Values Fall Prey to Hypocrisy
March 27, 2002 9:14 AM Subscribe
Values Fall Prey to Hypocrisy For a long time now, we secular humanists and other skeptics have been denigrated as the apostles of decadence and social decay.
A nice article on a recurring theme.
I liked the article too. I especially appreciate his mention of Thomas Paine, whose ghost must look down approvingly over the internet.
The stuff on the Catholic Church was interesting and fair-minded as well. Athough I haven't been in a church except for weddings in over 15 years. I still have enough residual Catholic guilt that any mention of the occult makes me nervous and that I always feel like confessing when I've done something bad. I'm still not sure whether this is a good or bad thing.
posted by jonmc at 9:54 AM on March 27, 2002
The stuff on the Catholic Church was interesting and fair-minded as well. Athough I haven't been in a church except for weddings in over 15 years. I still have enough residual Catholic guilt that any mention of the occult makes me nervous and that I always feel like confessing when I've done something bad. I'm still not sure whether this is a good or bad thing.
posted by jonmc at 9:54 AM on March 27, 2002
Found at aaronshaf's (uproarious) first link:
Non-Christians committed to a New Age
or Eastern oneness of all things still
insist on looking both ways before they cross a street.
. . .
Their own lives so clearly reveal
that they know their views are false
and that Christianity is true.
What great near-haiku. I forever worship at the altar of the Arbitrary Line Break.
posted by Skot at 10:04 AM on March 27, 2002
Non-Christians committed to a New Age
or Eastern oneness of all things still
insist on looking both ways before they cross a street.
. . .
Their own lives so clearly reveal
that they know their views are false
and that Christianity is true.
What great near-haiku. I forever worship at the altar of the Arbitrary Line Break.
posted by Skot at 10:04 AM on March 27, 2002
aaron, i've visited every site your site links to...and i'm still a secular human man. [That self-link is bad manners you know.]
none of that goofy apologetics stuff works. Not a single word. It only sounds like it makes sense to you because you Want it to. It reads like The Onion.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:15 AM on March 27, 2002
none of that goofy apologetics stuff works. Not a single word. It only sounds like it makes sense to you because you Want it to. It reads like The Onion.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:15 AM on March 27, 2002
Sorry, third and last post (I suppose).
The writer made a good conclusion:
"'traditional values' are not necessarily best upheld by traditional institutions... Repetition of divine commandments is an insufficient guarantee of exemplary behavior, and blind allegiance to the leadership cadre and moral cant of any church can be quite dangerous."
It's a good point. Let love be the guide. People screw up. However, a tenet is never repudiated by the failure to be followed. A belief in moral absolutism never was a sure-fire way to guarantee that the believer was moral. The author is basically saying, "look, we don't believe in right or wrong, but hey, we're not that wrong, especially not as bad as you."
I certainly don't want to defend the sins of my brothers. Hey, Christ is all the more a need for sinners: all of us. However, I would like to once again on this sure-to-be-populated-thread ask: if secular humanists don't appeal to any sort of traditional values, then why should they even defend themselves according to the appeal to them?
I recommend essays by C.S. Lewis on the matter, especially:
"Man or Rabbit?"
"Evil and God"
"On Ethics"
and definitely a bit on Natural Law.
posted by aaronshaf at 10:15 AM on March 27, 2002
The writer made a good conclusion:
"'traditional values' are not necessarily best upheld by traditional institutions... Repetition of divine commandments is an insufficient guarantee of exemplary behavior, and blind allegiance to the leadership cadre and moral cant of any church can be quite dangerous."
It's a good point. Let love be the guide. People screw up. However, a tenet is never repudiated by the failure to be followed. A belief in moral absolutism never was a sure-fire way to guarantee that the believer was moral. The author is basically saying, "look, we don't believe in right or wrong, but hey, we're not that wrong, especially not as bad as you."
I certainly don't want to defend the sins of my brothers. Hey, Christ is all the more a need for sinners: all of us. However, I would like to once again on this sure-to-be-populated-thread ask: if secular humanists don't appeal to any sort of traditional values, then why should they even defend themselves according to the appeal to them?
I recommend essays by C.S. Lewis on the matter, especially:
"Man or Rabbit?"
"Evil and God"
"On Ethics"
and definitely a bit on Natural Law.
posted by aaronshaf at 10:15 AM on March 27, 2002
It's about time more people come out of the woodwork and state their mind about organized religion.
Because, y'know, no one has ever done that before this LA Times article...
posted by Danelope at 10:32 AM on March 27, 2002
Because, y'know, no one has ever done that before this LA Times article...
posted by Danelope at 10:32 AM on March 27, 2002
lets have a little imaginary situation...
3 people, each in a different room, each in front of a large amount of money that isn't theirs. They can leave if they want to, and no one will ever know if they did or did not take the money.
the first person loves jesus. they know jesus wouldn't be happy with stealing, and so out of Love, they don't take the money.
the second person fears God, and trembles at the thought of the punishments that would be in store for them if they steal the money, so they also don't take the money.
the third person doesn't fear god, doesn't believe jesus was divine. They see life as a series of personal choices...they see humanity working together because they are all humans--not because they are told to by scripture but because they Want, they Choose. They choose not to take the money, not based on love [fear of dissapointing] or fear, or any other reason than they Choose to construct a moral and legal framework in which to live.
the third choice is the noblest in my eyes. Choosing every day based on what you Think.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:34 AM on March 27, 2002
3 people, each in a different room, each in front of a large amount of money that isn't theirs. They can leave if they want to, and no one will ever know if they did or did not take the money.
the first person loves jesus. they know jesus wouldn't be happy with stealing, and so out of Love, they don't take the money.
the second person fears God, and trembles at the thought of the punishments that would be in store for them if they steal the money, so they also don't take the money.
the third person doesn't fear god, doesn't believe jesus was divine. They see life as a series of personal choices...they see humanity working together because they are all humans--not because they are told to by scripture but because they Want, they Choose. They choose not to take the money, not based on love [fear of dissapointing] or fear, or any other reason than they Choose to construct a moral and legal framework in which to live.
the third choice is the noblest in my eyes. Choosing every day based on what you Think.
posted by th3ph17 at 10:34 AM on March 27, 2002
It strikes me that one of the difficulties in talking about morals/morality, sin, right and wrong, etc. is that most of the language for such a dialogue is associated with religion. For those of us who were raised in church and later left, it's hard to find a language separate from the teachings of our childhood with which we can describe/develop a more personal morality. Also, there is a hesitancy in many people to use words like 'good' or 'bad' especially if you've ever made it through a college-level post-modern critical theory class.
I think William Blake summed up the difficulty with organized religion succinctly: "One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression" (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, plate 24). Though Blake didn't even try to find a language divorced from Christianity—he appropriated Biblical language and images, added his own flights of fancy and pretty much subverted Western religion. "Enough! or too much"
posted by gutenberg at 10:44 AM on March 27, 2002
I think William Blake summed up the difficulty with organized religion succinctly: "One Law for the Lion & Ox is Oppression" (The Marriage of Heaven and Hell, plate 24). Though Blake didn't even try to find a language divorced from Christianity—he appropriated Biblical language and images, added his own flights of fancy and pretty much subverted Western religion. "Enough! or too much"
posted by gutenberg at 10:44 AM on March 27, 2002
The first link is probably one of the best arguments against Christianity I've ever read, the argument through discursive incompetence. For example:
non-Christians committed to the mythology of evolution — an impersonal cosmos grinding out valueless, buzzing matter — still chirpily insist on human rights, the value of all living things, and universal rules of reason and toleration.
Actually the facts of our cosmic history make a very strong argument for the value of all living things, and for values. In much the same way that a diamond is more valuable than carbon dioxide because a diamond is the product of an extremely rare and unlikely set of circumstances, so is each individual life extremely precious because it is a unique event in the cosmos. This gets into C.S. Lewis's fallcy:
To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.
But that 70 years is a brief instant in the cosmos. We have only one chance to interact with that person during that brief 70 years out of billions of years. The individual becomes precious because they are short-lived, and unique.
Non-Christians committed to a New Age
or Eastern oneness of all things still
insist on looking both ways before they cross a street.
Of course, Non-Christians believe that actions have consequences. If I cross the street without looking both ways, there is a large probability that my short 70 years on this planet will be cut down to 30 years. Because I get only one chance out of several billion, it is in my best interest to make it count.
In contrast, if Christians are saved after all, why should they look both ways before crossing the street. After all God will preserve them and death will just be a ticket to eternal life. The question is not why do non-Christians who risk uncountably precious time look both ways before crossing the street, but why do Christians who have an eternity with Christ waiting for them. From the argument in that link, it looks like the only conclusion that we can draw is that Christians know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong. That there is no pearly gates waiting for them and thus, every minute avoiding certain death is a minute to be valued.
If a non-Christian view of things is true,
then there is no reason for respecting others,
loving our children, opposing injustices,
feeling guilty, preferring truth,
reasoning, or staying alive.
Actually, there are quite a few good reasons for all of these things in a non-Christian view. The time I spend with other people is uncountably precious (because it is the result of billions of years of evolution and will never occur the same way again.) I have only one chance to get my relationships right, to establish a good relationship with my children, to leave a better legacy for future generations.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:46 AM on March 27, 2002
non-Christians committed to the mythology of evolution — an impersonal cosmos grinding out valueless, buzzing matter — still chirpily insist on human rights, the value of all living things, and universal rules of reason and toleration.
Actually the facts of our cosmic history make a very strong argument for the value of all living things, and for values. In much the same way that a diamond is more valuable than carbon dioxide because a diamond is the product of an extremely rare and unlikely set of circumstances, so is each individual life extremely precious because it is a unique event in the cosmos. This gets into C.S. Lewis's fallcy:
To the Materialist things like nations, classes, civilizations must be more important than individuals, because the individuals live only seventy odd years each and the group may last for centuries. But to the Christian, individuals are more important, for they live eternally; and races, civilizations and the like, are in comparison the creatures of a day.
But that 70 years is a brief instant in the cosmos. We have only one chance to interact with that person during that brief 70 years out of billions of years. The individual becomes precious because they are short-lived, and unique.
Non-Christians committed to a New Age
or Eastern oneness of all things still
insist on looking both ways before they cross a street.
Of course, Non-Christians believe that actions have consequences. If I cross the street without looking both ways, there is a large probability that my short 70 years on this planet will be cut down to 30 years. Because I get only one chance out of several billion, it is in my best interest to make it count.
In contrast, if Christians are saved after all, why should they look both ways before crossing the street. After all God will preserve them and death will just be a ticket to eternal life. The question is not why do non-Christians who risk uncountably precious time look both ways before crossing the street, but why do Christians who have an eternity with Christ waiting for them. From the argument in that link, it looks like the only conclusion that we can draw is that Christians know in their heart of hearts that they are wrong. That there is no pearly gates waiting for them and thus, every minute avoiding certain death is a minute to be valued.
If a non-Christian view of things is true,
then there is no reason for respecting others,
loving our children, opposing injustices,
feeling guilty, preferring truth,
reasoning, or staying alive.
Actually, there are quite a few good reasons for all of these things in a non-Christian view. The time I spend with other people is uncountably precious (because it is the result of billions of years of evolution and will never occur the same way again.) I have only one chance to get my relationships right, to establish a good relationship with my children, to leave a better legacy for future generations.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 10:46 AM on March 27, 2002
(from aaronshaf' first link) "If a non-Christian view of things is true, then there is no reason...."
Meaning no disrespect to any religion, but I've never understood the link some people make between morality and the existence of God. Let me lay out a little thought experiment to explain where I'm coming from on this...
First experimental condition - God comes down from the heavens and demonstrates his/her/its existence in such a way that no one doubts. No faith is necessary. All the atheists are converted as God demonstrates first hand the fine details of creating the universe. Having demonstrated his/her/its existence, God then issues a new commandment - all parents of 7-year old children shall take those children, rape them, and then torture them to death over a period of several days. (Note to infuriated religious types - I'm not saying the god you believe in would make such a demand - this is just a thought experiment.) The first question is: in this circumstance, would following God's orders be the moral thing to do and would you do it? Speaking for myself, in this case God could kiss my ass & condemn me to hell, because rape & torture of innocents is still evil and I'm not going to do it.
Second experimental condition - a group of scientists invent some miraculous instrument which proves the non-existence of God. Even the most fervent believers are convinced. (Yes, I know it's an impossibility to prove any such thing. Bear with me, this is a thought experiment.) My next question is: under these circumstances would you feel that the rape & torture of innocents is now peachy-keen because morals don't exist? Would you do it to your kids next time they don't clean their room? I hope that everyone reading this thread would join me in a resounding NO!
You'll notice I haven't said anything here about whether God actually exists. I also haven't said anything about the nature of God, should one actually exist. I realize that many religious people believe in a truly kind, loving and good God. I'm merely spelling out why I don't see the determination of what's right as having anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
The question I would like to pose to any thoughtful religious types out there, in a curious and non-challenging way, is this. If you gave the same answers as I did to the experimental questions above, but you do see a link between morality and the diety, what would you base that link on? One answer that already occured to me is that of superior knowledge. An omniscient diety might know better than we would the long-term consequences of our actions and so should be trusted when issuing commandments. The problem here is that the typical commandments are either pretty obvious (you don't need omniscience to see the harm in robbing and killing people) or else tribal taboos (don't eat shellfish or sleep with someone of the same gender) that don't seem to be causing long-term evil consequences. You never get a commandment like "don't vote for Senator Smarmy in the next presidential election because he'll instigate a bloody war with France.)
Anyway, I'm curious what any religous folks (christian or otherwise) out there think on the subject.
BTW - am I the only one who thought the essay that aaronshaf first linked to was pretty ignorant or bigoted in implying that Christianity is the only religion that postulates a God who hands down moral precepts? Reading that screed, you'd think that Christians and athiests were the only people in existence.
posted by tdismukes at 11:28 AM on March 27, 2002
Meaning no disrespect to any religion, but I've never understood the link some people make between morality and the existence of God. Let me lay out a little thought experiment to explain where I'm coming from on this...
First experimental condition - God comes down from the heavens and demonstrates his/her/its existence in such a way that no one doubts. No faith is necessary. All the atheists are converted as God demonstrates first hand the fine details of creating the universe. Having demonstrated his/her/its existence, God then issues a new commandment - all parents of 7-year old children shall take those children, rape them, and then torture them to death over a period of several days. (Note to infuriated religious types - I'm not saying the god you believe in would make such a demand - this is just a thought experiment.) The first question is: in this circumstance, would following God's orders be the moral thing to do and would you do it? Speaking for myself, in this case God could kiss my ass & condemn me to hell, because rape & torture of innocents is still evil and I'm not going to do it.
Second experimental condition - a group of scientists invent some miraculous instrument which proves the non-existence of God. Even the most fervent believers are convinced. (Yes, I know it's an impossibility to prove any such thing. Bear with me, this is a thought experiment.) My next question is: under these circumstances would you feel that the rape & torture of innocents is now peachy-keen because morals don't exist? Would you do it to your kids next time they don't clean their room? I hope that everyone reading this thread would join me in a resounding NO!
You'll notice I haven't said anything here about whether God actually exists. I also haven't said anything about the nature of God, should one actually exist. I realize that many religious people believe in a truly kind, loving and good God. I'm merely spelling out why I don't see the determination of what's right as having anything to do with the existence or non-existence of God.
The question I would like to pose to any thoughtful religious types out there, in a curious and non-challenging way, is this. If you gave the same answers as I did to the experimental questions above, but you do see a link between morality and the diety, what would you base that link on? One answer that already occured to me is that of superior knowledge. An omniscient diety might know better than we would the long-term consequences of our actions and so should be trusted when issuing commandments. The problem here is that the typical commandments are either pretty obvious (you don't need omniscience to see the harm in robbing and killing people) or else tribal taboos (don't eat shellfish or sleep with someone of the same gender) that don't seem to be causing long-term evil consequences. You never get a commandment like "don't vote for Senator Smarmy in the next presidential election because he'll instigate a bloody war with France.)
Anyway, I'm curious what any religous folks (christian or otherwise) out there think on the subject.
BTW - am I the only one who thought the essay that aaronshaf first linked to was pretty ignorant or bigoted in implying that Christianity is the only religion that postulates a God who hands down moral precepts? Reading that screed, you'd think that Christians and athiests were the only people in existence.
posted by tdismukes at 11:28 AM on March 27, 2002
I find it amusing how in this link the people depicted get cleaner cut as the good news is revealed to them.
posted by chemgirl at 11:31 AM on March 27, 2002
posted by chemgirl at 11:31 AM on March 27, 2002
Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment.
posted by aaronshaf at 11:46 AM on March 27, 2002
posted by aaronshaf at 11:46 AM on March 27, 2002
tdismukes: I absolutely love your experiments. It's fantastic, and I can't wait to read the responses.
The second reminds me of Arthor C. Clarke's Childhood's End. I haven't read it in years, but something like this occurred: Aliens have watches earth for the last 10,000 years. They have some neato technology that let them record everything that has ever happened on the face of the Earth in that time. Eventually, they give us these monitors that let us have full view of our past. And people see that there was no Jesus, no Buddha, no Mohammed. People can see evidence of their faiths being created over time.
In the book, pretty much everyone stops believing in their respective religions. That always struck me as a little far fetched. I doubt that any amount of proof would be able to dissuade most people from their religions. But it's an interesting idea.
posted by Doug at 11:47 AM on March 27, 2002
The second reminds me of Arthor C. Clarke's Childhood's End. I haven't read it in years, but something like this occurred: Aliens have watches earth for the last 10,000 years. They have some neato technology that let them record everything that has ever happened on the face of the Earth in that time. Eventually, they give us these monitors that let us have full view of our past. And people see that there was no Jesus, no Buddha, no Mohammed. People can see evidence of their faiths being created over time.
In the book, pretty much everyone stops believing in their respective religions. That always struck me as a little far fetched. I doubt that any amount of proof would be able to dissuade most people from their religions. But it's an interesting idea.
posted by Doug at 11:47 AM on March 27, 2002
Christians did not invent morality. Centuries before Christ thinkers like Buddha in India, Confucius in China, and Socrates, Plato and Aristotle in Greece had formulated ethical doctrines and the early Christians borrowed an awful lot from the Greeks.
Their own lives so clearly reveal
that they know their views are false
and that Christianity is true.
Comments like this are just stupid. It is equivalent to an atheist saying that deep down Christians don't really believe God and that they just afraid of uncertainty and mortality.
posted by homunculus at 11:48 AM on March 27, 2002
Their own lives so clearly reveal
that they know their views are false
and that Christianity is true.
Comments like this are just stupid. It is equivalent to an atheist saying that deep down Christians don't really believe God and that they just afraid of uncertainty and mortality.
posted by homunculus at 11:48 AM on March 27, 2002
aaronshaf - Your last comment was rather terse & I'm not sure if you were responding to me, KirkJobSluder, or someone else. That makes it hard to know what you meant by "all those things." If I was the one you were responding to, can you explain your link between "moral absolutism" and the existence of the diety? Thanks.
posted by tdismukes at 11:58 AM on March 27, 2002
posted by tdismukes at 11:58 AM on March 27, 2002
Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment.
There is one reason, and that reason is reason itself.
posted by kindall at 12:05 PM on March 27, 2002
There is one reason, and that reason is reason itself.
posted by kindall at 12:05 PM on March 27, 2002
{slowly buttons pants, looks shamefully down at 7-year-old child}
Damn you, tdismukes, and your thought experiments!
posted by hincandenza at 12:11 PM on March 27, 2002
Damn you, tdismukes, and your thought experiments!
posted by hincandenza at 12:11 PM on March 27, 2002
There is one reason, and that reason is reason itself.
Actually, that sounds to me no less empty and pithy than the aaronshaf links. As my previous comment was meant to (slyly? grotesquely?) suggest, there's a helluva lot more holding me back from raping 7-year-olds than either logic or Jayzsus. Like, oh for example, the fact that I have no desire or interest in it, and find it absolutely repulsive and sickening. I think that's what tdismukes was getting at; even absent reason or God, most people just could not do things like that. Maybe because of how we were raised, maybe because of some inherent empathy we have that makes it difficult to hurt other people when we see them as humans just like us. Logic is often just post hoc and flowery rationalizations of deeply felt, primal emotions of empathy, compassion, and protection of fellow members of the tribe.
posted by hincandenza at 12:19 PM on March 27, 2002
Actually, that sounds to me no less empty and pithy than the aaronshaf links. As my previous comment was meant to (slyly? grotesquely?) suggest, there's a helluva lot more holding me back from raping 7-year-olds than either logic or Jayzsus. Like, oh for example, the fact that I have no desire or interest in it, and find it absolutely repulsive and sickening. I think that's what tdismukes was getting at; even absent reason or God, most people just could not do things like that. Maybe because of how we were raised, maybe because of some inherent empathy we have that makes it difficult to hurt other people when we see them as humans just like us. Logic is often just post hoc and flowery rationalizations of deeply felt, primal emotions of empathy, compassion, and protection of fellow members of the tribe.
posted by hincandenza at 12:19 PM on March 27, 2002
hincandeza - That is indeed, part of what I was getting at. I was hoping to get some conversation going to take it further. Logic, as you note, often comes as an after-the-fact justification. Authority from on high most holy is questionable as I noted. However, innate empathy for other humans doesn't seem to be universally present in everybody and the gut instinct of what seems right to one person might be horrific to me. (My own sense of morality is essentially based on "do unto others, etc.") Given that any basis for morals has the potential to go off track, I like to keep myself honest by regularly challenging what I think from different perspectives. That means checking out the viewpoints of other thoughtful people who don't necessarily agree with me. I'm not religious myself, but I recognize that because most of humanity throughout history has been religious, that means that a huge amount of the thinking on morality has come from religious folk. Some of these people are pretty heavy thinkers, even if I don't agree with them on the diety(ies). Therefore, I'm genuinely interested in what they have to say.
posted by tdismukes at 12:45 PM on March 27, 2002
posted by tdismukes at 12:45 PM on March 27, 2002
Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as practical moral absolutism. Theoretical, possibly. Any discussion of moral "right" and "wrong" will quickly devolve into competing situational judgments. As one quickly discovers when contemplating a supposedly absolute prescription like "Thou shalt not kill," which even in the Christian tradition has generated all kinds of equivocation.
Or, to put it another way: moral absolutism has a bad habit of producing useless results, practically speaking, in all but a bare minimum of cases. Casuistry works rather better.
posted by thomas j wise at 12:56 PM on March 27, 2002
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as practical moral absolutism. Theoretical, possibly. Any discussion of moral "right" and "wrong" will quickly devolve into competing situational judgments. As one quickly discovers when contemplating a supposedly absolute prescription like "Thou shalt not kill," which even in the Christian tradition has generated all kinds of equivocation.
Or, to put it another way: moral absolutism has a bad habit of producing useless results, practically speaking, in all but a bare minimum of cases. Casuistry works rather better.
posted by thomas j wise at 12:56 PM on March 27, 2002
I would think history of civilization proves rather conclusively that religiosity doesnt necessarily mean a strong sense of ethics. Christianity is fraught with references to the abuse of humanity in the name of religion. So are the Eastern religions. Hindu mythologies are full of stories that are morally ambiguous. Even now, the community that builds the most expensive temples in India is the one which indulges the most in shady business practices. There are many a stories of sexual abuse by Sadhus. It just never gets talked about. Islam was incredibly harsh to the other religionists, and even to their own.
Organized religion helped in maintaining the 'law' so long as the 'church' (in a broader sense of the word) and the state were not seperate. And even now in Islamic theocracies they 'help' in maintaining the 'law'. But once you take away the power of the 'church', guilt as a motivator erordes with time. Guilt as a motivator erodes also with acquision of power. I dont think the Medicis were ever troubled by any ethical constaints, even though they were very close to the popes. Not that the popes were any better .....
I think where religion/faith helps in modern times is in giving you strength if you seek it. Some people get that strength through other means - faith in self, faith in humanity etc. Some people dont need or even seek it. But for those who do, the belief that there is a god over and beyond organized religion as practiced your peers, that looks after you and the rest of humanity is a huge boost. That faith gets sorely tested by all the injustices that you see around you every day. But in parts of the world or society where life is harsh and people struggle to survive every day, without that people dont have much left. It could be that Religion may be 'an opium for the masses', it could be that it is something that keeps you together.
I grew up in a rather religious family. Throughout my twenties I steadily moved away from that upbringing. But now I have been getting more receptive to the idea. (I guess that may also have to do with recent reversals, changes in lifestyle, marriage and other external factors). But what I always found is that arguments about the existence of God usually dont get you anywhere -when you are talking to people with diametrically opposite viewpoints -(whichever side that may be) ....
Just my two cents.
posted by justlooking at 1:30 PM on March 27, 2002
Organized religion helped in maintaining the 'law' so long as the 'church' (in a broader sense of the word) and the state were not seperate. And even now in Islamic theocracies they 'help' in maintaining the 'law'. But once you take away the power of the 'church', guilt as a motivator erordes with time. Guilt as a motivator erodes also with acquision of power. I dont think the Medicis were ever troubled by any ethical constaints, even though they were very close to the popes. Not that the popes were any better .....
I think where religion/faith helps in modern times is in giving you strength if you seek it. Some people get that strength through other means - faith in self, faith in humanity etc. Some people dont need or even seek it. But for those who do, the belief that there is a god over and beyond organized religion as practiced your peers, that looks after you and the rest of humanity is a huge boost. That faith gets sorely tested by all the injustices that you see around you every day. But in parts of the world or society where life is harsh and people struggle to survive every day, without that people dont have much left. It could be that Religion may be 'an opium for the masses', it could be that it is something that keeps you together.
I grew up in a rather religious family. Throughout my twenties I steadily moved away from that upbringing. But now I have been getting more receptive to the idea. (I guess that may also have to do with recent reversals, changes in lifestyle, marriage and other external factors). But what I always found is that arguments about the existence of God usually dont get you anywhere -when you are talking to people with diametrically opposite viewpoints -(whichever side that may be) ....
Just my two cents.
posted by justlooking at 1:30 PM on March 27, 2002
just because christianity is an alternative, it doesn't mean it's the most correct one. why single out one religion when there's no substantiation for any of them?
posted by mcsweetie at 2:49 PM on March 27, 2002
posted by mcsweetie at 2:49 PM on March 27, 2002
rape & torture of innocents is still evil
tdismukes: The answer to your questions depend entirely on what you think morality is. What does it mean to say that something is "good" as opposed to "evil"? Good and evil are just words, and like all language these two particular words are meaningless until we give them content. There are three main ways of thinking about morality (though in reality there is a lot of overlap between these three)
Option one (the hicandenza theory) is that good and evil are words used to describe our emotional reaction to certain acts. Love is good because it makes us happy. Rape is bad because we find it sickening. Unlike the rational option two (more below), proponents of a pure version of option one -- ie, people like hicandenza -- believe that logic is just a post hoc explanation of our deeply felt emotions.
The problems with a pure option one are appearant. What one person finds sickening (pedophilia, for example. Or homosexuality, as another example) another considers quite natural. Emotions are often shaped by our culture, and so basing our deeply held feelings of right and wrong solely on a transitory and possibly arbitrary local culture seems absurd to many. What makes our emotions so valuable in the first place?
Furthermore, what about the religious extremists who feel that what we in the West do is sickening and worthy of death by suicide bomber? Why is what WE feel about the bikini to take preference about what THEY feel? Well, the argument could be made that we have a right to do as we like without interference from them - but that's a mere Western ideal, one which others might not share. Which brings us back to the same problem of determining which feelings should dominate our morality. Alternatively, if it's not based simply on the Western feelings of right and wrong, then the call to tolerance and freedom is an implicit appeal to some objective standard right and wrong. Actually, implicit in a lot of the calls for "rape enrages me, so it must be wrong" is, I think, an unspoken sense that those feelings are justified because some things are just WRONG... and, therefore, objectively wrong.
Option two: rationalism. Good and evil mean simply "useful" or "not useful". This can be either "useful to me" or "useful to society at large", depending on the person doing the talking. The proponent of this view holds that rape is wrong because it causes deep psychic and emotional pain in the victim, because it creates unwanted children, because it perpetuates the dominant male heirarchy, whatever.
The problems here are equally obvious. First, for whatever it's worth - and it will not be worth much to a rationalist - this view of morality is deeply unsatisfying to many. The idea that rape would be morally acceptable if mankind was dying and needed desperately to perpetuate the species is troubling to many on a deep level. Surely, they say, there must be more to morality than this cold, impersonal logic. More to the point, morality based on this view is even more localized and transitory (though admittedly less arbitrary) than is morality based on option one. Consider this thought experiment, for example: let us imagine that Mexico considers rape to be quite moral, because they believe that perpetuating the male dominance is socially useful. Now imagine that you see a man standing on the American side of the US-Mexico border proclaiming loudly that "Rape is wrong!". He then steps two feet across that border and proclaims loudly that "Rape is natural and good!". Would the average American consider him a moral man, or a lunatic? Indeed, there is an argument to be made here that there has been an abuse of language. Perverting "right" and "wrong" into "useful" and "not useful" is so far beyond the comman usage of these words as to render them unrecognizable to many.
Option three, of course, is the theist response: morality is based upon some sort of external authority or absolute standard. Here, "right" and "wrong" mean "what God said to do" and "what God said not to do". This view of morality is not susceptible to your first thought experiment, tdismukes, because how we feel and what we think about a particular act is irrelevant. What God says goes. Many are uncomfortable with the implications of this view of morality, however they cannot deny that, unlike the other two options, this view of morality provides a firm, objective, and unchanging basis for right and wrong, and thus most closely conforms to the "traditional" view of morality.
I don't expect anyone to go leaping into the arms of God simply from reading what I just wrote, which is after all just a recap that has been stated much clearer by others in the past. I'm just saying, you have to settle on a definition of right and wrong before your thought experiments even begin to make sense. And, more to the point, they will do you no good unless the person you're trying to persuade shares your definition of morality.
posted by gd779 at 3:50 PM on March 27, 2002
tdismukes: The answer to your questions depend entirely on what you think morality is. What does it mean to say that something is "good" as opposed to "evil"? Good and evil are just words, and like all language these two particular words are meaningless until we give them content. There are three main ways of thinking about morality (though in reality there is a lot of overlap between these three)
Option one (the hicandenza theory) is that good and evil are words used to describe our emotional reaction to certain acts. Love is good because it makes us happy. Rape is bad because we find it sickening. Unlike the rational option two (more below), proponents of a pure version of option one -- ie, people like hicandenza -- believe that logic is just a post hoc explanation of our deeply felt emotions.
The problems with a pure option one are appearant. What one person finds sickening (pedophilia, for example. Or homosexuality, as another example) another considers quite natural. Emotions are often shaped by our culture, and so basing our deeply held feelings of right and wrong solely on a transitory and possibly arbitrary local culture seems absurd to many. What makes our emotions so valuable in the first place?
Furthermore, what about the religious extremists who feel that what we in the West do is sickening and worthy of death by suicide bomber? Why is what WE feel about the bikini to take preference about what THEY feel? Well, the argument could be made that we have a right to do as we like without interference from them - but that's a mere Western ideal, one which others might not share. Which brings us back to the same problem of determining which feelings should dominate our morality. Alternatively, if it's not based simply on the Western feelings of right and wrong, then the call to tolerance and freedom is an implicit appeal to some objective standard right and wrong. Actually, implicit in a lot of the calls for "rape enrages me, so it must be wrong" is, I think, an unspoken sense that those feelings are justified because some things are just WRONG... and, therefore, objectively wrong.
Option two: rationalism. Good and evil mean simply "useful" or "not useful". This can be either "useful to me" or "useful to society at large", depending on the person doing the talking. The proponent of this view holds that rape is wrong because it causes deep psychic and emotional pain in the victim, because it creates unwanted children, because it perpetuates the dominant male heirarchy, whatever.
The problems here are equally obvious. First, for whatever it's worth - and it will not be worth much to a rationalist - this view of morality is deeply unsatisfying to many. The idea that rape would be morally acceptable if mankind was dying and needed desperately to perpetuate the species is troubling to many on a deep level. Surely, they say, there must be more to morality than this cold, impersonal logic. More to the point, morality based on this view is even more localized and transitory (though admittedly less arbitrary) than is morality based on option one. Consider this thought experiment, for example: let us imagine that Mexico considers rape to be quite moral, because they believe that perpetuating the male dominance is socially useful. Now imagine that you see a man standing on the American side of the US-Mexico border proclaiming loudly that "Rape is wrong!". He then steps two feet across that border and proclaims loudly that "Rape is natural and good!". Would the average American consider him a moral man, or a lunatic? Indeed, there is an argument to be made here that there has been an abuse of language. Perverting "right" and "wrong" into "useful" and "not useful" is so far beyond the comman usage of these words as to render them unrecognizable to many.
Option three, of course, is the theist response: morality is based upon some sort of external authority or absolute standard. Here, "right" and "wrong" mean "what God said to do" and "what God said not to do". This view of morality is not susceptible to your first thought experiment, tdismukes, because how we feel and what we think about a particular act is irrelevant. What God says goes. Many are uncomfortable with the implications of this view of morality, however they cannot deny that, unlike the other two options, this view of morality provides a firm, objective, and unchanging basis for right and wrong, and thus most closely conforms to the "traditional" view of morality.
I don't expect anyone to go leaping into the arms of God simply from reading what I just wrote, which is after all just a recap that has been stated much clearer by others in the past. I'm just saying, you have to settle on a definition of right and wrong before your thought experiments even begin to make sense. And, more to the point, they will do you no good unless the person you're trying to persuade shares your definition of morality.
posted by gd779 at 3:50 PM on March 27, 2002
Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment.
Certainly, the problem is that Christianity is just one example of a mere temporary, flighty, and inconsistent human sentiment. It certainly looks like the old testament was created as a political myth to justify the conquest of Israel and the subjugation of competing tribes and the new testament came together through a relatively messy political process in which less militant gospels were rejected. (Although there is even more contemporary evidence that the last Ptolemy rose from the dead in order to reclaim the throne from Cleopatra before his army was slaughtered by a coalition of Roman troops under Marc Anthony and Egyptians loyal to Cleopatra.)
In contrast, the beautiful vastness of the universe, and the comparative value of humanity's place in it is something that is tangible, verifiable and existent regardless of whether one chooses to see it or not. So the question becomes what do you put your faith in, the temporary, flighty, and inconsistent propaganda of ruler priests attempting to make a claim to divine statehood, or in the eternal, stable and consistent universe far larger than we can imagine?
Option three, of course, is the theist response: morality is based upon some sort of external authority or absolute standard. Here, "right" and "wrong" mean "what God said to do" and "what God said not to do". This view of morality is not susceptible to your first thought experiment, tdismukes, because how we feel and what we think about a particular act is irrelevant. What God says goes. Many are uncomfortable with the implications of this view of morality, however they cannot deny that, unlike the other two options, this view of morality provides a firm, objective, and unchanging basis for right and wrong, and thus most closely conforms to the "traditional" view of morality.
Of course, the problem with this is that we are still thrown back onto option #2. First of all, you need to validate the claims to a divine law. Why is the Christian divine law promoted by radical fundamentalists valid and the divine law promoted by Ben Ladan, radical Hindus, Buddhist monks or Jains invalid? Establishing the supremacy of a certain divine law usually relies on apologetics such as Lewis's that heavily rely on both reason (the madman argument) and emotion (deep down we know what is right and wrong.)
And then you get into issues of interpretation. Acts clearly demands that members of the early Church adopt what most would these days call communism. (Or at least communalism.) In fact, this passage is one of the few places in which a person who disobeys is directly struck down by the hand of God in the New Testament. However many modern Christians ignore this commandment while insisting on Levitical commandments in regards to sexuality. Does the family of a gay son emphasize the prodigal son and accept him into their lives or emphasize the label of homosexuality as an abomination and cast him out? Do we emphasize the Old Testament conquest of Canaan as a rationale for a just war or do you emphasize Christ's acceptance of his fate as a call to absolute pacifism? Again, the details get thrown back onto individual conscience (most emphasized by Quakers) or reason (Methodists, Jesuits, etc., etc..)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:14 PM on March 27, 2002
Certainly, the problem is that Christianity is just one example of a mere temporary, flighty, and inconsistent human sentiment. It certainly looks like the old testament was created as a political myth to justify the conquest of Israel and the subjugation of competing tribes and the new testament came together through a relatively messy political process in which less militant gospels were rejected. (Although there is even more contemporary evidence that the last Ptolemy rose from the dead in order to reclaim the throne from Cleopatra before his army was slaughtered by a coalition of Roman troops under Marc Anthony and Egyptians loyal to Cleopatra.)
In contrast, the beautiful vastness of the universe, and the comparative value of humanity's place in it is something that is tangible, verifiable and existent regardless of whether one chooses to see it or not. So the question becomes what do you put your faith in, the temporary, flighty, and inconsistent propaganda of ruler priests attempting to make a claim to divine statehood, or in the eternal, stable and consistent universe far larger than we can imagine?
Option three, of course, is the theist response: morality is based upon some sort of external authority or absolute standard. Here, "right" and "wrong" mean "what God said to do" and "what God said not to do". This view of morality is not susceptible to your first thought experiment, tdismukes, because how we feel and what we think about a particular act is irrelevant. What God says goes. Many are uncomfortable with the implications of this view of morality, however they cannot deny that, unlike the other two options, this view of morality provides a firm, objective, and unchanging basis for right and wrong, and thus most closely conforms to the "traditional" view of morality.
Of course, the problem with this is that we are still thrown back onto option #2. First of all, you need to validate the claims to a divine law. Why is the Christian divine law promoted by radical fundamentalists valid and the divine law promoted by Ben Ladan, radical Hindus, Buddhist monks or Jains invalid? Establishing the supremacy of a certain divine law usually relies on apologetics such as Lewis's that heavily rely on both reason (the madman argument) and emotion (deep down we know what is right and wrong.)
And then you get into issues of interpretation. Acts clearly demands that members of the early Church adopt what most would these days call communism. (Or at least communalism.) In fact, this passage is one of the few places in which a person who disobeys is directly struck down by the hand of God in the New Testament. However many modern Christians ignore this commandment while insisting on Levitical commandments in regards to sexuality. Does the family of a gay son emphasize the prodigal son and accept him into their lives or emphasize the label of homosexuality as an abomination and cast him out? Do we emphasize the Old Testament conquest of Canaan as a rationale for a just war or do you emphasize Christ's acceptance of his fate as a call to absolute pacifism? Again, the details get thrown back onto individual conscience (most emphasized by Quakers) or reason (Methodists, Jesuits, etc., etc..)
posted by KirkJobSluder at 4:14 PM on March 27, 2002
I just want to say that "deity" is the correct spelling of the word. That is all.
Unless you meant "something that is of or like a diet". Which I doubt.
posted by beth at 4:20 PM on March 27, 2002
Unless you meant "something that is of or like a diet". Which I doubt.
posted by beth at 4:20 PM on March 27, 2002
gd779 - You're absolutely correct that the answer to my question requires some sort of common ground on the underlying meaning of morality. I do feel, however that there are more options than you lay out above. My personal view is that morality is a function of the interaction of sapient beings. If there were no intelligent organisms in the universe, there would be no morality. If there was only one sapient being in existence, there would be no morality. Morality is when you have to deal with other beings and you perceive them as real persons, not objects, and you recognize that they have all the same rights you do and should be treated accordingly. You might classify that as "emotional reaction" or as a rational theory or even as an absolute principle (though not one handed down by authority.)
My thought experiment above is still useful in the case of option 3, because it identifies the people who truly believe in option 3. If you responded yes to both my questions - i.e. the rape and torture of innocents is the right thing to do if God demands it and a neutral act if God doesn't exist, then you absolutely fall into camp three. In this case, not only will we have a hard time carrying on a meaningful discussion, but I don't want you anywhere near me, my family or anyone I care about.
I think this comes down to more than a semantic argument. I doubt we'll solve it by coining the words "frosbip" to indicate the commands of an all-powerful diety, "huljuk" to indicate the commands of a non-omnipotent authority, and "lumlum" to indicate actions that make us personally happy. I think that as humans we have some innate sense that right and wrong exist. We may not agree on what actions fall into what category or what the decision should be based on, but feeling that they do exist seems to be part of who we are.
posted by tdismukes at 4:40 PM on March 27, 2002
My thought experiment above is still useful in the case of option 3, because it identifies the people who truly believe in option 3. If you responded yes to both my questions - i.e. the rape and torture of innocents is the right thing to do if God demands it and a neutral act if God doesn't exist, then you absolutely fall into camp three. In this case, not only will we have a hard time carrying on a meaningful discussion, but I don't want you anywhere near me, my family or anyone I care about.
I think this comes down to more than a semantic argument. I doubt we'll solve it by coining the words "frosbip" to indicate the commands of an all-powerful diety, "huljuk" to indicate the commands of a non-omnipotent authority, and "lumlum" to indicate actions that make us personally happy. I think that as humans we have some innate sense that right and wrong exist. We may not agree on what actions fall into what category or what the decision should be based on, but feeling that they do exist seems to be part of who we are.
posted by tdismukes at 4:40 PM on March 27, 2002
aaronshaf posts:
"Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment."
Of course whatever moral absolutism you decide on is born of mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment. Even if you believe that a god came to earth attended sunday dinner with you and set you straight on what is right wrong and moral it would be filtered through those mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent humans. The wagons are in a circle we are ready for all the naysayers thus sayeth aaronshaf.
posted by onegoodmove at 5:47 PM on March 27, 2002
"Without moral absolutism there is no other reason to do all those things except mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment."
Of course whatever moral absolutism you decide on is born of mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent human sentiment. Even if you believe that a god came to earth attended sunday dinner with you and set you straight on what is right wrong and moral it would be filtered through those mere temporary, flighty, inconsistent humans. The wagons are in a circle we are ready for all the naysayers thus sayeth aaronshaf.
posted by onegoodmove at 5:47 PM on March 27, 2002
gd779: I find much of what you write concerning religion to be very interesting. Those who are most vocal about religion here sometimes tend to sound kinda wacky. You don't. So honestly, don't think I'm trying to trap you or anything when I ask this, BUT (you knew it was coming...): Would you rape and murder a small child if you genuinely, in your heart, felt that God wanted you to? If you had conclusive proof that it was actually God's desire, and not a mental disorder, or devil's illusion, etc..
Realize, even if you say yes, I'm not going to think you're sick or strange, or even that religion is sick or strange. I just want to understand what it's like to believe that there is a being whose will is absolute authority.
posted by Doug at 8:05 PM on March 27, 2002
Realize, even if you say yes, I'm not going to think you're sick or strange, or even that religion is sick or strange. I just want to understand what it's like to believe that there is a being whose will is absolute authority.
posted by Doug at 8:05 PM on March 27, 2002
Doug: Soren Kierkegaard (SK) wrote a wonderful book on this subject called "Fear and Trembling." He even created a phrase for the problem you raise, calling it the "teleological suspension of the ethical." Basically, SK suggests that the true person of faith would follow God's commands even if they were "unethical" because a true person of faith values his subjective truth of his relationship with God over the objective truth of morality. That an all-good God would require someone to do something that is "evil" is, of course, paradoxical and part of what SK is trying to suggest that faith itself is a paradox.
That probably sounds bizzare, but it's just too difficult to do the argument justice here. You should read the book. SK was the "father of existentialism" and also a fervant Christian. All the later secular existentialists owe a huge debt to SK as does much of modern theology, particularly the Christian existentialist movement.
His writings had a profound effect on my own Christian faith, mostly because he suggests that Christians that worry about trying to rationalize their belives with some notion of objectivity are missing the boat entirely. True faith (that is, faith that is both pleasing to God and fulfilling to us) is less about belief in the objective facutal sense and more about subjective commitment to God. This is not to say that there is no objective truth, only that it is not the truth that is important. "Knowing God" is what's important and that is an inherently subjective undertaking, just like knowing another person is inherently subjective.
SK had no use whatsoever for apologetics, because he didn't think that Christianity needed to be defended. He felt that you come to know God through personal experience and attempts to use reason to convince people of the philosophical probability of God's existence was demeaning to God. I've found him to be largely right in practice. I've never seen anyone convert to Christianity because of a particularly convincing presentation of the ontological argument.
posted by boltman at 12:25 PM on March 28, 2002
That probably sounds bizzare, but it's just too difficult to do the argument justice here. You should read the book. SK was the "father of existentialism" and also a fervant Christian. All the later secular existentialists owe a huge debt to SK as does much of modern theology, particularly the Christian existentialist movement.
His writings had a profound effect on my own Christian faith, mostly because he suggests that Christians that worry about trying to rationalize their belives with some notion of objectivity are missing the boat entirely. True faith (that is, faith that is both pleasing to God and fulfilling to us) is less about belief in the objective facutal sense and more about subjective commitment to God. This is not to say that there is no objective truth, only that it is not the truth that is important. "Knowing God" is what's important and that is an inherently subjective undertaking, just like knowing another person is inherently subjective.
SK had no use whatsoever for apologetics, because he didn't think that Christianity needed to be defended. He felt that you come to know God through personal experience and attempts to use reason to convince people of the philosophical probability of God's existence was demeaning to God. I've found him to be largely right in practice. I've never seen anyone convert to Christianity because of a particularly convincing presentation of the ontological argument.
posted by boltman at 12:25 PM on March 28, 2002
Okay, I'm going to be spouting off of the top of my head here, so take all of this with a grain of salt.
I think that as humans we have some innate sense that right and wrong exist. We may not agree on what actions fall into what category or what the decision should be based on, but feeling that they do exist seems to be part of who we are.
Precisely! We are agreed. The Christian view is more subtle than the plain vanilla theist view that I presented as "Option 3" above. To say that, "whatever God says is moral" is only half the story to a Christian. The other half lies in God's own nature, which is defined by two primary charecteristics: love and justice.
Aquinas taught that there is an Eternal Law of God which is imbedded in the very "warp and woof" of the created order. This is what is called natural law. The deepest part of this natural law comes from God's own nature, and even He cannot violate it without contradicting himself.
So you see that, in the Christian tradition, the central principles that define "good" and "evil" are objective, and not subject to change. Now you might point out that certain rules - like the prohibition against eating unclean meat - have changed with time. The answer, of course, is that certain acts are mala prohibita and certain acts are mala in se.
For God to suddenly call rape "good", then, would violate these eternal laws, and God's one limitation is that he will not violate His own nature. This is what distinguishes the Christian view of morality from the secular view: When you say that rape is wrong, you do not mean that it is socially harmful or even that it makes you angry; you mean that it is WRONG. The Christian view is the only one that justifies our shared intuition that right and wrong mean more than mere human emotions, and achieve more than simple social utility.
(As an aside, this is the reason why damnation is consistent with a loving God. When what we have done places us in an eternal conflict with the very nature of God himself, no forgiveness is possible. This is the unforgivable sin: the refusal of a person to repent of acts that put him in fundamental opposition with the just part of God's nature. Justice and evil cannot coexist, so our evil must either be seperated from God - ie, in hell - or must be paid for and expunged in a manner consistent with God's justice - ie, the cross).
Would you rape and murder a small child if you genuinely, in your heart, felt that God wanted you to? If you had conclusive proof that it was actually God's desire, and not a mental disorder, or devil's illusion, etc..
Doug: I hope that what I said above makes it clear that your question is simply nonsensical, on par with "can God make a stone too heavy for him to lift?". To call the rape and murder of small children "good" would violate the very nature of God.
What is a rational Christian to do when faced with your hypothetical? You're pitting God's sovereignty against His justice, and forcing me to chose one and deny the other. In order to obey His specific commandment I'd have to sin against His nature. I don't see how either one could be considered "obedient" to God.
But that's just a fancy way of saying "God will never do that", and your question deserves a more thorough answer than that. Fortunately, the Bible directly answers your point. You can read the story here.
On the one hand, God is sovereign, and so Abraham had a duty to obediantly kill Isaac. On the other hand, God is good, which is why He did not actually let Abraham go through with the sacrifice.
If this story is unsettling to you, keep in mind what God was doing here. The sacrifice of Isaac was intended to be an especially potent symbol, foreshadowing what Christ would do for us on the cross. God knew that he himself would one day allow his Son to be sacrificed, just as he had commanded Abraham. God also knew that, unlike Jesus, Isaac would not actually die.
posted by gd779 at 5:49 PM on March 28, 2002
I think that as humans we have some innate sense that right and wrong exist. We may not agree on what actions fall into what category or what the decision should be based on, but feeling that they do exist seems to be part of who we are.
Precisely! We are agreed. The Christian view is more subtle than the plain vanilla theist view that I presented as "Option 3" above. To say that, "whatever God says is moral" is only half the story to a Christian. The other half lies in God's own nature, which is defined by two primary charecteristics: love and justice.
Aquinas taught that there is an Eternal Law of God which is imbedded in the very "warp and woof" of the created order. This is what is called natural law. The deepest part of this natural law comes from God's own nature, and even He cannot violate it without contradicting himself.
So you see that, in the Christian tradition, the central principles that define "good" and "evil" are objective, and not subject to change. Now you might point out that certain rules - like the prohibition against eating unclean meat - have changed with time. The answer, of course, is that certain acts are mala prohibita and certain acts are mala in se.
For God to suddenly call rape "good", then, would violate these eternal laws, and God's one limitation is that he will not violate His own nature. This is what distinguishes the Christian view of morality from the secular view: When you say that rape is wrong, you do not mean that it is socially harmful or even that it makes you angry; you mean that it is WRONG. The Christian view is the only one that justifies our shared intuition that right and wrong mean more than mere human emotions, and achieve more than simple social utility.
(As an aside, this is the reason why damnation is consistent with a loving God. When what we have done places us in an eternal conflict with the very nature of God himself, no forgiveness is possible. This is the unforgivable sin: the refusal of a person to repent of acts that put him in fundamental opposition with the just part of God's nature. Justice and evil cannot coexist, so our evil must either be seperated from God - ie, in hell - or must be paid for and expunged in a manner consistent with God's justice - ie, the cross).
Would you rape and murder a small child if you genuinely, in your heart, felt that God wanted you to? If you had conclusive proof that it was actually God's desire, and not a mental disorder, or devil's illusion, etc..
Doug: I hope that what I said above makes it clear that your question is simply nonsensical, on par with "can God make a stone too heavy for him to lift?". To call the rape and murder of small children "good" would violate the very nature of God.
What is a rational Christian to do when faced with your hypothetical? You're pitting God's sovereignty against His justice, and forcing me to chose one and deny the other. In order to obey His specific commandment I'd have to sin against His nature. I don't see how either one could be considered "obedient" to God.
But that's just a fancy way of saying "God will never do that", and your question deserves a more thorough answer than that. Fortunately, the Bible directly answers your point. You can read the story here.
On the one hand, God is sovereign, and so Abraham had a duty to obediantly kill Isaac. On the other hand, God is good, which is why He did not actually let Abraham go through with the sacrifice.
If this story is unsettling to you, keep in mind what God was doing here. The sacrifice of Isaac was intended to be an especially potent symbol, foreshadowing what Christ would do for us on the cross. God knew that he himself would one day allow his Son to be sacrificed, just as he had commanded Abraham. God also knew that, unlike Jesus, Isaac would not actually die.
posted by gd779 at 5:49 PM on March 28, 2002
There's also a point to be made that what God commanded Abraham to do wasn't particularly immoral. God gave Isaac life, but He didn't owe Isaac life and he certainly didn't need Abraham's permission to take it away. God allows people to die every day. For God to order Abraham to take Isaac's life, then, would not necessarily have been particularly unjust. This stands in stark contrast with Doug's hypothetical: there are no circumstances I can imagine where God could justly order the rape of a child.
posted by gd779 at 5:59 PM on March 28, 2002
posted by gd779 at 5:59 PM on March 28, 2002
The position of the modern evolutionist is that humans have an awareness of morality because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction... and any deeper meaning is illusory.
-- Atheist Michael Ruse, philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics in the Darwinian Paradigm. London: Routledge, 1989, pp. 262-269.
posted by gd779 at 6:06 PM on March 28, 2002
-- Atheist Michael Ruse, philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics in the Darwinian Paradigm. London: Routledge, 1989, pp. 262-269.
posted by gd779 at 6:06 PM on March 28, 2002
I think that as humans we have some innate sense that right and wrong exist. We may not agree on what actions fall into what category or what the decision should be based on, but feeling that they do exist seems to be part of who we are.
Don't know many children, do you?
posted by kindall at 10:03 PM on March 28, 2002
Don't know many children, do you?
posted by kindall at 10:03 PM on March 28, 2002
what God commanded Abraham to do wasn't particularly immoral.
Going to have to disagree with you there. It is not immoral for God to kill someone, but it is immoral for a father to kill his son. In fact, I would argue that one of the top moral duties of being a faither is not killing your child. If it was moral for Abraham to sacrifice Issac (or at least intend to) than it would also be perfectly moral for me to sacrifice my hypotheitical son to God as well. I think we would all agree that human sacrifice is not a universal moral principle. The key to understanding the story of Abraham and Issac is to understand that God asked Abraham to breach his moral duty in pursuit of a higher duty--the absolute duty to God.
As Kieregaard's puts it, Abraham exists "as the particular in opposition to the universal." He is indeed a scary figure, but I think he also points the way to a richer understanding of faith that goes far beyond mere belief. Its about what you are willing to sacrifice for God, not how unshakable your conviction is that Christian doctrine is correct.
posted by boltman at 11:48 PM on March 28, 2002
Going to have to disagree with you there. It is not immoral for God to kill someone, but it is immoral for a father to kill his son. In fact, I would argue that one of the top moral duties of being a faither is not killing your child. If it was moral for Abraham to sacrifice Issac (or at least intend to) than it would also be perfectly moral for me to sacrifice my hypotheitical son to God as well. I think we would all agree that human sacrifice is not a universal moral principle. The key to understanding the story of Abraham and Issac is to understand that God asked Abraham to breach his moral duty in pursuit of a higher duty--the absolute duty to God.
As Kieregaard's puts it, Abraham exists "as the particular in opposition to the universal." He is indeed a scary figure, but I think he also points the way to a richer understanding of faith that goes far beyond mere belief. Its about what you are willing to sacrifice for God, not how unshakable your conviction is that Christian doctrine is correct.
posted by boltman at 11:48 PM on March 28, 2002
I've never seen anyone convert to Christianity because of a particularly convincing presentation of the ontological argument.
posted by boltman
thats a beauty.
This is a great, civil thread.
posted by th3ph17 at 5:41 AM on March 29, 2002
posted by boltman
thats a beauty.
This is a great, civil thread.
posted by th3ph17 at 5:41 AM on March 29, 2002
gd779 - Thanks! Your explanation above is precisely the sort of response I was looking for. Now for a follow up question, if you don't mind.
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're defining God as both perfectly sovereign and perfectly just. I assume that as a Christian, you're also defining God as omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of the universe. I understand your point that the God you've defined could not require you to perform rape and torture. Now to set up my question. I presume you can imagine a science-fiction/fantasy world where the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe was not inherently just and loving. Since you argue that good & evil are objective, I would guess that in this alternate universe you would agree that obedience to the all-powerful creator would not be necessarily the right thing to do. (Or if it's less offensive to imagine, how about a science-fiction world with no deity at all. I think I might be correct in thinking that you would still find the rape and torture of innocents to be wrong) Here's my question (or questions, I think they may all come down to the same answer.) How do you know that you are living in the universe with the deity you've defined rather than in one of these alternate universes? Do you base that belief on a subjective experience you've had (as Boltman was suggesting in his quoting of SK above) or on rational deduction? In either case, how are you more convinced than if you reached objective ethical principles directly through subjective experience or reason, without stopping at God en route? Along the same token, how are you convinced that the nature of God and his/her/its commandments are as described in your particular brand of Christianity rather than, say Hinduism or Islam?
Kindall - "Don't know many children, do you?" Great. Now you're bringing developmental psychology into it & this thread will really be all over the place. ;-)
beth - Okay, I spelled deity correctly this time. Happy?
Any non-Christian religious types want to jump in on this discussion? I'd love to hear some more perspectives.
posted by tdismukes at 7:27 AM on March 29, 2002
If I'm understanding you correctly, you're defining God as both perfectly sovereign and perfectly just. I assume that as a Christian, you're also defining God as omniscient, omnipotent, and the creator of the universe. I understand your point that the God you've defined could not require you to perform rape and torture. Now to set up my question. I presume you can imagine a science-fiction/fantasy world where the all-powerful creator and ruler of the universe was not inherently just and loving. Since you argue that good & evil are objective, I would guess that in this alternate universe you would agree that obedience to the all-powerful creator would not be necessarily the right thing to do. (Or if it's less offensive to imagine, how about a science-fiction world with no deity at all. I think I might be correct in thinking that you would still find the rape and torture of innocents to be wrong) Here's my question (or questions, I think they may all come down to the same answer.) How do you know that you are living in the universe with the deity you've defined rather than in one of these alternate universes? Do you base that belief on a subjective experience you've had (as Boltman was suggesting in his quoting of SK above) or on rational deduction? In either case, how are you more convinced than if you reached objective ethical principles directly through subjective experience or reason, without stopping at God en route? Along the same token, how are you convinced that the nature of God and his/her/its commandments are as described in your particular brand of Christianity rather than, say Hinduism or Islam?
Kindall - "Don't know many children, do you?" Great. Now you're bringing developmental psychology into it & this thread will really be all over the place. ;-)
beth - Okay, I spelled deity correctly this time. Happy?
(Darn editors. I could have been talking about diet. I mentioned the shellfish prohibition in Leviticus, didn't I? Grumble, grumble.)
Any non-Christian religious types want to jump in on this discussion? I'd love to hear some more perspectives.
posted by tdismukes at 7:27 AM on March 29, 2002
Since you argue that good & evil are objective, I would guess that in this alternate universe you would agree that obedience to the all-powerful creator would not be necessarily the right thing to do.
Brushing my teeth is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is different from doing the moral thing. If you remove God from being the benchmark for moral right and wrong, I'm not at all sure what you mean by the term "moral" any more. In that circumstance, then, it's not clear to me what the moral right thing would be. The right thing to do would presumably be to follow my self-interest.
My point is, I'm not arguing that good and evil are objective absent God. But I take it that you think they are. I'd love to know how you can show that.
how are you more convinced than if you reached objective ethical principles directly through subjective experience or reason, without stopping at God en route?
How would you get "objective" ethical principles without God? What does that mean?
I think I might be correct in thinking that you would still find the rape and torture of innocents to be wrong
What do you mean by wrong? I think maybe we should drop the use of "right" and "wrong" altogether, and just say what we mean. Do you mean, socially useful? Emotionally repulsive? Objecvtively evil? what?
How do you know that you are living in the universe with the deity you've defined rather than in one of these alternate universes? Do you base that belief on a subjective experience you've had (as Boltman was suggesting in his quoting of SK above) or on rational deduction?
Rational deduction. Though subjective experience certainly has it's place, it needs to be evaluated rationally just like anything else.
Along the same token, how are you convinced that the nature of God and his/her/its commandments are as described in your particular brand of Christianity rather than, say Hinduism or Islam?
Honestly, I'm still working on that one. I think that we can get to the existence of God fairly easily by applying Dembski's design inference to the argument about the anthropic principle. But I haven't yet managed to determine if I can go from the existence of God generally to the existence of the Christian God. Like I said, I'm still working on that. (Which, in case you were wondering, makes being a Christian kind of difficult. I have to live my life split in two; believing provisionally in Christ in my day to day life but then trying to set that bais aside when I start investigating).
posted by gd779 at 10:06 PM on March 29, 2002
Brushing my teeth is the right thing to do. Doing the right thing is different from doing the moral thing. If you remove God from being the benchmark for moral right and wrong, I'm not at all sure what you mean by the term "moral" any more. In that circumstance, then, it's not clear to me what the moral right thing would be. The right thing to do would presumably be to follow my self-interest.
My point is, I'm not arguing that good and evil are objective absent God. But I take it that you think they are. I'd love to know how you can show that.
how are you more convinced than if you reached objective ethical principles directly through subjective experience or reason, without stopping at God en route?
How would you get "objective" ethical principles without God? What does that mean?
I think I might be correct in thinking that you would still find the rape and torture of innocents to be wrong
What do you mean by wrong? I think maybe we should drop the use of "right" and "wrong" altogether, and just say what we mean. Do you mean, socially useful? Emotionally repulsive? Objecvtively evil? what?
How do you know that you are living in the universe with the deity you've defined rather than in one of these alternate universes? Do you base that belief on a subjective experience you've had (as Boltman was suggesting in his quoting of SK above) or on rational deduction?
Rational deduction. Though subjective experience certainly has it's place, it needs to be evaluated rationally just like anything else.
Along the same token, how are you convinced that the nature of God and his/her/its commandments are as described in your particular brand of Christianity rather than, say Hinduism or Islam?
Honestly, I'm still working on that one. I think that we can get to the existence of God fairly easily by applying Dembski's design inference to the argument about the anthropic principle. But I haven't yet managed to determine if I can go from the existence of God generally to the existence of the Christian God. Like I said, I'm still working on that. (Which, in case you were wondering, makes being a Christian kind of difficult. I have to live my life split in two; believing provisionally in Christ in my day to day life but then trying to set that bais aside when I start investigating).
posted by gd779 at 10:06 PM on March 29, 2002
gd779 - Thanks for the articulate response. I think I'm starting to get clearer on where you're coming from. You've turned the question around on me now, so I'll try to explain myself.
"I think maybe we should drop the use of "right" and "wrong" altogether, and just say what we mean. "
Part of the difficulty in defining words is that we just keep doing it in terms of other words. In the absence of a concrete object in the outside world to point to, it all gets rather circular. I'll try to set up my explanation from a couple of angles and when I get there you can let me know if it comes out coherently.
"I'm not arguing that good and evil are objective absent God. But I take it that you think they are. I'd love to know how you can show that."
Actually I don't think that good and evil are "objective" in the sense of being an intrinsic aspect of the universe. I don't think the universe cares what we do. In a universe without intelligent life, I think morality would be meaningless. I think morality is the limited, fallible domain of a species of limited, fallible creatures who have the capacity to recognize each other as having the same worth as we do ourselves. Evil, to paraphrase a much more eloquent writer, is when we start treating persons (other people or ourselves) as objects. Even if I believed in a god, my concern with right & wrong wouldn't stretch to the diety's commandments for the cosmos. I'm not an infinite being & the proper domain for my concerns are not those of an infinite being.
I could leave things there, where I've defined "right" as "treating other sentient beings as having the same rights, feelings & importance as we ourselves have" and you've defined "right" as "the nature and commandments of the all-powerful creator of the universe", but that would feel somewhat unsatisfying. I think that if both of us didn't have some instinct that we were trying to get at some deeper common ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd just dismiss the other as being "that odd person who doesn't know how to use a dictionary properly." So I'll try another tack.
Back when I was in college I took an ethics class from the theology department. The teacher was a jesuit priest who proposed a definition of sin that I found truly interesting, even as an atheist. God, he said, wants only one thing from us - that we be "truly human." Sin, in this viewpoint, is any deliberate act which takes us away from being truly human. The commandments are not laws that a cop is watching us to punish us when we break. Rather they are pointers to what behaviors are self-destructive to our true natures. Hell is something we create for ourselves - "instant karma" so to speak.
Obviously this philosophy requires a somewhat optimistic view of human nature - i.e. that our "truest" self is what you might call our higher nature. On my more cynical days, I'm inclined to doubt it. On my more hopeful days, though, I note that the more I live the principles that I regard as moral, the more I feel my self as being, I don't know, "right?", "whole?", "true?" Darn these limitations of language. Telepathy would be useful occasionally. Anyway, my point is that though I don't believe in an outside, objective, cosmic morality, maybe our proper morality can be found in our truest natures (as you postulate love and justice as being part of the inherent nature of God.) Or maybe, that's all just my conditioning, and "do unto others" is a just pragmatic formula for keeping us from killing each other off. What do I know? I'm just a limited, fallible human.
BTW - My questions about alternate universes have some pragmatic purpose besides just intellectual exercise. Just as every day some people come to believe in God, some other formerly devout people lose their faith. If for whatever reason, you were to ever lose your faith, I'd hate to think that you would decide that rape and torture were now perfectly ok if you could get away with it. Judging from our conversation so far, I don't think you would.
posted by tdismukes at 7:25 AM on March 30, 2002
"I think maybe we should drop the use of "right" and "wrong" altogether, and just say what we mean. "
Part of the difficulty in defining words is that we just keep doing it in terms of other words. In the absence of a concrete object in the outside world to point to, it all gets rather circular. I'll try to set up my explanation from a couple of angles and when I get there you can let me know if it comes out coherently.
"I'm not arguing that good and evil are objective absent God. But I take it that you think they are. I'd love to know how you can show that."
Actually I don't think that good and evil are "objective" in the sense of being an intrinsic aspect of the universe. I don't think the universe cares what we do. In a universe without intelligent life, I think morality would be meaningless. I think morality is the limited, fallible domain of a species of limited, fallible creatures who have the capacity to recognize each other as having the same worth as we do ourselves. Evil, to paraphrase a much more eloquent writer, is when we start treating persons (other people or ourselves) as objects. Even if I believed in a god, my concern with right & wrong wouldn't stretch to the diety's commandments for the cosmos. I'm not an infinite being & the proper domain for my concerns are not those of an infinite being.
I could leave things there, where I've defined "right" as "treating other sentient beings as having the same rights, feelings & importance as we ourselves have" and you've defined "right" as "the nature and commandments of the all-powerful creator of the universe", but that would feel somewhat unsatisfying. I think that if both of us didn't have some instinct that we were trying to get at some deeper common ground, we wouldn't be having this conversation. We'd just dismiss the other as being "that odd person who doesn't know how to use a dictionary properly." So I'll try another tack.
Back when I was in college I took an ethics class from the theology department. The teacher was a jesuit priest who proposed a definition of sin that I found truly interesting, even as an atheist. God, he said, wants only one thing from us - that we be "truly human." Sin, in this viewpoint, is any deliberate act which takes us away from being truly human. The commandments are not laws that a cop is watching us to punish us when we break. Rather they are pointers to what behaviors are self-destructive to our true natures. Hell is something we create for ourselves - "instant karma" so to speak.
Obviously this philosophy requires a somewhat optimistic view of human nature - i.e. that our "truest" self is what you might call our higher nature. On my more cynical days, I'm inclined to doubt it. On my more hopeful days, though, I note that the more I live the principles that I regard as moral, the more I feel my self as being, I don't know, "right?", "whole?", "true?" Darn these limitations of language. Telepathy would be useful occasionally. Anyway, my point is that though I don't believe in an outside, objective, cosmic morality, maybe our proper morality can be found in our truest natures (as you postulate love and justice as being part of the inherent nature of God.) Or maybe, that's all just my conditioning, and "do unto others" is a just pragmatic formula for keeping us from killing each other off. What do I know? I'm just a limited, fallible human.
BTW - My questions about alternate universes have some pragmatic purpose besides just intellectual exercise. Just as every day some people come to believe in God, some other formerly devout people lose their faith. If for whatever reason, you were to ever lose your faith, I'd hate to think that you would decide that rape and torture were now perfectly ok if you could get away with it. Judging from our conversation so far, I don't think you would.
posted by tdismukes at 7:25 AM on March 30, 2002
« Older "We're looking at this as something fun for them... | Michael Eisner realigns our moral compass Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by LinemanBear at 9:45 AM on March 27, 2002