they could. Can I prove that they are historically accurate to the same degree and modern standard of what happened yesterday? Probably not, but the same can be said for any number of historical events and figures, including George Washington and various facts and episodes about his life. Christianity is rooted in evidence and history. You can reject the evidence, but this is altogether different than not having any. This is fundamentally different from atheism, which suffers from a complete lack of evidence for its conclusion and no viable means by which its hypothesis can be tested to begin with. Blind faith, anyone?
2) Your philosophy is inconsistent. You only seem to place faith in the things that you can deduce with your five senses, or faith in those same five senses and powers of deduction that scientists use and faith in the same five senses that some historical witnesses and writers have used, such as in the case of George Washington. BUT, as soon as it gets to those SAME 5 senses that someone used to perceive and record a miraculous event, you immediately discount it as falsehood. You are operating from an underhanded philosophical framework that rules out God and the miraculous a priori. This isn’t exactly objective, is it?
3) But to come full circle, I am glad to see that you do care about how I invest my time and energy. I am afraid that you are misappropriating yours, especially since everything you ever build, buy or borrow will be stripped from you at death, but there’s no way to prove which oasis is real until we get there I suppose. For your sake, I hope you are right. But I would also counter that there are ways to help the world beyond being a lawyer, doctor or business person. I think helping people love and serve one another, especially the lonely, hurt and unwanted is one of the most lasting, profound and important things that anyone could ever do. And please remember from our other conversation that Xians who serve in this way do not do so to “earn” heaven.
I hope you will respond to these points later in the thread.
I hope that you and I can agree that there is no Allah, because that will make this example a little more meaningful for you; you can join me briefly in being an atheist only with respect to that one particular God, setting aside all others for a moment. Because I base my behaviors only on up to Level 3, and am not I mentally deranged to an extent that would warp my perception Levels 1-3 as in the case of a schizophrenic, I am extremely disinclined to hijack and fly an airplane into a building to kill people for an Allah who does not exist. Apparently, however, several people who are quite convinced that Allah is a real (and bloodthirsty) god, took it upon themselves to steal planes and crash them into buildings, killing 3000 or so people and setting off a couple of wars. Based on their false delusions, they acted in a horrible way to the deteriment of both themselves and many many others. This is what happens when you get into Level 4 MITS thinking. You may feel that your own religion is different, but I could refer you to many different Christianity-based tragedies. The Children’s Crusade is a particularly tragic example in my opinion; another good example is the Christians who marched into battle with the One True Cross believing it would protect them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_cross) . More recently, Robert E. Lee believed that because his cause was right and just, god was on his side at Gettysburg, and he was destined to win despite poor military circumstances on the ground. Oops.
ReplyDeleteOnce again you are taking logical missteps. As far as I can tell, your thought proceeds as such: Christians do bad, therefore their God is bad. A Christian believes something false about God, therefore God is false. But neither of these conclusions are supported by their premises. They don’t add up and never will.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I reject Mohammed's testimony about Allah, but I don’t reject him just because he’s not the God of the Bible, but rather because his “prophet’s” story adds up about as well as Joseph Smith’s does (that is, not at all). Muslims are forced to accept Mohammed’s testimony about Jesus even though he was from a different context and hundreds of years later than Jesus. And all this is over and against multiple eye-witnesses of the crucifixion and resurrection events. Rational thinkers and historians alike can clearly detect the fraudulence of such moves.
Have you ever encountered Salman Rushdie’s Satanic Verses? I admit that I have not read more than a few reviews about it, but apparently Rushdie explores the humor behind Muhammed’s own admissions that certain parts of his “revelation” came from a demonic (evil) spirit and not the Great Allah, and that he was under some sort of trance when this happened. Some of the logic and reason that you esteem is what I also employ in sorting these false religions out.
Nevertheless, I am willing to bet that Muslims say they see the world through their interpretive framework and, as you have said, “look purely at the tangible effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for their own benefit.” You are simply engaging in word play that suits your own meanings, understandings, biases and purposes but seem unwilling to let others do the same. How do you go about proving that they operate from a “faulty” premise? Can you verify your premise about their premise? How do you prove that your course of action is from a reliable premise?
[Note: because of interleaving comments, some points have repeatedly been made (See EL’s next comment) at the same time and thus not allowed a sufficient, immediate rebuttal. It is hoped that the blog format, will assist in more linear thought-development on both sides of the discussion in the future. -CL]
ReplyDeleteI covered this pretty thoroughly in my previous answers. Adherents of various MITS theories (Yahweh, Zeus, Allah, Bhudda, Jupiter, Wo-Ton,. Ramses, whatever-else-have you,) base their actions on supernatural factors which don’t jibe with observable reality. It appears pretty obvious to me that most of this behavior – terrorism, scaring the bejesus out of people with a Hell House, embarking on a Crusade (or a Jihad, if you prefer,) living one’s life in chastity and poverty rather than pursuing a beneficial trade and enjoying the fruits of your labors – is unpleasant for both the individual doing it and the others he affects, and when observed from a Level 3 perspective, has mostly negative consequences. I’m a libertarian, though: For the most part I’m content to let other people follow what I consider their ridiculous fantasies as long as it doesn’t affect me. The problem is that religion has a nasty tendency to want to convert or kill everyone that disagrees with it, and this I cannot countenance. This includes everything from irritation with the Jehovah’s Witnesses who ring my doorbell and this incessant email debate, to abject horror at things such as People’s Temple at Jonestown.
ReplyDeleteReligion is not the only factor that has an unpleasant tendency to murder all those who disagree with it. Your own words (earlier) implicated that you are willing to kill those who disagree with YOUR positions. That you can “countenance” your own violence while condemning others is rather duplicitous.
ReplyDeleteI would also add that the “purposes” and “meanings” within Christianity (and any religion) are hardly settled; these things are up for endless debate and interpretation and faction-riven arguments, even from the very moment that the first prophet discovers his holy golden plates in the desert or whatever. Even once settled, these “meanings” generally, but not always, conflict strongly with scientific knowledge (The firey chariot of Mercury does not, in fact, pull the sun around the earth.) They often run counter to learning and progress. (The Christian church fought for years – or perhaps it was centuries? - against the notion that the earth revolved around the sun.) And in no case that I am aware of has religious scholarship ever produced a meaningful advancement in technology, medicine, etc. In contrast, e=MC^2 has yielded nuclear power and space travel. Cool stuff. (I suppose you could make a reach and argue that the art of a Michelangelo or the writings of a Tolkein were religiously inspired, but I’d say that those people were geniuses and they would have painted or written just as well if they’d been Muslims or Bhuddists or Atheists or whatever.)
ReplyDeleteLogical misstep 1: Whatever Christians do is whatever God wants.
ReplyDeleteLogical misstep 2: Other faith systems are false, therefore Christianity is false.
Logical misstep 3: “...supernatural factors don’t jibe with observable reality.”
How do you know that all such phenomenon “don’t jibe”? It would only take one to overturn your faith position. Have you comprehensive knowledge of every event that has ever happened? What observable evidence do you have to support your faith that miracles do not happen and that the Christian God does not exist?
And are you suggesting that people who decide to live in chastity and poverty on purpose are not happy? Would you have me believe that people who serve their fellow humans cannot enjoy “the fruits of their labor” or that all people who make a lot of money are truly happy? Do I really need to post some links of suicide victims who made money and “success” their god and were subsequently destroyed by it when their business ventures failed?
The fact is that everything in this life will be taken from you when you die. Your money, property, family, mind, experience, health etc. will all be of no consequence. Ashes to ashes, dust to dust and all that. If your paradigm turns out to be correct, then all of life is ultimately an improbable hiccup without meaning or purpose, and Christians’ pursuits, while misguided, are no better or worse. However, if you have misplaced your faith in atheism and Christianity best reflects reality after all, then the ultimate destination of atheists and Christians is VASTLY different. I am not threatening anyone with hell here; I am simply contemplating the logical consequences of cause and effect according to the various paradigms involved.
I am not suggesting that, as per “Pascal’s Wager,” we merely hedge our bets and try to placate all faith notions so that we’ll “be covered.” Like you, I affirm that descriptions of reality offered by most religions are incorrect. However, I also think the risks you are taking with atheism merits a deeper exploration of Christianity in particular, even if you ultimately decide to continue rejecting it. Thus far however, the rationale you’ve cited for giving it up has been rooted in misinformation and misunderstanding.
My part in this conversation is not in the hope that I can notch another bogey in my Bible, but assuredly part of it is to help ransom you from fear and hatred (of Muslims and illegal immigrants among other people & things) and to prevent you from wasting your life away in pursuit of meaninglessness (living only for yourself, luxury and entertaining diversions etc.). Everything on earth is in various stages of decay and all will die someday. But investing in God, and loving him by loving people will last for eternity. In fact, I would say that loving God and loving people will make you happier and MORE connected with reality than anything else you might do with your life. The care you show for your children and family members is not far from this, but Christianity will also ask that you draw a bigger family circle. Jesus is not about taking ANYthing from us, but rather he is about giving us FREEDOM from protecting our possessions and way of life, our fear, death, isolation and the tyranny of purposelessness. He is about re-connecting us to the ultimate community: his.
Back to the moral discussion, this love and community is why I cannot seem to understand how you can say that there is no such thing as good or bad, right or wrong, holy or evil. Distinctions of good and evil are at the core of our daily experiences and the world we live in. Just because people may judge them differently at various points does not mean that there is no base-line foundation for these categories. I get it that you disagree with this perspective, but I still have been unable to grasp how you deny good and evil. You assert your will against others without appealing to a legitimate authority to do so. You pursue love and things that are good while denying that such categories ever existed in the first place.
As I said much earlier, "Good and evil has everything to do with this conversation."
Not at all. Please present your argument in support of this questionable leap of logic.
ReplyDeleteYou continue making judgments on what suits your likes and dislikes, but they don’t only impact you. They impact others as well. How do we decide who is right and wrong when worlds (likes and dislikes) collide? According to atheism, there is not a way to determine, so it just depends on might makes right.
ReplyDeleteThis is where your inconsistencies come through. You have no legitimate way to assert the superiority of your likes against those of an opponent, but you try and do so nonetheless.
Appealing to an implicit higher order of authority to justify your positions automatically assumes that there is a better or worse course of action. This implies right or wrong (good and evil) or whatever is in sync with that higher authority, especially when it impacts more than ourselves. Saying that “I prefer eating Snickers” is fundamentally different than saying “I think it’s ok to kill people who I don’t like (but it’s not ok for them to kill me).”
The candy-bar statement can be true even when another person is convinced that they prefer eating Mars Bars. Both can be true at the same time and in the same way. This is rooted solely in the individual, makes no inherent appeal to a higher authority and unless some pretty odd physiological circumstances are involved, eating a Snickers is morally ambiguous even at its worst. But saying, “I think it’s ok to kill people who I don’t like,” is completely different because it involves another person and uses one’s freedom (or free will) to impinge negatively upon another’s.
If only two people are involved in this second example, then they have something legitimate to argue about. Being “ok” to kill the other (but not themselves) makes some sort of appeal to something beyond themselves, and both individuals’ statements can not be true at the same time in the same way. This is the basic, and not exclusively Christian, philosophical principle of non-contradiction.
-CL
“I prefer eating Snickers” is fundamentally different than saying “I think it’s ok to kill people who I don’t like (but it’s not ok for them to kill me).”
ReplyDeleteI don’t think I agree with this. We’ve evolved to cooperate with each other and generally not kill each other most of the time, but I think it’s fine to execute murderers and to bomb Talibani in Afghanistan, and a lot of people, Christians included, agree with me. I have very mixed feelings on abortion, but I think it’s acceptable in some cases, and a lot of people agree with that too. So, yeah, it’s fine with me to kill people under some circumstances, just as a Snickers is appropriate to consume in some situations and not others. You don’t define what a “fundamental difference” is, so I don’t know how you’d measure the degree of difference in the decisions. Certainly a different set of factors are weighed in each decision, but it’s all judgment calls based on my perception of reality and my voluntary adherence to Utilitarianism. Perhaps the net pleasure value of a snickers is +2, while the net value of killing a Talibani is +100,000 offset by a -50,000 for taking a human life. Perhaps not. Reckon it any way you please; it’s subjective.
“...saying, ‘I think it’s ok to kill people who I don’t like,’ is completely different because it involves another person and uses one’s freedom (or free will) to impinge negatively upon another’s.”
Or positively. I think dead Talibani are a good thing for humanity as a whole, and I would prefer much more killing of them than is currently taking place. I’d probably give up eating Snickers forever in exchange for stamping out their religious belief permanently. My fellow atheist RK, on the other hand, for some reason has a soft spot for the barbaric bastards and probably would take offense at my murderous desires. Subjective judgment call.
“If only two people are involved in this second example, then they have something legitimate to argue about. Being “ok” to kill the other (but not themselves) makes some sort of appeal to something beyond themselves, and both individuals’ statements can not be true at the same time in the same way. This is the basic, and not exclusively Christian, philosophical principle of non-contradiction.”
I don’t think I understand your argument here. Because two people disagree about ethical values, god must exist? Please connect the dots for me on this a little better. I would also refer you to Einstein’s theory of relativity, by which your “basic principle” of non-contradiction may need to be somewhat revised.
You are right; you didn’t understand the argument. I’ve still never said anything attempting to prove that God exists. I’m merely suggesting that when two people believe in diametrically opposed perspectives, they cannot both be right at the same time in the same way. For one to assert their position over the other, then they must either resort to force and subjugation or a higher authority than the self. This applies to individuals within the same culture, like Papua New Guinea for example, but perhaps it is even more applicable when cultures collide.
ReplyDeleteSo I find it pretty interesting that you invoke Einstein’s theory of relativity. I am familiar with its basics, even if as a lay-person. But Einstein’s theory highlighted a subjective experience of an objective reality, even if that objective reality could only be “seen” in a small part. Ironically enough, this is what I have been saying all along. The difference is that Einstein applied it to subatomic particles and I have applied it to morality and ethics. But as you have appropriated his theory’s brilliance to the philosophical world (which is largely disconnected from the sciences), it seems you are saying that principles which contradict each other CAN both be true, same time, same way. Your application begs the question: Can atheism be true if Christianity is true? If your answer is an affirmative, then you may need to revise some of your own statements, and this will surely change the nature of our discussion. I am willing to go any direction you want, just please let me know.
E,
ReplyDeleteBelow is a sampling that demonstrates your own implicit acknowledgment of a higher authority. I make the same acknowledgment, but I think the difference is that I have a legitimate foundation for it (God) whereas you do not. Remember, I’m not urging that you give up on your appellations to a higher authority at all. In fact, I am hopeful because you invoke it so regularly. But I do think you would be better off in many ways (and in this life), if you ascribed your commitments to their rightful source (Jesus).
“Compared to genocide of the Indians, interrment of the Japanese, and whatnot, a bit of shipping mexicans back to their homeland and imprisoning a few terrorists at Guantanamo is small potatoes.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by an implicit and higher standard of what is good/ not good.
-
“I beleive there's a clash of cultures going on, and that ours is superior in terms of human advancement, knowledge, and progress, yet it risks losing out to more aggressive and less enlightened cultures due to this lily livered navel gazing and lack of will.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good/ not good.
-
“Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good/ not good.
---
“...as long as the world has only the limited pie, I am in favor of sending the marines to take it for the United States.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good.
---
”I'm just cutting the bullshit and calling a spade a spade instead of deluding myself into thinking I'm some kind of saint for acting in such and such a way.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a standard, namely, that BS is to be avoided.
...
“I on the other hand look purely at the tangible real world effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for my own benefit.”
You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good, empirical models of cause and effect in this case.
...
“I think you would agree that a fair amount of killing and maiming was necessary for the USA to fight off Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, no? I think all reasoned observers can agree that this was a just and proper use of force and brutality even if atheism is accepted as true; we need not get into any esoteric arguments over whether there is a god and which side he might have been on vis a vis good and evil in order to say that we were justified in that fight.”
You are still appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good (that which is consistent with your Western concept of “reason” in this case). By what standard can “all reasoned observers” agree that this was a “just and proper use of force.” You don’t have to call that standard “Jesus.” Call him your personal flying Spaghetti Monster, or confuse him with the lamp on your nightstand if you like.
Well, again, you’re reading an inference into my words that isn’t there. I do not acknowledge your supposed “higher authority” and I really wish you’d quit putting words in my mouth.
ReplyDeleteBut I would say that my foundation is superior to yours because it requires the less cumbersome and direct path of Level 3 thinking while yours requires the unreasonable leap of faith to Level 4, and further that you offer no evidence that your particular brand of Level 4 is more valid than Paganism, Witchcraft, Mormonism, Judaism, what-have-you. As I’ve noted before, in some religious systems, (notably some variants of Sunni Islam) a mere nonbeliever such as myself is destined for a purgatory-like eternity or an undefined, vague state in the afterlife, while a true heathen such as yourself who preaches contrary to Allah is destined for eternal torment. So not only does your misguided religious faith make you miss out on the good stuff in this life, but it gets you kicked around in the next one as well. Bummer. So much for your more “legitimate” foundation than mine.
Dare I say “your ignorance of atheism here needs to be addressed’? Please refer to the previous discussion of Utilitarianism vs. MITS-based morality.
Thank you for trying to address the issue. You could be correct about my ignorance of your version of atheism. At the very least this demonstrates that there is indeed a core set of atheistic beliefs that you adhere to. I am trying to match what I have encountered by other faithful adherents to atheism with your particular understandings of it. I hope to keep learning as we go, but the previous reference points of utilitarianism have not resolved anything. You simply apply your interpretation without addressing the philosophical underpinnings that the definition of utilitarianism takes for granted. As you have explained it thus far, utilitarianism only puts another link in the chain to a higher authority.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, your continued assertion that Xianity depends on “Level 4 MITS” completely misses the mark and highlights some of your own underhanded moves. This will be explored more below, but for the moment, let me say that (thus far) you also have “offer[ed] no evidence that your particular brand of Level 4 [faith commitments] are more valid” than any other position. We shouldn’t base our faith commitments solely on what goodies they offer. If that was the case, I’d invent my own religion, and it would be quite similar to Mormonism where everyone gets to be their own god.
-CL
[Here is my rebuttal to your critique of my words:]
ReplyDelete“Compared to genocide of the Indians, interrment of the Japanese, and whatnot, a bit of shipping mexicans back to their homeland and imprisoning a few terrorists at Guantanamo is small potatoes.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by an implicit and higher standard of what is good/ not good.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
---
“I beleive there's a clash of cultures going on, and that ours is superior in terms of human advancement, knowledge, and progress, yet it risks losing out to more aggressive and less enlightened cultures due to this lily livered navel gazing and lack of will.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good/ not good.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
...
“Methinks thou dost protest too much.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good/ not good.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
…
“...as long as the world has only the limited pie, I am in favor of sending the marines to take it for the United States.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
…
”I'm just cutting the bullshit and calling a spade a spade instead of deluding myself into thinking I'm some kind of saint for acting in such and such a way.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a standard, namely, that BS is to be avoided.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
-
“I on the other hand look purely at the tangible real world effects of things to deduce the most rational course of action for my own benefit.”
“You are appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good, empirical models of cause and effect in this case.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
-
“I think you would agree that a fair amount of killing and maiming was necessary for the USA to fight off Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, no? I think all reasoned observers can agree that this was a just and proper use of force and brutality even if atheism is accepted as true; we need not get into any esoteric arguments over whether there is a god and which side he might have been on vis a vis good and evil in order to say that we were justified in that fight.”
“You are still appealing to right and wrong here, justifying your position by a higher standard of what is good (that which is consistent with your Western concept of “reason” in this case). By what standard can “all reasoned observers” agree that this was a “just and proper use of force.” You don’t have to call that standard “Jesus.” Call him your personal flying Spaghetti Monster, or confuse him with the lamp on your nightstand if you like.” But you are being inconsistent here. Atheism doesn’t allow you the freedom to appeal to a higher authority no matter what you want to call it or refuse to call it.”
Ok. I would call it…. Drum roll please……. Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
-
“This is where your inconsistencies come through. You have no legitimate way to assert the superiority of your likes against those of an opponent, but you try and do so nonetheless. “
I don’t see how you reach this conclusion (it doesn’t seem to follow from your premise,) but you’re certainly entitled to your opinion. I’d still like you to present your argument that “good and evil has everything to do with these gradations.”
I can appreciate your playfulness, but it’s past time to expose the inadequacy of this “Level 3 utilitarianism” and “Level 4 MITS” business and the confusion that it represents. I’ll get to that soon enough, but as I have said before, “appealing to an implicit higher order of authority to justify your positions automatically assumes that there is a better or worse course of action. This implies right or wrong (good and evil) or whatever is in sync with that higher authority, especially when it impacts more than ourselves.”
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you have inferred that I appeal to a higher order of authority does not mean I implied it. I do not accept the premise that there is a higher authority. This is your belief, not mine.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that you have not knowingly appealed to a higher authority does not mean that it is not present.
ReplyDeleteWere you previously under the impression that our beliefs were not in conflict? But if you do not appeal to an alternate (non-god) authority, then not only do you have no foundation for making the ethical assertions that you continue to make, but neither do you have any means by which to argue your philosophical/ faith system’s superiority over mine. The definition for utilitarianism simply doesn’t cut it, especially since you seem to be using IT as your higher authority. I appeal to God’s revelation and our status as image bearers while you continue to appeal to the “higher power” of reason, and not just any reason, but reasons that support your conclusions (or your premises?). Your position seems fairly cyclical at best. If reason (beyond yourself) is not what you appeal to, then it’s just your opinion vs. somebody else’s, and we’re back to square one with nothing to measure it by.
I see no conflict between atheism and Level 3 utilitarianism, which at this point is what I’ve begun mentally substituting every time I see you use the phrase “higher authority.” If you’d like to argue that there is a conflict between those two things, please present your argument and I’ll consider it.
ReplyDeleteAh, we are closer to the truth than we were before. When I say “higher authority” I mean the God of the Bible, but you substitute in utilitarianism instead. This only makes your higher authority different than mine, but not altogether absent . At the moment, I don’t see a conflict between your “level 3” and your atheism, but unless I have misunderstood your definition and allegiance to utilitarianism, it seems to be dysfunctional as an objective higher power, for it is still rooted in the self and nothing more than human opinion. Appealing to it as a governing authority is a clandestine move to impose your personal opinion on others regardless of any connection to truth or objectivity.
ReplyDeleteAs per your earlier reference of Wikipedia, here’s the definition of utilitarianism I found:
“Utilitarianism is the idea that the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness or pleasure as summed among all persons.”
My first question is, can this be supported by the scientific method? What does “moral worth” weigh or smell like? Same question for “happiness” and “pleasure.” I suspect that, other than a certain part of our gray-matter lighting up on a brain scan, there is no way to “test” for these values and what they really are. You are welcome to subscribe to your specific brand of utilitarianism, but that is a faith commitment.
But my more important, second line of questioning has to do with “the summing up of utility by all persons.” Ostensibly, I recognize that the whole of humanity might be able to function as the collective judge of “overall utility,” but surely we are not so naive as to think that every last human on the planet agrees on what is best in all situations. Even if we could acknowledge that all societies recognize that rape and murder are wrong (and yes, I know that you don’t believe this), it would not follow that all other, less black and white issues could be agreed upon.
So then, who decides what universally contributes to “overall utility” and to what extent? It sounds like this would require a higher authority or perspective to me. But who can stand on such a removed, objective platform from which all of humanity can be evaluated? The only candidate I can think of is the living God. Indeed, I would argue that the greatest contribution to overall utility, happiness and pleasure as summed up among all persons is our collective decision to follow Jesus Christ and to live in the peace and love that he originally created us for.
I am relatively sure that you will vehemently object to this turnabout, but at the very least, this should demonstrate the fact that utilitarianism is not free from the fetters of opinion and subjectivity, even if it pokes around at an objective reality. Utilitarianism depends upon subjective, pet understandings and definitions and is thus deficient as an authority to appeal to. The same can be said of utilitarianism’s master: reason.
I suggest that God is superior to reason alone, but also that these entities are not at odds with one another. God did not endow humanity with reason to forego its use. But that is a somewhat secondary issue, for reason alone can never understand God fully. Indeed, I would say that reason, objective and mystic experiences, testimony and current revelation cannot lead us to understand God fully unless he decides to let us.
But if there is no God and thus no right or wrong, then reason is nothing but a diversion selectively interpreted by those who have the power to force their will over and against others. I'm sure that Hitler had very good "reasons" for leading Germany down the path of destruction in the 1930's, and I am equally sure that he saw this as the greatest utility for his nation and the world too. Similarly, atheists deny God's existence for certain reasons just as Christians place their faith in Jesus for specific reasons. "Reason" simply does not speak for itself; it must be processed through the human mind and it is often forced to serve human will and desire more often than the inverse. No, reason is not objective and neither are pet definitions and applications of utilitarianism.
And this leads us to the notion that YOUR "reasons" are based on fact while those who believe in sacred scripture are wallowing in nothing more than gullible psychosis. I concede that this might be applicable to some faith traditions, but with regard to Xianity, it demonstrates either a fundamental ignorance of the biblical text's contents and how they have been incorporated into what is now called "the Bible," or it highlights a serious lack of integrity concerning how you treat others' human senses when they yield data that you are uncomfortable with.
Before I expound on this assertion, let me re-print what you have said regarding the “Levels” of perception:
Faith Level 1 – I think, therefore I am. Self-evident.
Faith Level 2 – Reality is basically as I perceive it. Requires trust in one’s senses.
Faith Level 3 – Reality is as I deduce it. (e.g., “Everything I have ever dropped has fallen downward, therefore in the future, things are probably not going to fall upward.”) Requires trust in one’s own logical processes.
Faith Level 4 – Reality is beyond my abilities to perceive and deduce and comprehend, and requires my acceptance of a supernatural/divine narrative without basis in the laws of physics as I have consistently observed them.”
Your “Level 4 MITS (Man in the Sky)” is certainly applicable to some faith traditions like those of ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, and presently in religions like Hinduism. But those religions are not grounded in historical events, real times, eye-witnesses, places or people. There is a fundamental difference between them and Christianity. What I mean is this: The authors and witnesses of the NT used the same 5 senses to apprehend what has been recorded in the Bible as scientific researchers use in their laboratories with the scientific method. Of course we might quibble about the repeatability and peer reviews of current scientific work, but that confuses the issue. We can talk more about that if you'd like, but the fact remains that there is absolutely no reason to assume that "miraculous" events cannot occur, unless you already have a prior faith commitment to that position, and that isn't exactly open-minded free inquiry.
Your continual use of the “Level 4 MITS (Man in the Sky)” caricature is completely inapplicable and impotent as a criticism against Xianity. Christianity is grounded in objective reality and levels very similar to the ones you listed as number’s 1-3. The main difference between our “Level 3” is that Christianity believes in reality as credible humans deduce it, rather than just the self as you have proclaimed (and which falls victim to solipsism).
If you want to discuss the historical credibility of the early Christians and New Testament documents, we can certainly do so, but that is a somewhat secondary issue regarding the nature of this current conversation.
What is more interesting to me at the moment is the commentary that you assigned to your explanation of “Level 4”:
“Faith Level 4 – Reality is beyond my abilities to perceive and deduce and comprehend, and requires my acceptance of a supernatural/divine narrative without basis in the laws of physics as I have consistently observed them.”
To me, it seems obvious that the reasonable place to draw the line is after level 3, and I don’t get why so many people have such a hard time with this. (For some mentally retarded people, it might be reasonable for them to stop at level 2. For schizophrenics, Level 1.) For anyone to get into level 4, though, requires a degree of whimsy that I don’t subscribe do. Apparently you do. And if that works for you, I guess that’s ok, but I do think it’s a loss to society that you’re putting so much of your life’s energy into fantastical speculation [...].”
This catches my attention not only because it is inapplicable to Christianity, but because it is very applicable to your atheistic faith. You assert that there is no God of the Bible, but where is the evidence? How can you “perceive, deduce and comprehend” this theory apart from a narrative concerning the supernatural / divine without the laws of physics as you have observed them? Is it not impossible to prove that something does not exist? Can you now see how much blind faith your belief system depends upon?
I agree with you that the reasonable place to “draw the line is after level 3.” I hope that you can do so.
[I guess one of my concerns is that] atheism seems to dictate that you parrot predisposed responses on so-called “right” and “wrong.” Again, I applaud your willingness to fall in line with what the philosophy dictates even if I think it is ultimately false and harmful to you and others. Of course, just playing back previously composed answers does not mean that they aren’t any “good”, but if they contain internal inconsistencies and contradictions, then they should be reevaluated or maybe discarded altogether. Only you can know in the depths of your (metaphorical) heart if you really think that all “evil” is mere theological hoopla.
”Atheism seems to dictate...”
ReplyDeleteDoes it? I’d like to get a copy of this atheist’s manual you keep referring to. That sounds an awful lot like the “Bible” to me. Perhaps you’ve put the wrong book in the dust cover.
“...I applaud your willingness to fall in line with what the philosophy dictates even if I think it is ultimately false and harmful to you and others.”
I assure you I am neither reading from your atheist’s manual nor sending you canned answers. On some things I agree with Hitchens, Dawkins, and others; on other things, I do not. I am answering you from my heart. If you’re really getting similar responses from other atheists, perhaps it’s because you keep banging your head into the same logical walls and then refusing to admit that there’s a wall. As for being “ultimately false and harmful to you and others….” Ditto. Although I personally wouldn’t applaud anyone for that, even if it does mean that they’re properly toeing their chosen line.
”Only you can know in the depths of your (metaphorical) heart if you really think that all “evil” is mere theological hoopla.”
Again, you’re going to have to start believing me when I tell you things, otherwise we have no reason to discuss anything. If you keep this up, I’m going to start endlessly telling you that I know you don’t really believe in god despite your words to the contrary, and then you can see how annoying it is. I’ll make you a deal: I’ll not tell you what Christianity does and doesn’t allow you to believe in if you don’t tell me what Atheism does and doesn’t allow me to believe in.
Ok, that’s a good deal. A lot of my assumptions about atheism do apply to people who identify with that label, especially those who refuse to think that anything exists beyond material matter and thus assert that all of our behavior (actions and thoughts) are merely and exhaustively determined for us by nature (not free-will). But I am glad to learn that you don’t think this way and also to learn something about your particular persuasion of atheism. You have met some of these assumptions fairly, and I thank you for that, but it also leads to more questions. Maybe we can get to the freedom thing later. But I’ll try and get on-board with asking questions instead of just assuming that you subscribe to the regular atheist menu. Does this mean you can also accept my positions on Christian themes as accurate representatives of Christianity (as I understand it)?
ReplyDeleteBut you’ve answered part of my question sufficiently: you deny that “evil” exists. This blows my mind, I am still fuzzy on HOW you come to that conclusion, and it is thus far incomplete, but if that’s what you want to believe then ok. I just happen to believe differently and think that my faith better reflects what I encounter in life. The Bible happens to resonate with my experiences on this.
[Nevertheless,] I am still (hopefully) suspicious that you teach your children that it is wrong to engage in certain behaviors like lying and punching etc. and that you even make this same distinction in your own behavior. In fact, I have witnessed your ethical commitment to treat others “fairly” and that you fully expect to be treated in the same manner. If I had taken the recent shaving supplies [you had shipped to my house] and sold them for personal profit at your expense and told you to “deal with it,” I have no doubt that you would feel angry, betrayed and/or say that I had not treated you well. I would agree with you, but this suggests that you (behaviorally) engage in ethics/ moral codes that are bigger than individual preferences whether you acknowledge them or not. Which is why I have said that you don’t live consistently with your philosophy.
“I am still (hopefully) suspicious that you teach your children that it is wrong to engage in certain behaviors like lying and punching etc.”
ReplyDeleteYep. I don’t want the kids to grow up and become thugs and go to prison. That parental altruism requires no MITS.
”[If I cheated you,] I have no doubt that you would feel angry, betrayed and/or say that I had not treated you well. I would agree with you, but this suggests that you (behaviorally) engage in ethics/ moral codes that are bigger than individual preferences whether you acknowledge them or not.”
Level 3 utilitarianism based on our evolved traits, not Level 4 MITS.
EL,
ReplyDeleteAs per my previous assessment of “Level 3 utilitarianism,” this doesn’t solve the riddle of cross-category, cross-cultural moral standards and is entirely deficient as an authority to appeal to unless God is the one judging the show. Neither does your caricature of “Level 4 MITS” correspond with what Christianity represents or believes.
Now I know that the interleaving of comments on the blog has not allowed you to respond to my earlier and present critique of this “Level 3 & 4” business, so I hope you will do so below.
...[but] for me, experiencing of evil, even if it is vicariously experienced, is quite convincing that morality is opinion (ex: it’s wrong to vote for Bush) and that it also TRANSCENDS opinion (ex: it’s wrong to abuse the defenseless). I, for one, cannot and will not “react” with indifference when I see another human hurting and/or if I can do something about it. I will do my part to prevent (or at least mitigate) human suffering and ecological/ animal suffering in whatever ways I can, not just because these things don’t suit my personal preferences, but because they are wrong.
ReplyDelete-CL
And they are wrong because….. god’s book says they’re wrong? Or because your evolved innate human impulse of altruism tells you they’re wrong? If god’s book told you to create as much suffering as possible, would you really follow it against your instincts? Be honest.
ReplyDeleteHonesty all the way.
ReplyDeleteYour first question is not antithetical to your second question. My answer: They are wrong because I have an innate sense of right and wrong (even though it is not perfect) because I was created in “God’s image,” perhaps even via evolutionary processes. Evolution and “God’s book” happen to explicate this in a way that corresponds with my personal experience and those of others. To answer your 3rd question honestly, no, I would not follow such a book. This is one of the reasons I could not adopt Islam. Fortunately, the Bible doesn’t advocate that Christians “create as much suffering as possible.” The Bible does not ask us to suspend reason, but rather to use it, and at the same time, not to make reason an idol that dictates ALL that can be known and understood. Reason is but one possible path to knowledge.
-CL
Corbin, please understand that while I can appreciate that the infinite nuances of your superstitions are endlessly fascinating to you, I really tire of discussing them, and I’d say the same to someone who wanted to debate me in fifty page treatises on Zoroastrianism. I am giving you some special consideration because you are my [friend], and I really wish you weren’t so twisted up over what you think is my fate, and I acknowledge the genuinely well-intended motive of love for your [friend] which has been distorted by your religious belief into endless hectoring of me to adopt your own belief system. But that said, I have spent an entire day on responding to this particular email which I really didn’t have time for, mostly because the snarkiness of some of your comments got me all worked up. The demands of being a parent, breadwinner, etc. really are much more of a priority for me, and there are a thousand things I’d rather be talking about than this or that or the other MITS. So, yes, I know I owe you a response on your lengthy other writings, and one will be eventually forthcoming for each. You’ll just have to be patient…. Or if you can’t wait and have questions for atheists, go post a message on the talk.origins internet newsgroup. Although be warned, they won’t be as patient with you as I have been, so you’ll need to ask your questions straightforwardly, and give honest and full consideration to the replies.
ReplyDeleteI have been offering straight forward questions here, as well as giving honest and full consideration to your replies. Thank you for reciprocating; I appreciate it.
ReplyDeleteAs I have said before, I’m not “twisted up” about your eternal fate. I am legitimately interested in the validity of my faith and that of yours, especially since they are mutually exclusive in their truth claims. I still suggest that they cannot both be right in the same way at the same time. I keep waiting (even wanting) to hear something that is a real challenge to Christianity or that demonstrates your own belief system’s superiority. So far, all I have heard is special pleading and faith commitments for positions that are different than mine. I’ve engaged in similar moves at various points, but this only highlights the fact that we have chosen to believe different things. Neither one of us can prove or disprove either faith position. I submit that Christianity is superior to atheism and that it explains more of the data and experiences that humanity encounters, but have I tried to convert you so far? The way you make it sound, I’ve been quoting scripture AT you, and ranting & raving about hellfire and exorcisms. Please treat me fairly here. I apologize again for comments that have gotten you “worked up,” but I find it hard to believe that you are only engaging with me here because I wanted to. I mean, you ARE reading Dawkins and Hitchens and their ilk. You have constructed arguments to justify your rejection of Christianity. It seems that you are keenly concerned with a critical perspective against Christianity, and indeed, that you have vested interests in defeating it. Even if for no other reason than to test your own faith, don’t you want to know about what you believe and why? If I am off on Christianity, then for the love of all that’s (fill in the blank) let me know. Bring your best and help me out of the fog. I am as being as sincere as I can project into a toneless, no-body language blog posting.
As for talk origins, it’s interesting that you first suggest that I might be the one banging my head against an imaginary wall. I have engaged with some of their representatives in various places, even if not on that web-site per se. I think your friend, RK, might qualify. I’ve also discussed some things on Amazon.com with Origins’ troglodytes. They’re as rude and insulting and as interested in nothing but their own voices and images as any fundy-Christian I have ever known. They might be better served to lock themselves in front of the bathroom mirror. Then they would only see and hear exactly what they wanted to. Interesting that Dawkin’s book, “The God Delusion,” is made to resemble a mirror, no? But I grew tired of their own bugaboos, witticisms and condescension and ultimately decided that we were only talking past each other, not with each other. Since there was no real relationship to begin with, there was no respect for the person typing to them. Honest discussion is practically impossible with someone who is merely looking for a chance to insult you. Regrettably, we have tread close to that line once or twice here, but I do not think that this has been our primary motivation.
As a side note, it’s kind of humorous (and sad) that normally polite and socialized individuals get on these message boards and turn into raving nutters. Maybe I’ve been around them for too long and just assumed that this was the way to go. It leaks out sometimes in my weaker moments. But no excuses, I apologize if I have offended you for the wrong reasons. I do value polite discussion and am trying to improve upon it. Just be sure to meet me half-way. Again, I suggest you could make some headway if you refer to the God of the Bible with a capital G (proper name in that context anyway) and if you wouldn’t call my faith names like “superstitions” or “delusions.” Surely I feel the same way about aspects of your faith system, but I understand that such labels are not helpful for authentic conversation. Let’s cast them off.
All that being said: yes, I can wait. It is regrettable that you were frustrated and took an entire afternoon to type me back. I think we should stick to our original plan of getting to it when we get to it. I think it has been a very interesting conversation. We don’t have to agree at the end of the day in order to learn something.
But I think that there is need for both of us to continue to engage. I know that you often feel like some Christians just want to pick a fight with atheists. Admittedly, some do. That door swings both ways, but unlike some among the ranks of Talk Origins or participants on Oral Robert’s “discussion” boards, we cannot be satisfied with locking ourselves in the bathroom, talking to our reflection and refusing to engage with those who see things differently than we do.
Since atheism does not exist in a vacuum, and because it is in conflict with the Xian worldview that we have been discussing, it seems that you must engage with Christianity on some level, even if only as an attempt to discredit it. Similarly, for me to consider atheism, I must compare it with competing faith claims, not the least of which is the set I currently hold as a Christian. Perhaps you would reply that if this is the case, then we are stuck assessing ALL religions everywhere, and that is a task that none of us can undertake fully. I understand the sentiment, but it won’t do because none of us are free from fundamental faith commitments. It is never a matter of faith versus no-faith, but rather faith in this vs. faith in something else.
When I make a faith-commitment FOR Christianity, by necessity this is a faith-commitment AGAINST competing faith claims. Christianity, like atheism, asserts that if it is right, then all others are wrong wherever they part in dogma and doctrine from the orthodox perspective. We construct arguments and ways of thinking to bolster our perspectives and criticize those of others. Hence, while I am not familiar with the subtleties of Islam or the ancient Greek Pantheon, I do know enough about them to reject them and/or choose Christianity as a superior faith commitment. Nevertheless, if a Muslim were to listen to my rationale and point out some things that I have gotten wrong, I would be somewhat obligated to listen to what he or she had to say, and all the more so if my faulty reasoning was connected to my rejection of their faith. I am more than willing to extend the same courtesy to any atheist I meet. Again, this is partly my motivation for this present conversation, and I have appreciated that you have joined me in it.
I value truth more than I value my particular belief system. Happily for me, they seem to be in league together. Thus far, I have not heard an argument or been presented with evidence that is irreconcilable with Christianity’s world-view. Furthermore, I have seen (here and in other discussions) that your rationale for rejecting Christianity is based on limited and sometimes incorrect assumptions. I do not claim to have proved Christianity, but I am confident that your criticism of it has significantly missed the mark and I urge you to reconsider.
It sounds like you are looking for the door, but I hope we can continue. If we stop now, we run the risk of perpetuating our ignorance about each other’s faith and we will thus be ever deceived in our “reasons” for rejecting the opposing viewpoint. I trust that this is something neither of us wants.
I look forward to your next posting.
with patience,
-C. Lambeth
I would like to note that the entirety of the above conversation did not originally spool out this way, but rather that all of the comments have been cut out of their original context in a much larger back-and-forth email dialouge. Therefore, while I recognize most of the words attributed to me as my own, I am not especially happy with the way they have been re-ordered and re-assembled here. I'm sure the re-editing was well intentioned, but with my words taken out of context and/or placed in response to a paragraph that they originally weren't intended to respond to, too many times it seems that I'm dropping your arguments, throwing random red-herrings into the mix inappropriately, etc. For example, some of the editing has clearly conflated a somewhat sarcastic and flippant dustup over John Mccain vs. Barack Obama with a totally separate and more serious thread on whether evil exists. I'm not going to worry about this too much, but I'm inserting this comment as a sort of virtual bookmark, separating the portions above which were edited retroactively and without my authorization, and which may not accurately reflect my intended response to a given comment, and the portions below, which will hopefully reflect a more linear conversation.
ReplyDeleteThis is exactly why I prefer to have it in a linear format. This was my plea at the very beginning, but you insisted on interleaving comments. I am glad that we can finally agree to post back and forth this way.
ReplyDelete-CL
And just so we're clear, I have not edited anything that you've typed.
ReplyDelete-CL
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I absolutely am not going to get into a sub-argument with you over whether I'm allowed to use certain punctuation or words of your choosing in this discussion.
ReplyDeleteDictionary.com defines a superstition as "1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like. 2. a system or collection of such beliefs. 3. a custom or act based on such a belief. 4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion. 5. any blindly accepted belief or notion."
Seems totally appropriate here to me. I deliberately use the term because it is the one which I feel fits, and to point out to theists of any particular faith that until they prove otherwise, theirs is no different than the many other competing belief systems which they themselves feel free to look down on and dismiss as claptrap. (You'd feel entitled to call a Wiccan "superstitious", right? And I'd agree. Well, how can I grant one religious system (yours) a special status over his, when I disbelieve in both of them equally?)
If you would like to try and argue that Christianity is head and shoulders above the rest, fine. When I'm convinced and regard it as something more than a myth, I'll let you know. Until then, I'll describe it as it appears to me, which is precisely a superstition. A relatively popular one, yes - though not the most popular - but in any case obscurity of the belief is not a component of the dictionary definition above.
Second, dictionary.com defines god when capitalized as "The one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe," and when in lowercase, "a supreme being according to some particular conception," (among other definitions.) It is in this latter sense that I use the term, since I do not believe in the first. Typographical errors aside, if I intend to refer to a specific alleged deity by name, I use that name and I do capitalize it, such as Jesus or Allah or Yahweh, so your sniping about intentioanlly not capitalizing Dawkins just to annoy me is beside the point.
You started this conversation on the basis that you wanted to hear my views; now the very grammar in which they are written is intolerable to you? Well, if you don't want to hear an answer you don't like, don't ask the question.
Do you know why Christianity now uses the words "Jehovah" and "Yahweh" interchangeably? It's because ancient Hebrews considered it offensive to g/G -od to write down the vowels in his name, so they only wrote the consonants, those being alternatively YHVH or JHVH depending on the alphabet and local dialect. As a result, we have no idea how the word is pronounced today. The ancient Jews would be shocked at your heathenly insertion of the letter 'o' in the middle of GD, I imagine.
I suppose that next you'll be insisting on the silly habit some Christians have adopted lately of going so far as to capitalize the pronoun "Him" or even to capitalize the whole thing as "HIM", in appalling contravention of proper English? Should I be expected to always write the world ALLAH that way too? All right then, out of respect for me, from now on please use capital boldface italics with red background when referring to HIS IMMENSE NOODLY BENEVOLENCE THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER.
Anyway, what bearing do linguistics have on whether or not there is a g... oops, I mean, deity? (I can still lowercase that word, right?) Can't you see at least in this instance how your religious impulses have derailed a meaningful conversation on weighty issues into a fixation on subjective minutiae? (Is there any passage in the Bible which issues guidelines and proscribes judgment for inappropriately reverential spelling? I'd really like to know.)
EL,
ReplyDeleteThe difference between capitalization is the same as referring to you as "el" instead of "EL;" it is merely the improper use of widely acknowledged English grammar for proper nouns. Particular beliefs about the definition of the proper noun is totally irrelevant. Following proper English conventions makes no statement about the truthfulness or falseness of anything. It is simply how educated persons write and type.
And I have made no such improper grammatical blunders in capitalizing every letter of any word unless it was as a substitute for italicizing something, which is somewhat of the norm for typed communication in blog areas.
"God" was originally the name for a lesser, pagan Germanic deity of the dark ages. How it came to be substituted for the God of the biblical text is beyond me, but I imagine that some early Xian missionaries who got the message right (even if not the precise name) used it to relate to the pre-existent German idea of their local deity "God."
The precise name of the Xian God is not as important as humans being able to use a specific, proper noun to refer to that entity. As per the current cultural norm, I refer to the God of the Bible as "God." To refer to God as "god" is merely a confusion that reflects something other than the deity found in Christian faith. In our setting this would be like typing Allah as "allah" or Zeus as "zeus" or Corbin as "corbin." It's just ignorant.
SUPERSTITIONS: As per your cited definitions of the term above, Christianity does not fall into the category. Xian faith, like that of atheists, is based on reason and evidence, even if not proof.
Thanks for typing,
-CL
What I have tried to do below is to summarize what I believe to be your [CL's] main arguments [for Christianity] as succinctly as I can, and then to respond to each. I have tried very hard not to interleave related comments as separate resonsesto the many permutations of what I think are sub-arguments and re-statements of the same central point. I have also bitten my tounge and intentionally not commented on matters that I think are peripheral and not germane to the debate over whether god exists, such as whether the people on talk.origins were nasty to you or whether my lowercase spelling of the word "god" is sufficiently respectful of your beliefs. I hope you will respect my position that while I may have marginally enough time and energy to respond to the central argument, I really do NOT have any interest in delving into side issues over punctuation and so forth.
ReplyDeleteIf I have missed any of your key theses in the below, please state them for me as directly as you can, and I will comment on them as well.
As far as your other comments... "EL" is fine, and I am happy with the previous [faith discussion/ commentary] post.
2. My continued references to pleasure/pain, good/bad, etc., betray a subconscious belief in objective forces of good and evil on my part and a tacit surrender of the argument that there must be an objective divine force.
No. I am tired of repeating myself on this issue. We evolved to be nice to each other, and to find water pleasant to drink, and to not burn our hands in the fire, etc., because those are simply the random physical conditions of our environment which our biology has evolved to accommodate to. I really don’t see why this is so hard for you to understand. Please see my previous essay on the possibility of completely dissimilar life elsewhere in the universe such as fire-based life, which would have evolved to have an utterly different conception of morality and standards and, perhaps, a whole bizarre theology of their own too. (Their devil would probably throw them in a lake of water for punishment.)
ReplyDeleteIt’s all based on a relative response to local circumstances, nothing more. We’ve evolved to find things such as cannibalism to be evil, or a random asteroid landing on a major city as some kind of divine wrath (or at least the devil’s work,) because those things are harmful to our environmental living conditions. You keep asking me to prove that evil doesn’t exist, but as you well know, proving a negative is impossible. (Prove to me that there isn’t a magical potato orbiting the moon.) You’re the one positing some huge and insidious force which cannot be observed or felt or heard or smelled and is all-powerful (well, second only to the forces of good, of course, in keeping with your particular religion which for whatever reason has posited only 2 opposing forces of which good is the stronger, in contrast to various other religions’ conceptions of balanced forces, multiple forces, etc.) I think the onus is on you to demonstrate the existence of your force if you want me to believe in it.
Moreover, even if I were for purposes of argument to concede that point and move on to the issue that evil is evil and good is good because that is the way Yahweh in his infite wisdom has set up the universal balance, I don’t see that that’s any more objective than me saying the Hardee’s Frisco burger is better than the Whopper. God’s opinion seems pretty relative, too (and fairly changeful and random as well, if you look at the Old Testament and how he used to be all wrathful and only really liked the Jews, then he calmed down and starting smiting people less and forgiving them more, and to boot decided to open his arms up to us Gentiles.)
Why does god not like murder, theft, drunkenness and premarital sex? If he’s as all-powerful as you say he is, he could have set up the universe so that we could all be having one big awesome kegger and having sex with hotties all the time while looting and pillaging for kicks, and the commandments would be against being too shy and not being a righteous party animal. “Because god commands it” is the very essence of subjectivity. I would submit to you that there is a curious overlap between religious prohibitions and human morality because human morality evolved FIRST, as a consequence of things such as murder and theft and drunkenness and indiscriminate [sex having] being bad for our health and survival as a species, and then mankind cobbled together a theology to fit around his own innately evolved impulses.
EL,
ReplyDeleteI’m not having a hard time understanding what your position states, but it appears that you have not read some key parts of the dialogue (above). I’ve said time and again that I do not necessarily dispute that humans evolved with proclivities for pursuing the good and avoiding evil. But this is not antithetical to being created in God’s image. What I AM having a hard time understanding is why (or how) you continually try to pit evolution against the moral argument for God. I don’t know how you are connecting the dots. If you are tired of repeating your position, surely I am tired of having one of the most pertinent questions in our dialogue ignored. I’ve already responded to your “fire-beings,” and that example also fails to address the issue.
Secondly, have I asked you to prove that evil does not exist? I don’t recall, but I apologize if that is the case. I won’t ask you to prove a negative unless you think that you can subscribe to one without faith. Anyone can easily place faith in a negative after all. I do it all the time. For example, I have faith that there is no “magic potato” orbiting the moon, even though I cannot prove it. But what about a negative’s inverse, can you prove a positive in this dimension of our conversation? Can you prove conclusively that all notions of so-called right and wrong are/ were merely responses to “local circumstances”? It would only take one exception to overturn your entire paradigm. Given the vast amount of morally implicated events past and present, it seems that the best answer you can offer is that you simply do not know. Can you admit that you do not know? We have alternate theories about the same set of data, and so far, utilitarianism remains completely insufficient as a guide for morality. You may place faith in your particular understanding of it, but this is significantly different than proof for your position. Either side we may subscribe to involves faith. This isn’t troubling for me; just call it what it is. Can you admit that you have faith?
Next, you stated that you believe ”...the onus is on [me] if [I] want [you] to believe in [evil or good].”
In response I have just a few things to offer:
1) Our disagreement would seem to hinge on how evil is defined. Unless we can test which definition is accurate by some objective standard or method, I don’t know if we can resolve the issue definitively. Either position requires a degree of faith, and in that sense, it seems fairly hypocritical for you to suggest the onus is solely on me to prove my definition.
2) I have experienced evil as injustice, deceit, pain and death, so whether you accept evil’s reality or not isn’t up to me. I am comfortable in making a faith claim or two based on good evidence, even if not proof. Given your present faith commitments, I don’t know if you would accept any evidence that challenged your paradigm. Evil can be witnessed, but it can’t be measured by the scientific method. If you think that science is the only way we can know anything, you would be fairly locked in to what you will allow as evidence in the first place. Please correct me if I’m wrong here; I truly hope you can deny this assumption of mine.
3) There are many people, including some atheists, who also affirm the reality of good and evil. Of course I recognize that truth-value is not contingent upon how many people believe something, but I think it is worthy of mention since some people in your own camp believe these categories are real as well. For contrast, I think we might be hard pressed to find legitimate Christians who don’t think there’s anything wrong with the world.
With regard to God’s ultimate standard of good, your intended Whopper/ Frisco Burger parallel fails to connect, and this too has been addressed above (reference our candy bar examples). We are not discussing subjectivity alone, but how it connects to objective reality, even if we cannot perceive that reality perfectly. As such, if you can concede (as per your example) that “evil” is evil and “good” is good, then anything that has a moral component will fall into one of those categories even if the actors involved do not readily acknowledge it. I’m not sure that the kind of burger we eat is a moral choice, although I suppose it could be depending upon how the related people, animals and environment were treated in the process of its formation.
Your citation of the OT is interesting and to be honest, somewhat of a separate issue; but at the very least you should know that God’s purposes for Israel as his “elect” people was so that they could act as his emissaries of reconciliation to the rest of the world. God’s purpose in election has never been so a few could hoard all of his love, but rather to make it known. Some Christians today still get tripped up about this and think that predestination is merely for their own special benefit, and hence, that the rest of the world can go to hell in a hand-basket. They have completely missed the message AND a unique and powerful opportunity to serve their fellow humans. We would do well to avoid that confusion as well.
Finally, you utilized a variation of Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue with his “Socrates” character from the 4th century BC. In that discourse, the primary question (for us) is: “Is an act right because God says it's so, or does God say it's so because it's right?”
In our modern context, Christian hecklers often intend it to force a dilemma upon the Christian, namely, is “good” God’s arbitrary choice (and might he have commanded otherwise), or is God subordinate to the higher power of “good” (does good dictate what God must command)?
This seems like a tricky question, but it never seems to have dawned upon Plato that “good” is integral to God’s very nature, and the two, while not being synonymous, are nevertheless inseparable. God is not arbitrary in what he declares to be good and neither is he subject to any authority but his own. As you yourself have noted, there IS a “curious overlap” between biblical prohibitions, morality and health. I’ll even go along with the notion that human morality came before Christianity (and Judaism too), but I would insert that this is because we are created in God’s image with an inborn moral compass in the first place. This also explains why most religious systems have very similar base-line moral codes. In the absence of God’s specific revelation (Jesus Christ), people will respond to his general revelation (loosely understood from creation itself). Because God is good, as well as being a creative, loving, life-giver, it only makes sense for his revelation to promote our health and survival as a species. This also means treating our neighbors as we would treat ourselves. The “Golden Rule” is not an exclusively Christian one.
I look forward to your response.
-CL