Monday, July 12, 2010

Is there a way to criticize Christianity without assuming it?

There are a number of tangents commenters on the last few posts have gone off on, most of them interesting and worthy of discussion (I may have started a few of them myself). One of them had to do with the foundations of moral judgment. There were several claims being aired. Among them:

1. That moral judgment requires divine warrant (like a theistic God)
2. That moral judgment assumes some metaphysical standard

It seems to me that the first is a species of the second. It was unclear to me whether the atheist posters on the post were denying just 1. or whether they denied 2. as well, but it seemed to me that they were denying both--and they clearly reject the authority of Christian ethics.

All of which makes me wonder why they keep making moral judgments on Christians--and Christianity--that derive from Christian ethics.

If they want to reject Christianity, isn't it a little self-defeating to employ Christian ideas in order to do it? If Christianity is bogus, then there ought to be some other ethical standpoint from which to criticize it. If so, then what is it, and why don't they use it? And if there really is some other ethical standpoint from which you can criticize Christianity, what obligation, outside the anti-Christian's own preferences, does anyone have to accept it as authoritative?

34 comments:

Free Lunch said...

I agree with you that "moral judgment assumes some metaphysical standard" is a superset of "moral judgment requires divine warrant". I see no reason to accept either claim. I reject them because we already have enough knowledge of cultural history and comparative cultures to see that ethics have evolved over time. We have no need of the hypothesis that some god or other handed out the rules.

Of course there is a great deal of overlap in ethics, both in time and place, because communities tend to look at what their ancestors and neighbors do that work and adjust their ethical codes to improve their own society. On rare occasion we might see communities that are as close to each other as Athens and Sparta with strong contrasts in their ethical codes, but even there the contrast wasn't that great, little more than Canada and the United States. We remind ourselves of the differences, not the similarities.

I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to when you refer to Christian ethics. Are you referring to teachings that evolved during the writing of the Old and New Testaments? Are you also including the ethics that evolved later on as Greek and Roman ideas were included? I would have to say that at the height of the power of the papacy a thousand odd years ago that we might be hard-pressed to distinguish between Christian ethics and Western ethics, even though Aristotle and other pagan writers had their ideas about ethics already included by the Church.

I see ethics of Western Civilization as the superset and various religious, Christian or otherwise, and nonreligious ethics as subsets. Any or all overlap to a great degree with each other, some more than others. Even the most secular person will find a great deal of common ethical ground with believers who most strongly reject the world.

If I reject Christianity, it is not because I reject any significant portion of the ethics that are generally taught by Christian sects, but because Christianity contains teachings unrelated to ethics that are unsubstantiated and unsupportable. Doctrines of an afterlife or gods, angels and demons are not teachings about ethics. Much like Jefferson, I have a great deal of respect for the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus, but accepting Jesus' teachings does not make me a Christian.

Lee said...

> I have a great deal of respect for the ethical teachings attributed to Jesus, but accepting Jesus' teachings does not make me a Christian.

Jesus would agree.

Lee said...

Here's the part I don't quite understand...

Let's presume that the materialists are correct, for the sake of argument. There was once a big bang, lots of electromagnetic and material flotsam, entropy, and chance, and somehow life formed, and somehow that life eventually formed man, all on its own. Everything we are is a product of evolutionary processes in biology and in societal maturation. None of this was designed. There is no god. As Lennon observed, above us only sky.

So then, let's start there...

Morality evolved as a social convention because man is a social animal, blah blah blah.

Well, if morality evolved, so too did religion evolve from that morality.

If religion evolved, it must have had some beneficial effect on society, no? It was reinforced over the years by environmental and societal pressures, and you can see the evolution -- first from the spirits worshiped by primitive cultures, to the polytheism of the Hindus, Egyptians, Greeks and Norsemen, to the dualism of Zoroastrianism and other Eastern religions... and finally to monotheism and the Abrahamic religions. Clearly, the trend has been toward monotheism, considering the world as a whole.

So here's the question: why do atheists, who believe all this, hate Christianity so much?

Why does Christopher Hitchens say it is a blight on humanity, and that people who raise their children as Christians are guilty of child abuse and ought have their children taken away and placed in an orphanage?

Why is Christianity the *only* product of evolution that they despise?

Why don't they also get angry at other things that evolved?

And if we needed religion at one time, what makes them so sure we no longer need it?

None of this proves Christianity, obviously. But it does seem odd that atheists, knowing the role Christianity has played in the survival of our culture, are so angry at its adherents and so determined to bring it down.

As a matter of fact, one of my very good friends is an atheist who sees all this and welcomes Christianity, because of all of the above: he welcomes its effects on society, sees Christianity as a brake on the worst of human motives. He raised his kids in the Methodist church, and was at pains to hide his atheistic sentiments.

His strikes me as the rational course for an atheist. But my buddy is the only atheist of my acquaintance who sees things that way.

We could also talk about how, since over 70% of Americans consider themselves some form of Christian, why they think it's ethical not to be a Christian. If society determines morality, why balk when it determines Christianity as well?

Lee said...

Well... I have an theory for all this that makes sense. There are no real atheists. There are only people who try to do God's will, and people who shake their fists at God.

"Are you the first man ever born? Were you brought forth before the hills? Do you listen in on God’s council? Do you limit wisdom to yourself? What do you know that we do not know? What insights do you have that we do not have? The gray-haired and the aged are on our side, men even older than your father. Are God’s consolations not enough for you, words spoken gently to you? Why has your heart carried you away, and why do your eyes flash, so that you vent your rage against God and pour out such words from your mouth?

"...He wanders about —- food for vultures; he knows the day of darkness is at hand. Distress and anguish fill him with terror; they overwhelm him, like a king poised to attack, because he shakes his fist at God and vaunts himself against the Almighty, defiantly charging against him with a thick, strong shield.

"Before his time he will be paid in full, and his branches will not flourish. He will be like a vine stripped of its unripe grapes, like an olive tree shedding its blossoms. For the company of the godless will be barren, and fire will consume the tents of those who love bribes."

The Book of Job certainly has that latter part correct -- "For the company of the godless will be barren." Post-Christian Europe is in a demographic death spiral. Somehow, the embrace of a godless world seems to facilitate the embrace of pleasure and a comfortable life, in which children are little more than an encumbrance. The great cathedrals of European Christianity, built when Europe was confidently and unapologetically Christian, will be taken over by Islam -- whose adherents are far less well-disposed toward atheists than even the most rock-ribbed Presbyterian. And the Christopher Hitchenses of Europe will rue the day they helped banish Christianity from the halls of the intellectually self-anointed.

Lee said...

Martin,

> 1. That moral judgment requires divine warrant (like a theistic God)
> 2. That moral judgment assumes some metaphysical standard

Would you say that the first statement is presuppositional apologetics, and the second statement is Thomist apologetics?

Joe_Agnost said...

Lee wrote: "If religion evolved, it must have had some beneficial effect on society, no?"

Most definitely. This advantage helped bring a community close together and helped our ignorant ancestors feel better about the natural world. Definitely a benefit.

Lee cont'd: "why do atheists, who believe all this, hate Christianity so much?"

I don't "hate Christianity" per say. I think it's a myth not rooted in anything solid, and I hate what some people do with their christianity - but I don't "hate Christianity".

It has grown useless, but if people want to believe it that's their business. The problem comes with how some people use their religion (it's not just christianity btw - but all religion).

I hate that Ken Ham wants to make the world dumber by attempting to get his bizaar version of christianity put into public schools. I hate that Iran wants to put a young woman to death because she broke some law of religion. I hate that the RCC does more to keep Africa poor and disease-ridden with it's arcane birth control views.

There is a lot to hate about what religion is doing to the world.

Lee cont'd: "Why is Christianity the *only* product of evolution that they despise?"

It's not! I hate the worm that has evolved to eat only human eye. I hate the blood suckers that evolved to live in the lake by my buddies cottage.

The list goes on and on...

Lee cont'd: "And if we needed religion at one time, what makes them so sure we no longer need it?"

Because it doesn't answer any questions anymore. There was a time when it had answers (wrong answers, but the answers still made humans feel better). It doesn't have a single thing to say about the real world anymore. It has outgrown it's usefulness.

Lee cont'd: "atheists, knowing the role Christianity has played in the survival of our culture, are so angry at its adherents and so determined to bring it down."

Not when you realize how intrusive it is! A lot of religions are outright hostile to science. A lot of religions are outright hostile to women. A lot of religions are outright hostile to unbelievers.
That is the problem.

I don't care if you believe in god. I don't care if you go to church and donate to your local parish. Just keep it personal and everyone would get along just fine.

Lee cont'd: "I have an theory for all this that makes sense. There are no real atheists."

I thought you said it "makes sense". That statement does NOT make sense... unless you think that I really know I'm going to hell when I die and just don't care. Do you really think I just don't want to go to church or pray to god and I'm willing to sacrafice my entire afterlife on it??

Martin Cothran said...

Free Lunch,

I doubt we have enough knowledge to judge a terrible lot about the evolution of moral codes. But we certainly know that men have always had them. In fact, I'm not sure what a half-developed moral code would look like--and how it would differ from a fully developed moral code--unless there was some moral standard outside the human situation altogether, which you seem to be uncomfortable with.

All talk of the evolution of human morality, however, is completely irrelevant to whether moral codes have any authority. You could easily believe, for example, that this "evolution" was merely a development toward a greater understanding of a code that preexisted humans--rather than an evolution in terms of development of the code itself.

But the whole talk of an evolution of a moral code seems to me just a weak attempt to undermine other people's systems of ethics--always performed by people who, in reality, have their own systems of ethics that they think should have some authority over others, since they are always judging others by their own code. This was the point of my post.

Even people who claim not to have a moral code have one as evidenced by the fact that they're always trying to force it on others. People like Myers are among the worst offenders in this regard.

When I say "Christian ethics" I mean the system of revealed ethics that was revealed to the Jews, which was later joined with the practical or cardinal virtues of the pagans (which the Jews knew about too) when the culture of the Greeks and Romans fell into the lap of the Church on the fall of Rome.

If you're looking for an example of a Christian ethical stance that has no precedent among the pagans, try the opposition to slavery.

Lee said...

> It has grown useless, but if people want to believe it that's their business.

How do you know it has grown useless? By what criteria? And if all Christianity were abolished from the world today, wouldn't we need a few generations to figure out what we had gained vs. what we had lost?

Or are you making an aesthetic judgment?

> There is a lot to hate about what religion is doing to the world.

Is there anything in the world being done in the name of atheism to which you would also object? How do you feel about communist dictatorships?

>> "Why is Christianity the *only* product of evolution that they despise?"

> It's not! I hate the worm that has evolved to eat only human eye. I hate the blood suckers that evolved to live in the lake by my buddies cottage.

In addition to posting anti-Christian rants on Christian blogs, do you also post anti-worm rants on worm blogs?

Joe_Agnost said...

Lee asked: "Is there anything in the world being done in the name of atheism to which you would also object?"

Not that I know of.

"How do you feel about communist dictatorships?"

Other than the fact that they are not "done in the name of atheism", I'm not a fan of ~any~ dictatorships.

Lee cont'd: "In addition to posting anti-Christian rants on Christian blogs, do you also post anti-worm rants on worm blogs?"

I would if (a) eye eating worms were trying to get human eyes into school cafeterias and (b) if they had blogs.

I complain about religion (I know you like to keep this about christianity but it's not about that. It's about religion - all of 'em) because religion is attempting to do harm, and in many cases does harm.

As I said earlier - ~what~ you believe is of no consequence to me. I only care when your beliefs infringe on others - which happen A LOT!

Lee said...

> Other than the fact that they are not "done in the name of atheism", I'm not a fan of ~any~ dictatorships.

But isn't it true that dialectical materialism was Marx's philosophical baby? "Dialectical" in that he used Hegel's dialectical method to reason things out (thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis); "materialism" in that, well, there is no supernatural. Wasn't this the cornerstone of Marxist thinking? And don't ideas have consequences?

I accept you don't like dictatorships, but what if Christianity is part of society's defense mechanism that prevents dictatorships, or at least mitigates their more egregious manifestations? Would we know for a fact that this is not so? How?

So you don't like Christianity's intrusion into the public schools? Would you prefer school kids, along with everyone else, having to listen to Kim Jong Il's four-hour rants and applaud vigorously at every pause for fear of being denounced? Do you think the North Koreans leave the school kids alone?

Maybe you don't have a choice between Christianity and the sort of enlightened atheism you would seem to prefer. Maybe the choice is between one religion and another, or a religion and dictatorship. Perhaps such atheism is not a sound basis for establishing a moral order in a society. As I have already pointed out, it certainly doesn't seem to be the basis for a society to produce enough babies to survive. I can't think of any long-standing atheistic cultures or empires in human history, can you? Do you have a model in mind? One that, unlike Western European culture today, will be around in forty years?

> I know you like to keep this about christianity but it's not about that. It's about religion - all of 'em

I'm happy to join you in denouncing other religions. Christianity is the only one I am willing to defend.

Joe_Agnost said...

Lee wrote: "what if Christianity is part of society's defense mechanism that prevents dictatorships"

Is the pope christian?

Joe_Agnost said...

Lee asked: "But isn't it true that dialectical materialism was Marx's philosophical baby?"

This is both disputed and irrelevant. Dialectical materialism is not a synonym for atheism.

Lee cont'd: "Would you prefer school kids, along with everyone else, having to listen to Kim Jong Il's four-hour rants and applaud vigorously at every pause for fear of being denounced?"

What are you talking about? How does my wanting religion kept out of the classroom correspond to North Korea?

I went to a lovely secular high school and saw nothing that would lead me to believe it was like North Korea...

Lee cont'd: "Do you think the North Koreans leave the school kids alone?"

Strange facination with North Korea you seem to have... And no, I don't think the NKans leave their school kids alone. I think the schools in NK are much like religious schools we have in NA - in that it's all propaganda and BS.

Lee cont'd: "I'm happy to join you in denouncing other religions. Christianity is the only one I am willing to defend."

You're almost there!! We're alike in this matter, you just have one more religion to let go of...

Free Lunch said...

Well, if morality evolved, so too did religion evolve from that morality.

Correct, though not exclusively from morality. You can also trace the evolution of religion through the Testaments and the history of the Church.

If religion evolved, it must have had some beneficial effect on society, no?

It may have, at least for the leaders. Hunter-gatherer religions are much more simple and the leader of a hunter-gatherer tribe tends to be more of a peer with the rest of the tribe.

So here's the question: why do atheists, who believe all this, hate Christianity so much?

You appear to be asking about a fact not in evidence. I won't presume to speak for all unbelievers, but I don't hate Christianity. Sure, I hate some things that some people do in the name of Christianity. I hate some of the abuse that is covered up. I hate that rich TV preachers goad poor senior citizens into sending more than they can afford so the preacher can live lavishly, but its the people and organizations who abuse the trust who are a problem. No religion can show that it is correct, but that doesn't matter on a day-to-day basis.

Why is Christianity the *only* product of evolution that they despise?

All sorts of corruption and evil are results of the evolution of society, but so are many great goods. It's silly for you to assert that Christianity (not even religion in general) is the only thing disliked. It's also wrong.

I have an theory for all this that makes sense. There are no real atheists.

It neither makes sense nor is it accurate. I would be as silly to say that you really believe in leprechauns, but hate them.

Free Lunch said...

I'm not sure what a half-developed moral code would look like

Are you mocking the Young Earth Creationists and their foolish arguments against evolution?

--and how it would differ from a fully developed moral code--

Moral codes, no matter how small are moral codes. Look at a todder and his moral code. I'm glad most humans get past it.

unless there was some moral standard outside the human situation altogether, which you seem to be uncomfortable with.

I'm not uncomfortable with it, I just don't accept it without evidence.

You could easily believe, for example, that this "evolution" was merely a development toward a greater understanding of a code that preexisted humans

And some people do. I don't see any need for that claim since nothing supports it.

But the whole talk of an evolution of a moral code seems to me just a weak attempt to undermine other people's systems of ethics

Not at all. I may disagree with someone's ethics and I am willing to discuss it with them. What I don't want to do is have someone insist that they are absolutely right and that it is wrong to question their claims.

--always performed by people who, in reality, have their own systems of ethics that they think should have some authority over others, since they are always judging others by their own code. This was the point of my post.

Part of ethics is personal. Part works only if it applies to everyone. It is wise to learn the difference and help people understand why the part that applies to all of society is necessary and why personal ethics can remain personal.

Even people who claim not to have a moral code have one as evidenced by the fact that they're always trying to force it on others. People like Myers are among the worst offenders in this regard.

Everyone has a moral (ethical) code. I would be shocked if you could point to anything Myers has said that tells us that he does not have a moral (ethical) code.

When I say "Christian ethics" I mean the system of revealed ethics that was revealed to the Jews,

There's no evidence of any revelation. There is strong evidence of adaptation of other codes.

If you're looking for an example of a Christian ethical stance that has no precedent among the pagans, try the opposition to slavery.

Please show me where opposition to slavery is a Christian moral value. The Bible approves it from end to end. Christians attacked other Christians in this country in a bloody war to defend their right to keep, abuse, rape and murder slaves. I can see how some Christians came to the conclusion that slavery was evil, but I cannot see that this was either uniquely Christian or a result of Christianity.

Martin Cothran said...

Free Lunch,

I see you just totally skirted the point about a half-developed moral code. The point, of course, was that the only way to consider one moral code more "developed" than another is if one approximated some extrinsic standard better than the other.

You're the one who claims moral codes "evolved." I'm just trying to make sense how, in the absence of some outside standard, you could possibly say that one code was further down the path of the evolutionary process than the other. By what standard would you make that judgment?

Maybe you could shed some light on this for me.

Joe_Agnost said...

Martin asks: "how, in the absence of some outside standard, you could possibly say that one code was further down the path of the evolutionary process than the other."

This question might not be directed at me, but I'll give an answer anyway.

Saying that something has evolved does not mean that it's gotten 'better'. It just means that it's changed over time - but "change" doesn't always mean "better", it just means different.

Free Lunch said...

I see you just totally skirted the point about a half-developed moral code. The point, of course, was that the only way to consider one moral code more "developed" than another is if one approximated some extrinsic standard better than the other.

Humans often use developed and simlar words to say "more like us, more like our [band, tribe, city, country, society]". Rarely have we worried that there was an outside objective test, though many have claimed that such exist (and happen to show that our approach is nearly identical to the hypothetical ideal of the outside test). Humans have been using sock puppets for a long time.

You're the one who claims moral codes "evolved." I'm just trying to make sense how, in the absence of some outside standard, you could possibly say that one code was further down the path of the evolutionary process than the other. By what standard would you make that judgment?

In biological evolution, all organisms living today are equally evolved. Each population has benefitted from the same amount of time of genetic variation and filtering. Each happens to be the current survivor for the niche. Moral systems also change over time. I can say which moral systems I approve of and why. I can say why I object to others. I cannot find a objective standard of perfect morality anywhere. Such a thing has not been shown to exist.

Lee said...

> In biological evolution, all organisms living today are equally evolved. Each population has benefitted from the same amount of time of genetic variation and filtering. Each happens to be the current survivor for the niche. Moral systems also change over time. I can say which moral systems I approve of and why. I can say why I object to others. I cannot find a objective standard of perfect morality anywhere. Such a thing has not been shown to exist.

Do you live your life as if this is true?

Have you ever demanded to be treated "fairly" in some situation? Or have you ever been sympathetic to some individual or group that demands to be treated "fairly"?

And how does it affect your thinking on that, believing as you do that there is no objective standard for what constitutes fairness? So that all you are really doing is stating preferences or conventions (i.e., the preferences of society as a whole)?

Believing as you do, should you not give up any claim to argue objectively for anything being right or wrong -- since you have cracked the code and realize that there is nothing objective to argue?

If you had been a judge at Nuremberg, would you (argumentum ad Hitleram alert) have told Goering, not that what he did was "evil" in any absolute sense, but that you, the judge, simply approve of the moral standard that demands we execute him?

Does it all come down to preferences?

So now, the big one: does it all come down to *your* preferences? Are you the standard?

If not, why not?

Free Lunch said...

Of course I approve of the moral standards that I set for myself that I learned from my society. I hope to meet those standards. It would be quite neurotic to do otherwise.

I don't see what value you find in the rest of your questions. Societies have standards of ethics (morality). I can find value in those standards or hope they improve. I cannot find any evidence or persuasive arguments that ethics come from anywhere but people, either individually or in concert.

Since only losers of wars ever are hung as war criminals, I don't see the Nuremberg trials as a valuable example of ethical behavior even though we would violently agree that the Third Reich was evil.

Martin Cothran said...

What do words like "improve" even mean in any system of ethics that does not acknowledge that any evaluative standpoint has any more ultimate moral authority than any other?

Why does any system of ethics you create or that comes from whatever society you are in have any authority over anyone else?

And why are the Nazi's evil? Simply because you think they're icky? Why isn't their evaluative standpoint that you are icky equally plausible?

Lee said...

> Of course I approve of the moral standards that I set for myself that I learned from my society.

Moral standards you set for yourself. Sounds pretty arbitrary to me. If you get to set them for yourself, why bother with "society's"? And since you set moral standards for yourself, can you also set them for others? And are they obligated to follow your preferences?

Without an absolute standard, you can't even tell them they're wrong in any meaningful sense. You don't approve? Yawn. Society doesn't approve? Or is it, society doesn't approve *yet*? Why should someone who disagrees with a variable ethics system be concerned?

> ...even though we would violently agree that the Third Reich was evil.

I agree we would, but you have no philosophical basis for doing so.

And I'm willing to bet you don't live your life as if you believe morality is variable.

Free Lunch said...

Why do either of you object when I point out that morality (ethics) changes over time and varies among cultures? It might be nice if there were absolute standards of morality, but no evidence supports such a claim.

Even though there's nothing beyond society's sanction to support a moral code, that is significant. That is sufficient. Social sanction isn't the law, though often laws reflect the moral views of society at the time they are written, but the actions of members of society unrelated to laws. Examples we can see in the recent past of such evolution include the general attitude we had about women who had children while not married or our attitude toward divorce.

Our attitudes don't just change in one direction, however. Driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs was much more tolerated half a century ago. Lynchings, though illegal, were once tolerated in many areas of the country. Long before that, duels were still considered acceptable behavior long after they had been made illegal.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lee said...

> Why do either of you object when I point out that morality (ethics) changes over time and varies among cultures?

I'll let Martin speak for himself, but as for me, let's at least put to rest one disagreement between you and I: we agree that morality, at least as observed by humans, changes over time and culture.

The question is whether there is an absolute standard that stands over morality as humans perceive it, by which these changes can be judged good or bad.

Someone who would say, e.g., our culture is morally superior to a culture that cuts the hearts out of nubile virgins to appease a sun-demon, would be invoking that higher standard.

Whereas, someone like you has no philosophical basis to make such a claim. You might prefer our culture's take on morality regarding this sort of sacrifice, but you have no reason to judge it to be better.

> It might be nice if there were absolute standards of morality, but no evidence supports such a claim.

I think some evidence is to be found here:

> "even though we would violently agree that the Third Reich was evil."

Why did you say that about the Third Reich, if there does not exist some standard you hold to be higher than Hitler's?

When you embrace the non-existence of absolutes, you give up your right to make such statements and be taken seriously.

In our society, it is wrong to round up Jews, steal all their worldly goods, rob them of their freedom, and ultimately torture and kill them. In Nazi Germany, on the other hand, you could get a raise or a commendation for being good at those things. Such behavior was to be morally encouraged, because you were (their view, not mine) cleansing the Master Race from impurities, and the Jews were a particularly evil, nasty race.

Unless there is some standard that stands above American morality and Nazi German morality, there is no basis to judge one to be better and the other to be "evil".

If there is no absolute standard by which to judge good and evil, yet you persist in speaking of Nazi Germany as if it is some sort of objective evil, all it means that you have simply stipulated an arbitrary morality that you prefer as the one which Nazi Germany should have followed. But if you get to stipulate a morality, doesn't Hitler get to do likewise?

> Even though there's nothing beyond society's sanction to support a moral code, that is significant...

Are you stipulating that society has the authority to stipulate morality? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me. You ask me for proof that an absolute morality exists, but it is sufficient for you to simply announce that society's sanction is all we need? Don't you have to prove it?

And if, by the way, I were working toward a proof that absolute morality exists, its thesis would be simply that the alternative is absurd. In this discussion, it manifests itself in terms of denouncing Nazi Germany as unambiguously "evil" even though that word has no meaning if there is no absolute standard by which to pronounce it so.

We've talked about morality but could as easily discuss logic and the assumptions of science in the same manner. You demand, for example, evidence: yet we cannot prove that evidence is meaningful; we must assume it to be meaningful -- and why do that unless there is some higher meaning than mere matter? We cannot prove logic is meaningful without first accepting the validity of proof, i.e., logic. Somehow, these concepts seem to bind your discussion, but they aren't to be found in the physical world.

And as I've said before, I bet you do not live your own life as if these things are arbitrary. Please contradict me if I'm wrong about that.

Martin Cothran said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Free Lunch said...

[W]e agree that morality, at least as observed by humans, changes over time and culture.

Okay. That simplifies things.

The question is whether there is an absolute standard that stands over morality as humans perceive it, by which these changes can be judged good or bad.

Where would it come from?

Are you stipulating that society has the authority to stipulate morality? That sounds pretty arbitrary to me.

What other sources are there? Individuals can teach their societies to be better, but they cannot make their society change. Unfortunately for the world, there's not a metaphysical master class in perfect ethics.

We've talked about morality but could as easily discuss logic and the assumptions of science in the same manner. You demand, for example, evidence: yet we cannot prove that evidence is meaningful;

Evidence works. Things that work, things that are reliable are useful to science.

we must assume it to be meaningful -- and why do that unless there is some higher meaning than mere matter? We cannot prove logic is meaningful without first accepting the validity of proof, i.e., logic. Somehow, these concepts seem to bind your discussion, but they aren't to be found in the physical world.

Logic is a tool of humans. It is effective when properly used. If it is misused, it makes a mockery of understanding.

And as I've said before, I bet you do not live your own life as if these things are arbitrary. Please contradict me if I'm wrong about that.

I don't claim they are arbitrary at all. Even if I envisioned a perfect ethics, that does not mean that I assume that I am correct or that I can force it upon others.

Lee said...

> Where would [a higher standard] come from?

The same place this comes from:

> Free Lunch: "Individuals can teach their societies to be *better* [my emphasis]...."

If we can't invoke a higher standard, you can't use the word "better".

> Unfortunately for the world, there's not a metaphysical master class in perfect ethics.

The existence of an absolute moral standard is not predicated on our perfect understanding of it.

> Evidence works. Things that work, things that are reliable are useful to science.

David Hume said that we have no rational basis for expecting the future to be like the past. This would seem to imply that science is based on convention. What is your answer to Hume?

> Logic is a tool of humans. It is effective when properly used. If it is misused, it makes a mockery of understanding.

I agree logic is necessary for understanding. But faith in logic doesn't follow from your premises. Either it is a higher truth (my position), or it has to be reduced to its physical form (yours).

> I don't claim they are arbitrary at all. Even if I envisioned a perfect ethics, that does not mean that I assume that I am correct or that I can force it upon others.

Your rhetoric still betrays you when you use phrases such as "perfect ethics", when the world view you espouse doesn't support such a concept.

Free Lunch said...

I acknowledge that in ethics, my ideal is subjective. That does not mean that I don't value it. You appear to think that there is an objective ideal in ethics, but haven't shown me how you arrive at that claim. Why not show me how this works?

Lee said...

If it's okay for you to have a subjective, custom-built moral code, then why isn't okay for everyone else to do the same? Maybe honesty is highly-valued in your system, but the fellow down the street who sells used cars has a loophole in his moral code that allows him to lie when he's trying to make a living. So you make the mistake of buying a car from him, only to discover it was in a flood and has electrical gremlins that will never be fixed. You are outraged, but he sleeps soundly at night.

The question worth asking is, why are you outraged? He's only doing what you were doing: inventing his own moral code.

What is the essence of morality? I'm certainly not Aristotle or Aquinas, but here's my answer: morality is about building and maintaining good relationships.

This means, in a universe without God, it follows that morality is relative. It wouldn't even survive the death of mankind. You don't have to worry about morality if there are no relationships to build or maintain.

Morality could even be relative if God exists, if God had a different character. In Islam, for example, Allah is what we call a monadic god. Allah would have been alone until he created another being, and having done so, morality is born and would consist of the creature's relationship with his creator. In other words, Allah would be inventing morality as he goes. And interestingly, this is all reflected in the Islamic belief system. Allah is a capricious god who changes his mind. You can be a loyal, devoted worshiper of Allah your entire life, but if Allah has a bad day when you die, into hell with you anyway. Morality is whatever Allah wills, and is therefore relative to his whims.

The Christian God is not like that. The reason morality is absolute is because God comprises three distinct Persons -- Father, Son, and Holy Ghost -- who have been together always, from the beginning. Morality is a reflection of their perfect relationship, and can be summed up, as Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

Absolute morality only makes sense if Christianity is true; and, because God exists in Three Persons, an absolute morality is the only view that does make sense. Any other view is absurd, and the absurdness is revealed when those who espouse a relative morality nonetheless reflexively embrace its authority, as you have done more than once in this discussion.

Free Lunch said...

Lee,

Please don't confuse descriptive with prescriptive.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." not only predates Jesus but can be found in cultures that developed independently of the cultures that gave rise to Western cultures.

Allah is a capricious god who changes his mind.
...
The Christian God is not like that.


The stories in the Bible disagree with your claim.

Absolute morality only makes sense if Christianity is true; and, because God exists in Three Persons, an absolute morality is the only view that does make sense.

I've never heard that doctrine offered before. Which group of denominations offers it?

Lee said...

> "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." not only predates Jesus but can be found in cultures that developed independently of the cultures that gave rise to Western cultures.

So? Nobody is saying other religions and philosophies haven't been able to discover some important moral truths. They're there to see. The Golden Rule is real. It exists. It only makes sense that someone else would have noticed. But only Christianity can explain why anyone ought to feel obliged to live according to that truth.

> The stories in the Bible disagree with your claim.

Be specific.

> I've never heard that doctrine offered before. Which group of denominations offers it?

I don't think I'm overstating things when I say the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the defining tenet of Christianity. Belief in it unites even Catholics (e.g., I assume Martin is one) and Reformed Presbyterians such as myself. There are some liberal Protestant denominations that probably don't believe in much of anything (except political activism), but if a Christian church has any theology at all, it must accept the Trinity.

I think it's shocking that someone can grow up in our somewhat still Christian culture without having ever heard it. Nothing personal, mind you. Just more evidence, as if any more was needed, that our culture is going to hell, and our churches have done a poor job of educating their flocks.

No wonder people run around believing morality is relative.

Free Lunch said...

So? Nobody is saying other religions and philosophies haven't been able to discover some important moral truths. They're there to see. The Golden Rule is real. It exists. It only makes sense that someone else would have noticed. But only Christianity can explain why anyone ought to feel obliged to live according to that truth.

Please support your claim. I see no reason to accept it without evidence or a well-reasoned argument.

You asked for examples of God behaving in a capricious manner. First, we could start with the central doctrine of Christianity, that He had to kill His own Son to be able to forgive. Second, we could follow with the stories in Genesis, particularly the supposed mass murder he engaged in when he destroyed all in a Flood or His quirky decision to turn Lot's wife into a pillar of salt. Maybe we should consider whether His supposed decision to sic a bear onto a bunch of kids who were mocking a bald old man might qualify as overreacting. We could also look at the harsh laws that He supposedly gave Israel.

The God of Abraham, taught by Judaism, Christianity or Islam is said to be the same, but none of the scriptures in any of the traditions say that He

I know what the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is. I'm asking where you got the doctrine that the Triune God invented morality to get along with itself.

Lee said...

> Please support your claim. I see no reason to accept it without evidence or a well-reasoned argument.

You first. What in your world view in a universe of random meaninglessness gives evidence and argument some sort of transcendent authority to resolve our disagreement?

Free Lunch said...

What in your world view in a universe of random meaninglessness gives evidence and argument some sort of transcendent authority to resolve our disagreement?

It's not at all clear to me that you understand my worldview at all. I rely on what we can know. What else can we rely on?