Core Principles
At Grandpa’s 88th, Dad, David, John, Kathleen, Charles and I (with Evan acting as an intermittent monitor) came up with the following Core Principles for Conservatives and Progressives. We had fun creating and debating the lists. What say ye?
Core Conservative Principles
1. Limited Government
2. Maximum individual reponsibility
3. Fiscal prudence/limited taxation
4. Private ownership of property and production
5. Right to bear arms
6. Regarding the Constitution: strictly constructionist
7. Freedom of religion
8. Protection of life
Core Progressive Principles
1. Oppostion to Absolutism
2. Preferential option for the a) weak vs. strong, b) people vs. rules, c) inclusion vs. exclusion, d) peace vs. war
3. Preferrence for truth and education over established belief systems and traditions
4. Preference for community over hyper-individualism
I thought you had all decided liberals don’t have any core values? And that if they do they change too often to keep up with?
To Steve: That is the definition of “progressive” after all. And it may sound funny, but no funnier than arbitrarily deciding that principles cannot be questioned.
Back to the original post, now. I think that the conservatives have too many bullets (no pun intended). Points 3, 4, 5, and 7 are really all sub points of 1 (like the progressive has point 2a-d)
I don’t get what P2b is, by the way, because I would have expected it to be reversed.
In the end, it doesn’t make much sense to categorize people so rigidly. I tend to be a mixture of these myself. I’d break it down further to 1) Government: Libertarianism vs Socialism, 2) Philosophy: Absolutism vs. Relativism, and 3) Means: Individual vs Communal. (apologies in advance if any of these terms are too loaded)
I also find that whether progressive or conservative, all tend to have the same ultimate goals but differ in their ideas for accomplishing them. The whole idea of core, unchanging, principles at this level, therefore, is a bit silly to me.
I would sooner describe myself as a progressive because the only principle I am unwilling to change is that I am willing to change any other if it can be demonstrated to be false. But currently, my theories on the way things work would put me more in the conservative camp on categories 1 and 3 that I listed above, but progressive on category 2.
Thanks to Uncle Michael for the post. What a great use of the website.
Very interesting lists. Why is the progressive list so much shorter than the conservative list? Shouldn’t they just be polar opposites and thus have the same number of core principles? I would add: 5) The rights of the Government supercede the rights of the individual when it comes to bearing arms. 6) Loose Constructionists (which means the meaning of the constitution can change from judge to judge, place to place, and case to case). 7) Freedom from religion. 8) Choice supercedes all. (which is in contradiction to core progressive principle #2 and #4).
I think we all know which list I prefer. There are many possitive things about the progressive list that I wish we all could live by. Unfortuantaely in this world of fallible and evil humans that list is not practical. I too want to stand up for the weak, but in many cases the weak (and even many of the strong) take advantage of the system as in Federal Welfare (taking care of the weak should be done by individuals and the local Church, the government is too big and easily taken advantage of!). I would love to include everyone in everything, but not at the expense of the meaning of a word and the significance it holds to many belief systems ie. gay marriage. I would love to have peace but sometimes Nazis, Al Qaeda, and brutal dictators force our hand.
I too prefer truth, but just because a belief system has been around for a long time does not make it false. I would really prefer to live more as a community than as an individual, but this comes from my desire to find community in the Church.
My biggest problem with the progressive list is the opposition to Absolutism. We were just talking about this with some friends last night and I told them this story: I was watching a documentary about some tribes in Papua New Guinea. Two British film makers were there living with the tribes and filming their interactions. At some point in the show it came out that some of the tribes in the area still carry out revenge killings and even practice cannibalism. The film makers were uneasy about what was being revealed, but they would not call it wrong. To them it was just a part of that culture and even a part of nature (a biproduct of their evolutionary world view). This is one of many areas where I think we must believe in an absolute truth. Murder is always, absolutely wrong!
I love lists and I love debates so bebates about lists are awesome.
Love you all,
Jonathan
Me again. I would like to echo the part of Jonathan’s comment about peace and war. The appearance of “peace vs. war” in the progressives’ category might seem to imply to some that conservatives favor war over peace, which is absurd (even if some progressives believe it’s true).
And this is why I say that we ultimately have the same goals, but different ideas about the means to accomplishing the goals. As Jonathan points out, conservatives tend to believe more often in peace via war (when necessary). For a conservative, it is foolishness to presume that it takes two parties to make war. Still neither side wants to be at war.
However, I do think it’s a bit funny to say that “murder” is always absolutely wrong, since the definition of “murder” is essentially to “kill wrongly.” The question is what constitutes murder, or in other words, when is killing wrong and why?
Okay, Warren, I’ll give you the “murder” semantics arguement. I’ll rephrase. Killing an innocent human being so you can eat them is wrong…always, absolutely wrong. Agree?
Murder is not really just to kill wrongly but to kill illegaly. That is why sometimes it is murder to kill and sometimes it is honorable. In the case that Jonathan pointed out and others like it (I add abortion here), the word murder may be used but only for lack of a better term because the killing may in fact be morally wrong yet still legal.
Warren, I don’t understand your comments directed to Steve. He obviously was joking but you seem to imply that he thinks that principles should not be questioned. I would say nothing could be further than the truth. Steve is constantly questioning the status quo and if he asserts something dogmatically, I can assure you he has already checked it out.
Anyway, he was just parroting a joke made by one of the liberals on the list-forming committee when they were at the house.
This whole Opposition to Absolutism is so self-refuting that I am surprised that it continually comes up as an intellectually tenable point. I mean, can anyone be absolutely sure that there are no absolutes?
The best I can see anyone do is to say there are no absolutes –except this one.
Obviously Steve’s statement was a joke, but it can only be funny if it’s funny for one’s principles to change often. On the other hand, it’s just as funny (in a sad way) that some stick to arbitrary principles for no apparently sound reason. But if there’s an inside joke, it’s only polite to share it with everyone.
It is not a burden of someone to prove no absolutes. The burden is on the absolutist to prove any, and the nature of absolute authority makes it impossible. That is why it is absolutism (specifically the assertion that one knows the absolute) that is self-refuting. We’ve had this discussion before. It is a straw man to say that the only alternative is “no absolutes.” Any rational person accepts the absolute in the law of non-contradiction, for example.
As to killing innocent people in order to eat them, is that different from killing innocent people for other purposes? If I kill innocent children because my deity told me to, is that morally acceptable, or only if you and I share that deity?
Absolutism is not the assertion that no one knows the absolute. It seems like this is what you have stated. Am I misunderstanding your point?
Absolutism says that there are absolutes. To argue against that requires the oppsosite: No absolutes. It is true that any rational person Accepts certain absolutes. that is absolutism.
There could be a number of scenarios where killing someone for food is more noble than for another reason, say…killing someone for fun or your own personal amusement. I was using that as an example simply to stick with my previous story. There are a number of different scenarios that could blur the lines between right and wrong, but at the core of the argument there still is an answer.
As to killing the innocent at the request of your god, I guess we could get into the semantics of the word “innocent” too, but we will find out in the end whether that kind of killing would be right or wrong. Just because we don’t know the answer right now as to the morality of some actions does not mean that in the end we will not know and either be proven absolutely right or absolutely wrong. If your deity tells you to go on a murderous rampage and in the end that deity was porven to be just a figment of your imagination, then that killing was wrong. On the other hand, if that deity proves to be the true God, in the end you are justified in doing what you did because He sets all the rules. Surely you can agree with this.
Melissa, you did misunderstand. (And I’d hate to get stuck on this one aspect of the list forever). Read it again…
I’m saying that the issue is not the acceptance of absolutes. All rational people accept them. So for you to say that anyone thinks there are “no absolutes” is a straw man because no one is saying that.
The issue progressives have with your absolute is that you claim a specific absolute authority by which you make normative claims and for which they see no reasonable basis.
Jonathan, is it then a guessing game for now? He whose deity is there to greet him at death is justified and the other made a “damned” mistake (pardon the pun).
Were all the children in every city in Deut 3:6 not innocent enough? Were they less innocent than, say, those in the world trade center on 9/11? Each were killed by men following orders from deity.
The “opposition to absolutism” that Michael lists on the progressives’ side is just this. It is not opposing the idea that there is absolute truth or absolute authority. It is opposing your arbitrary claim to it.
Yes, it is a guessing game. But it is not a blind guess. I see what you are saying now about the progressive point of view, but while on earth we do have to decide which truth to follow based on an educated guess of who will be there to greet us in the end. We still have to choose sides. It’s a copout to say “well, since we cannot be sure whose god is real then we should not subscribe to any particular absolute truth.” That is what I was saying about the British film makers. They refused to call that action wrong even though they knew deep down it was. They would not choose sides based on moral relativism.
In many ways the Islamic Fascists should be forcing the Athiests to choose sides between two gods they do not believe in. Instead many of them refuse to choose sides based on moral relativism. They say “its OK in their culture or religion or whatever makes them different from us.” Some liberals have chosen sides – the side of the Islamic Fascists. Not because they believe the same thing but out of pure political ideology. They rationalize that defeat for America is a defeat for Bush, Republicans, and Conservatism, so they gladly pull for Islamic Fascists.
An arbitrary claim in itself.
I meant that to follow Warren, not Johnathan.
Maybe we should come up with a list of principles both groups share. Like I said earlier, I am a conservative, but I like progressive principle #4 and I like aspects of 2 & 3.
It might be an arbitrary claim. Maybe Uncle Michael will clarify just what he meant so we will see whether Warren’s claim is correct. I see a couple of different meanings being used for absolutism.
It could mean:
Belief in a certain thing or things that simply are.
Or it could mean:
Tendency to believe things simply are that only may be.
Or maybe he meant something else altogether.
The progressive list looks very general and distilled and yet the conservative list looks very particular. Does anyone else notice that? Why is that?
Melissa, which claim of mine is arbitrary?
Jonathan, yes you have to decide, and I have to decide and each individual must decide. This is why freedom of religion is important. But why should you decide for me or vice versa? Yet this is exactly the question being asked.
The problems with your notion of absolute right and wrong are that they are based only on your own notions, even if they are notions about what God says, they are still your personal beliefs of what God says and not even shared by all other believers. Even if the more obvious issues are mutually agreed upon by believers, non-believers agree on those for other than religious reasons, anyway. So I still fail to see the value of using your version of absolute authority as a basis.
However, it is not difficult to see the danger in doing so. The same authority which you use was also used in support of things like slavery and witch burning. It is being used now to prevent a cancer vaccine from being administered to teens because it might promote sex. Those following the same authority slaughtered children in the Old Testament. So why should people not be dubious of attempts to use it as a basis now?
And the same argument you use is also used by Islamic Fascists but with a different (sort of) absolute authority.
I believe that the reason the two lists appear uneven is because P2 has sub-points a-d, whereas arguably C3, C4, C5, and C7 should be sub-points of C1.
“It is not opposing the idea that there is absolute truth or absolute authority. It is opposing your arbitrary claim to it.”
In order to make that statement, and really, I agree that Michael might just chime in and speak for himself, I can say, “I believe this is absolute”, and you can say Your opinion is what we should all live by. Even if your opinion is that no one should judge another (I am NOT saying it is, just for example), You still claim arbitrarily the right to make a moral proclamation that you believe all should live by.
I was simply responding to some misplaced finger pointing.
Warren, it is an individual choice, but it is a societal choice as well. That is where the battle comes in. Do we want our society to be based on moral ralativism where anything goes because what’s right for one person is not always right for another? The reason I think moral ralativeism is a copout is because those who subscribe to that belief proudly say they are not making judgements or saying what is right or wrong because they have not chosen sides. In the words of Rush (the band, not the talk show host) “if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.” I believe that by choosing to turn a blind eye to what an individual or socitey does is making the choice to say its OK. Back to the British film makers. By implying to the tribes people that it was neither right nor wrong, they were basically saying it was right.
Exactly what I am saying. You can say “Every man decide for himself”, “live and let live”, etc… but that is still a point of view that you think is correct. True. Absolute.
In the end, no man is an Island and what you decide DOES affect me and what I decide DOES affect you-so to say, “So I still fail to see the value of using your version of absolute authority as a basis” as Warren has said, only can be applied if we agree to take something else as an absolute authority. There still will be absolute authority. Or else there will be anarchy.
And Warren, as to the Guardasil vaccine, it has huge potential potential physical health problems. I realize that was not your point but it could be true that it may promote more sex which would mean that of the thirty known strains of Cervical cancer, (Guardasil only attacks four) more people will be exposed to the other 26 strains. so, if it does promote more free sex, it may be do more harm than good.
It is really just a cash cow for Merk.
Melissa, I still don’t understand your “arbitrary” accusation. I made a logical case for why your “belief” of some absolute authority is not to be confused with “proof.” So where have I arbitrarily claimed anything? I’m not advocating forcing some belief of mine on you, except perhaps the law of non-contradiction. It’s hardly arbitrary to require that you not contradict yourself in order to be taken seriously. So what’s left?
Jonathan and Melissa, your characterization of what you call “moral relativism” is a straw man. I suggest no such things. And besides that, neither of you offer support for your claims that “anything goes” is the only alternative to rejecting claims to an absolute authority.
A society, especially one governed at the consent of the people, operates on a set of rules which are an agreement among the people (i.e. laws). These laws when applied equally are designed to make life better for all within the society.
Therefore, there can be (and is) a logical reason that stealing, for instance, is illegal. Not just because God said so, but because the society recognizes the logical conclusion of the alternative. This is, likewise, true for all types of laws, such as murder, fraud, perjury, assault etc. And therefore it is possible to have laws (i.e. not “anything goes”, not “anarchy”, not “every man decide for himself”) without the need to invoke an absolute authority, but instead by using simple logic.
Even not-so-obvious laws are derived from this. If it is mutually agreed in a society that prostitution or gambling or even alcohol is bad for the society, then the society may agree to outlaw it.
So the laws have relative basis in that the laws are made for a society in the context of a society and so are relative to (derived from) that society.
Aside: What you say about the vaccine, is probably true, and helps make my point. There is a logical reason to oppose the vaccine outside of religion, yet religious concerns are still the reasons, so often given.
Warren,
I think you are proving something I did not say. You do a lot of arguing on behalf of other people and just plain arguing. I hadn’t noticed that you were “proving” anything.
If you want to tell me to have my belief an not bother yours, then you are judging as well as trying to inhibit my ability to practice my belief. How it ends up playing out, and why it causes such a fuss is that your belief that My Belief Should Not Affect You means you effectively place my beliefs subject to yours.
It seems, then, that the choice you would leave us with is that your opinion (in this case, it is unclear to me if you believe that there are no moral absolutes or if you are just arguing that case on behalf of someone else) is the only rational choice and therefore we should apply our beliefs only insofar as they corrospond with your stated views. Otherwise we are “arbitrarily” setting a standard. What I don’t get is why you don’t see that any standard is arbitrary unless there are good reasons for it. My reasons may come from the Bible, yours from your own infinite wisdom but either way, how they play out is testable.
I would never say, “You have to listen to me because it’s in the Bible” unless I were talking to other Christians. I DO, however make my decisions in accordance with the Bible myself and would not obey a law that forced me to do something that the Bible said was sin. I do not believe Homosexuality is Biblically moral but if I were to argue against it, I wouldn’t use a Bible verse, I would use a proof; that said, if you out-prove me in a debate, I would not change my position because I believe that the Bible is the Inspired word of God. I have good reasons for that as well. And they aren’t my arbitrary feelings.
Incidentally, I don’t think that either Johnathan OR I made any points based solely on the Bible or even hinted that everyone must do so. Maybe you need to take down YOUR straw man. All we said is that there are MORAL absolutes regardless of whether it is politically correct to say so and we all know it, including you.
As to your aside: so what?
I agree that we are not at a point in our society where anything goes, but like I said before we are in a battle to keep society from moving in that direction. There are many cases where the ACLU has done things like supporting the North America Man Boy Love Accosiation based on their hatred of those who want to make any kind of moral judgements on individual behahior. To me they are promoting an “anything goes” society as long as people are not physically hurt by those actions.
As a society I think there should be open debate about what kind of behavior is morally reprehensible. Just because I believe that our moral compass should be based on the God of the Bible does not mean I should not try to get the society I live in to adopt some of those beliefs. If society keeps going the progressive’s way life for me will still go on and I will still hold to my beliefs, but it will be bad for society in my opinion. So why not fight for what I believe?
Quoting Melissa:
But Jonathan did, in a way, because he said, essentially, that we have to decide as a society which god to follow (or at least decide on some absolute authority). And you backed him up by agreeing and stating “There still will be absolute authority. Or else there will be anarchy.” And your choice of absolute authority (both of yours) is clear.
But your “anarchy” statement is false as I’ve demonstrated, unless you are meaning to claim that “logic” is just another absolute authority based on my opinion, which would be patently absurd.
I think that your previous comment was written prior to the one I posted just before it which answers several comments before you made them.
I’ve hardly stated an opinion (as you point out). I’ve instead only shown a logical alternative to yours, which I’ve demonstrated as illogical.
Yours is essentially based on nothing but your belief. You can characterize that as absolute, but from a logical perspective, it is only as absolute as your opinion. On the other hand, what I continue to present are logical arguments based on logical conclusions from tenets upon which we already agree.
You are really reaching…
…Must be to pick more straw
Melissa, both you and Jonathan not only continue to assert that a specific absolute authority as a basis for what is right and wrong, you assert it is the only means of making that determination. And you make the assertions in the context of legality (rules for a society). How is this a straw man?
On the other hand you repeatedly make absurd statements about what you’ve named “moral relativism” and attributed to me. I’ve now illustrated how what you call morals can be derived from logic and does not result in anything resembling your characterization. So now which is the straw man?
“If society keeps going the progressive’s way life for me will still go on and I will still hold to my beliefs, but it will be bad for society in my opinion. So why not fight for what I believe?”
I like that statement, Johnathan.
We may base our “core values” on a belief system that includes God. What do you care? Everyone bases their Core values on something and to say that it is more “logical” to have another view may be totally untrue; it depends on the view. I don’t think you have made your case, Warren, that my view is illogical. In fact I have only presented logical reasons. It is not enough to point out people that have my belief system that say things that are illogica. YOU on the other hand, seem to disagree on the basis that “A society, especially one governed at the consent of the people, operates on a set of rules which are an agreement among the people (i.e. laws). These laws when applied equally are designed to make life better for all within the society” and that this is somehow logically superior. Anyway the ONLY society that operates this way IS one that is governed at the consent of the people. And the only reason it works as well as it does is that there is a moral compass that MOST people have. If the compass changes, morality doesn’t, and, as Johnathan pointed out, it will be bad for society.
Everyone wants to legislate morality and I never capitalized the words “absolute authority” for a reason.
Daniel,
Yes, I too, noticed that the core values of the conservatives were too specific. The right to bear arms is not the core value, for instance; there is something more basic than that that causes it to become important.
I think that the reason the liberal viewpoints are more vague is that they need wiggle room to keep up with political correctness. [wink]
I like to say my core Political values are the following:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Without the Creator, would we have in alienable rights? Or would it just be up for a vote?
I don’t. I continue to only assert that it is not is illogical to use it as a basis for legislation. If you don’t mean to assert that, then we can forget about it because I am only arguing against this, specifically.
And your entire last comment is a misunderstanding of mine. I am only showing how it is possible to have what you call “morality” without appealing to an absolute authority for it. That was my only goal, because it disproves what both you and Jonathan said, which was that an absolute authority was required.
But then I also pointed out, additionally, that absolute authority does not even add value because even others who claim the same authority do not agree on what the authority says. This is because the concept of using absolute authority for a basis is fallacy due to the paradox of absolute authorities which I’ve explained a couple times.
Sorry, Warren, the more you say, the more relativistic you sound. I haven’t heard you PROVE anything, logically or otherwise as far as why your system is more logical than mine.
You say:
“I’ve now illustrated how what you call morals can be derived from logic and does not result in anything resembling your characterization.”
No, you haven’t.
If I haven’t proved it in my illustration, then please explain which part of the illustration you disagree with. It starts with “A society, especially one governed…” and ends with “So the laws have relative basis…”
I quite clearly explain that morals as you’ve described can be derived using logic and I explain how logic is used. Which part do you have a problem with. Do you not agree that the logical consequence of legalized stealing (for example) is detrimental to the members of a society?
“I’ve now illustrated how what you call morals can be derived from logic and does not result in anything resembling your characterization.”
I do NOT see that you have done that at ALL!
I see that your idea of logic seems to simply boil down to “What can the majority of us agree to be happy with?” That is not morality and can never be.
Your comments all seem to have to do with which legislation we should put in place and nothing to do with whether or not a thing is moral. The only times you have hinted at a moral argument is when you shave sounded most relativistic. and THAT is the most ILLOGICAL reason for the existance of morality I have ever heard at it’s extreme and even at it’s non-extreme it is still illogical.
I think you will have to state your view of morality and how you have come to that conclusion for your “proofs” to make any sense.
Not to the thief.
Look, I prefer to call it Relivantism or is it irrelivantism? Oh shoot, I’m being rude again with an inside joke. Please email me at steve@missmanners.com for details on the inside joke. I am currently in inside-joke-etiquette reform school’s 12 step program and I am afraid I have fallen off the wagon. I can’t get past step 1: this higher power/absolute authority thing!
Your inability to see it is irrelevant. I’d be more interested in your ability to explain what part of my demonstration is invalid rather than to state that it’s false because you don’t understand it.
My logic does not boil down to “What can the majority of us agree to be happy with?”
Why would my comments have anything to do with proving a thing is moral? Who cares. My point has been from the beginning that what you called morality can be derived logically without the need of an external absolute authority. Hence the illustration.
It is not achieved by a “majority” and so i never said it was. Instead it is the logical derivation of “what is beneficial for a society as a whole.” I did not say that a majority always acts in its best interest. It doesn’t, but that’s not relevant.
You see, I’m not dealing with “ought” and “should” but with “is.” Stealing is detrimental to a society whether or not you “ought or ought not” to do it, regardless of whether or not it benefits the thief (responding to your silly joke). If that is a correct statement, than there is a logical basis for what you said could only be based on an absolute authority. This makes your statement false.
I don’t think I can explain it any other way. If you don’t explain an actual error in logic, then I don’t understand why you don’t understand.
I did not say your views are false. I have no clue what your views are except that I am pretty sure they are anything but what you were raised on (for whatever reason). I said, in response to your continued assertations that you ‘demonstrated’ this or ‘illustrated’ that that, in fact, all you did was make statements as far as I am concerned.
As to the continued implication that it is illogical to base any views on God, despite the fact that I have only stated that as a fact but Not Once given it as a reason in support of anything (ie I never said that abortion is wrong because God said so; it is, but that hasn’t ever been my argument), It can be completely logical and sound if there are good reasons for doing so.
The straw man you continue to build is to misrepresent my position with statements like, “you…not only continue to assert that a specific absolute authority as a basis for what is right and wrong, you assert it is the only means of making that determination.”
I KEEP SAYING that I haven’t done this. I take issue with your use of the word Only. I believe the Bible to be true, yes, but I believe that BECAUSE it is true and because God is a LOGICAL being, that when I say stealing is WRONG, I can support it with logical, common sense arguments.
To say, in the first place that stealing is WRONG is to make a moral statement. You HAVE used moral language all over the place. ( yes, yes, I know, in this case you said ‘detrimental to society’, but I say that only matters if it is morally wrong to be so and before that you used it as an example of a moral principle demonstrated by logic) And I have definately NOT seen any logical arguments by you to support morality. Only assertations that you have them. Just because something benefits a community certainly does not make a thing moral.
So here is why I think your ‘morality is logically explainable’ argument would break down at some point: Make your assertation. in this case ‘stealing is wrong because it is detrimental to society.’
Now I will respond “Why is it wrong to be detrimental to society?”
What will you reply with?
Whatever it is, I will continue to ask why until you are forced to say, “because” or “it just is” or “everyone knows it” or “its obvious” or something along those lines. Logically, you run out of reasons. Then this argument that morality can be logically explained without God will be shown for what it is. RELATIVISM. You say we aren’t being logical but Isay we are ahead of you in the logic game. That is where and why it keeps coming up. Notice that I just used MORALITY as A LOGICAL EVIDENCE for God!
And, in defense of my faith, if it can be demonstrated to be logical (and I believe it can) to believe in God, the Bible as his infallible word and His Omniscience, then it would be patently ILLOGICAL to hold any postion that contridicted it.
You might not find it compelling, regardless of its truth but then that hasn’t been my argument anyway.
btw, I keep using the caps to emphasize my points. I would use and underline or italics but I don’t know how. I don’t mean to shout.
To the lively, witty and informed repartee I will add this about “opposition to absolutes” (progressive principle #1) For me, this principle does not deny that there are absolutes. Nor does it deny that we can apprehend them. The principle makes no claims, ontological, epistemological or otherwise, about the category.
Obviously Absolutes exist in the minds of some. My point is that I find them to be of limited value. They have often been invoked, throughout human history, in the service of justice and goodness, but they have also been used to advance harmful, even cruel ends.
When it comes to making moral decisions in real life, I have to think. I can’t just invoke some absolute. I have have to cosider outcomes, consequences and motives. And even after I’ve done all that, I can’t always be sure (especially regarding the big questions such as war, for example) that my actions are just.
Moral codes, such as the 10 Commandments, can be a valuable part of that process, but just as judges are charged with the interpretation of laws, so, moral agents must take moral codes and apply them to real life where, in my opinion, very little is truly absolute.
In other words, absolutes, all by themselves, are absolutely useless.
Warren,
I think what we have here is a failure to communicate. You have boiled you argument down to – “what you called morality can be derived logically without the need of an external absolute authority.” I’ll try refute that argument only.
It is true that societies can achieve some kind of morality on their own, but we don’t always get it right. Since I believe that I have the truth based on my God then it would be foolish for me not to strive to have the rules of the society I live in be based on that belief. It’s the same argument for evangelism. People ask why I want to tell people about Jesus. “Don’t evangelize the natives because then their religion and part of their culture will be lost” they say. In my mind I have the truth that will save them, so why would I not tell them about it. In the same way I would be an idiot to say I believe something, but don’t believe it enough to think we should all not benefit from its truth. I don’t want to force my beliefs on anyone (trying to force someone to truly believe something is a waste of time anyway) I simply am so sold on God and His Word that I think society will benefit from being rooted in that truth.
Part of the confusion is that in the comment spamming, comments seem to be overlapping, so I’ll keep my own comment rate to no more than one per day.
Again, Melissa, I have not said that stealing is “wrong” because it is detrimental to society, only that that this is a logical reason for prohibiting it.
This is what I’ve been saying. One need not say something is moral (or even right or wrong) in order to make laws and so one does not need ANY absolute authority to make laws.
But in response to me calling into question the value of absolute authority, you appear to respond by saying that the alternative is anarchy:
But now I see that what you are attempting to say is not that yours is the only absolute authority but that there must always be one in order to have laws. SO I APOLOGIZE. But, I do continue to assert that what you have said is also false. Both you and Jonathan seem to disagree on the grounds that without the absolute authority all men will do as they please.
This is not correct. I offered a demonstration of this, which you rejected because I hadn’t proved morality. However, proving morality is not necessary. I proved that the same laws which are derived from morality can be derived without it, and without an absolute authority, by using simple logic.
I have not replaced the absolute authority with any other absolute authority as you had asserted is necessary. So if you deny that my illustration is proof of this, you have to show how I have made a logical error or where I have invoked an absolute authority.
Jonathan appears to agree on some level:
Jonathan, the second part of my point is that invoking an absolute authority doesn’t change that. For instance, supporters of slavery supported their position (however dubious) with the Bible.
I also disagree with the rest of the comment, because laws are, by nature, limiting. The more law, the more limits. So if God’s law is your law and you live by it, then why do you care about society’s laws if they do not interfere with your observance of God’s? And more importantly, how is it not forcing your beliefs on someone to make your God’s laws, their laws? And how could you blame the Taliban for doing the same thing?
Your last line is interesting: “I simply am so sold on God and His Word that I think society will benefit from being rooted in that truth.” You say “society will benefit” which seems to me to indicate that we are using the same test to determine the value of a law.
Warren,
YOU said that you could logically prove morality. (“I quite clearly explain that morals as you’ve described can be derived using logic and I explain how logic is used. “) I only am saying that you didn’t. I am also saying that to continue boiling your argument down requires that we accept YOUR morality that what’s best for society is the right thing to do. I agree with that moral judgement. The problem arises because I do not think you have any basis for claiming this truth without morality and morality cannot be explained without God (Absolute Authority, capitalized this time.)
Here is why I keep saying your argument smacks of moral relativism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism
Also, read Johnathan’s argument again. You continue to mischaracterize it. The Taliban spreads its religion by force and J. spoke specifically to the uselessness of that. J. has not even hinted at a dictatorship of any kind that would enforce his religion. He has only stated, as have I, that he believes that the Biblical principles, correctly applied, are not only beneficial to society but true morality. His approach is to vote toward this effect as well as to attempt to persuade (without force). You asked a question in your second-to-last paragraph and answered it with your final paragraph.
Actually, I would say, and my guess is that so would J., that true morality cannot be achieved by a non-believer anyway.
Uncle Michael,
I think I understand what you are trying to say but I also think you contradict yourself. You are decribing a sort of situational ethics, are you not? This said, I will base my comment on that interpretation.
To say that you can’t just use absolutes simply on their own is, naturally true. But on what do you base your careful thinking? My guess is that it is an Absolute, or at least something you deem to be an absolute. Otherwise your thinking would have no structure or meaning.
#1. Opposition to Absolutes should instead be described by another word, perhaps?
It is opposition to “absolutism” not absolutes. But since this is Uncle Michael’s I’ll let him explain the difference.
Now in response to your response (etc.):
I do not intend to, nor have I ever intended to prove “morality.” Morality is, by definition, normative (or prescriptive), so it cannot be proven descriptively. My point is to show that your apparent definition of morality is a useless concept. That’s why my exact words were “morals as you’ve described.”
You “KEEP SAYING” that “right” and “wrong” are not limited to your specific absolute authority, but then you say one cannot achieve morality without your specific absolute authority. How is this not a contradiction?
My point so far, is that absolutism, and any definition of morality based on it, is “absolutely useless” (to quote Uncle Michael). My demonstration is meant to show that a society can agree to prohibit stealing on either A) the grounds of morality or B) on the grounds that such an agreement is mutually beneficial to its members. And I further assert that there is no case where a law is “moral” but not mutually beneficial.
Either this is true or false. Let’s examine each:
If false, then there must be a case where a law is based on morality, but is not beneficial to society. Therefore legislating by morality is, by definition, not always beneficial to a society.
If true, then why should the members of a society consider morality if they are already considering what is mutually beneficial to them (as this would already cover morality and has the added benefit of benefit).
I’m not saying that my way is “right” or that you “ought” to do it my way. I’m drawing logical conclusions out of what we appear to already agree on. I don’t think I’ve used any such normative terms throughout this discussion.
So answering the rest of your claims:
From the wikipedia article: “Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth.” However, I provided a rather specific standard. Still, what I argue is certainly “relativism” in that what is best for a society depends on the society. I have NOT said this makes it “moral” which is another reason this isn’t “moral relativism.” This is why “smacks of” doesn’t mean the same thing as “is”.
Jonathan only spoke of the futility of forcing people to believe. His statement does support legistating religious beliefs. And he’s previously admitted those beliefs are guessing (whether blind or not).
The Taliban did not “spread” its religion by force. It merely took control of the state, which forced every citizen to observe every ordinance of their version of their religion. It was not enough for the Taliban to simply follow the ordinances of their religion, themselves, they required all to follow them. So I did not mischaracterize him because he said, “…it would be foolish for me not to strive to have the rules of the society I live in be based on that belief.” This is exactly what people fear! Yet, still, my purpose was to point out the fact that one could live in societal anarchy while still following God’s law, himself. And if that’s true, then I suggest that the real reason we agree to laws is for the mutual benefit that those laws provide, and not because God said so. In fact, Jonathan states the same goal (mutual benefit). So my argument is that to strive in such a way would indeed be foolish.
I also have an issue with any “approach… to vote toward this effect.” This only exchanges one method of force for another. Even if the majority shares a religious ordinance and votes to legislate it, such a thing still forces the minority to observe it regardless of its benefit or detriment to them. If observing a particular religious ordinance happens to be beneficial to the society as a whole, then let that be the reason to support it. Otherwise, what else is a valid reason to force others to observe your religious ordinances?
To be fair, I don’t see where Jonathan advocates the voting approach, anyway.
Again, I quote you:
”I quite clearly explain that morals as you’ve described can be derived using logic and I explain how logic is used. “
“as I’ve described” means that you can explain the morals that I have decribed with simple, UNIVERSAL (key word here) logic. It may be that we all want what is best for society. It may not be. It certainly isn’t universally the case.Regarding the Taliban thing, Johnathan can certainly defend his own argument but really, mirroring your statement:
To be fairER, I don’t see where Johnathan advocates the “take control of the state” approach, either. That is a pretty strong accusation on your part.
I would guess that every single voting person here votes based on a belief system. That is why we vote. We are not talking about legislation forcing people to pay homage to God or tithe or even to pray. We are simply talking about voting your values of morality. For instance, I would vote against a law to allow abortion on demand. Why? because I know that it is a scientific fact that from the moment of conception that zygote is a human life. Why does this matter? Because I value life. Why do I value life? Because I believe in God and the morality of the Bible.
Frankly, I don’t know on what grounds anyone, without absolutes, can EVER (I am not talking about the gray areas here) say human life is valuable without an Absolute standard of some kind. I mean, if it is not morally wrong then why not murder if you can keep from getting caught? And, what right should anyone have to tell me not to kill –except my victim? And why do I have to listen to him? I know, “what’s good for society. Blah, Blah, Blah…” What do I care about that if there is no God? Survival of the fittest, after all.
Your “If true” statement is a question. And my answer is that ALL legislating is SOMEONE’s Idea of MORALITY. That is what legislating is for. Even stop signs are there to help the community and protect life. Why? Because life is precious. Why is life precious? Because it is good for society? No. Because that is how you feel? No. Because it is logical? Again, NO!
So your position is seriously that your idea of morals are not necessarily beneficial to society?
I have no idea what “UNIVERSAL logic” means.
Jonathan said, “…it would be foolish for me not to strive to have the rules of the society I live in be based on that belief.” Is the state not governed by the rules of society (laws)? If you base the rules on your belief, then your belief controls the state. The difference between the Taliban and Jonathan’s statement is the Taliban used military force. From the perspective of a minority, control is control whether forced by coup or by votes. The method is irrelevant, as you might agree should the majority in this country ever vote to impose Sharia on you.
More accurately: your interpretation, thereof. And such is suspect since the God of the Bible (strictly interpreting) does not appear to value life. So if someone else decides to interpret Deut 3:6 as strictly as, say, Genesis 1, then killing children is within the morality of the Bible as long as they are children of your enemies. Am I saying this is right? No, I must be a silly relativist who thinks that such a policy is bad for society.
And this is the crux of the matter. Here I provide the description of a system which is based on logic and by definition is mutually beneficial to society. You propose that your system is based on some absolute, where in reality it’s based on your own faith essentially your guess at what’s “right.” “Myth of moral neutrality” indeed. I say the “Myth of moral absolutes.” There’s nothing absolute about them. It’s every man does that which is right in his own eyes (making sure to find scripture with which to justify it). I’m not saying you do this, but many have on the basis of their notion of moral absolutes. So, absolutely useless!
Logic is the basis of reason and is absolute. To deny this is the definition of irrational. I use logic to conclude rules based on the assertion that we both want what is beneficial for society. And now you say “it may not be?” Are you really unsure if you’d like to benefit society? Then, I rest my case…
…almost. Let me respond to the remainder of your claims.
So you can’t see how a policy of valuing human life can be beneficial to society?
(I almost forgot that all atheists are murderers). What’s disturbing to me is that the only thing stopping you from murder is the sixth commandment. Either that, or getting caught, presumably by authorities which are upholding the mutually agreed upon rules of society which recognize that it is beneficial to prohibit murder.
It is absurd to think this principle applies only to individuals and not also societies. Why wouldn’t you think that the prohibition of murder might give a survival advantage to a society (over one that murders freely)? What would be your guess on the percentage of individuals which rely on their societies for survival?
I don’t think anyone who’s looked at the tax code could say that with a straight face. Seriously, though, taxes? We do need some kind of tax for society’s benefit, and not because it’s the “right” thing to do.
Are you saying that life’s preciousness is illogical, or that holding life to be precious is illogical, or just stop signs? The policy of stopping at stop signs is indeed based on a policy of the preciousness of life. Both policies benefit society (logically speaking, of course).
Warren, this Taliban thing is COMPLETELY misplaced and inappropriate. Need I remind you that Hitler worked his evil (yes, I said Evil) to benefit society? And before you point out that he also attempted to use the Bible, realize that this was only a small part of his attempt to convince the people and NOT what motivated him. What motivated him most is speculated to be the writings of Athiest writers.
I believe that the point of your argument is this:
Faith (particularly, any specific faith) relies on personal interpretations and should never be used by individuals in their decision-making processes pertaining to legislation regardless of whether the legislation has to do with Euthanasia or the tax code. Instead, simple logic should be used and that “beneficial to society” is the standard by which each potential law is to be tested.
Do I have it correct?
“writings of athiest writers!” Ha ha…how redundant! Oops. {grin}
I have many times used the more specific term of “mutual benefit.” This would normally include Jews, except Hitler had views based on his own moral absolutes, in which Jews essentially weren’t members of society because they were subhuman. If Jews are part of society, then Hitler did not benefit it. Abortion works this way. It depends on when a thing becomes a member of society. (But this is doubly complicated in that there are implications to mutual benefit just in how a society chooses to answer that question.)
I explained the Taliban thing further in the other thread. I don’t know why Steve decided to conflate the two threads. But I’m not saying that Jonathan is Taliban. I’m asking people to consider abstract properties of Jonathan’s policy and theirs. I think you just did the same thing with me and Hitler.
Your assessment of my argument is close. But I’m asking, “in the context of legislation, is mutual benefit not everyone’s goal?” If you say “no” then I can’t think of any reason we should listen to you. If you say “yes” then the test I’ve described boils down to “will this law help to meet our goal?”
In this way, I do so without making a single prescriptive statement. (Even though you really seem to want me to)
My point with you and Hitler was to say that both are extremes neither would claim.
About abortion, you say: “It depends on when a thing becomes a member of society.”
This is a loaded moral statement and to say it is as irrational as saying “its not wet; its just got water all over it.”
I don’t think your views will benefit society in the long run. Quite the opposite, in fact. They lead to an every-man-decides-for-himself-what-society-should-look-like ideal which generally serves to promote either anarchy (because of lack of enforcement) or loss of rights, particularly free speech. We see this now in Canada where it is enforced by law that saying anything against Homosexuality is a hate crime and we see attempted to be enforced here by peer pressure and pejoratave terms like “Homophobe”.
No, Mutual benefit is NOT everyone’s goal and one’s idea of benefit does not necessarily reflect the next guy’s–and furthermore benefit implies good and the very existance of goodness and the general acceptance of such as an ideal is one of the logical trails leading to a concept that requires a God. Thomas Aquinas used this very argument.
Two questions:
1. How big is a society?
2. Beneficial to society. Why?
So now you claim that an absolute authority is required before there can be any “good” and therefore “benefit.” Ah the wonders of arbitrary absolutes! Doesn’t it just get more convenient for you as we go. It’s hard to believe that I’m the relativist.
I’m pretty sure others understood my abortion example as saying that if a society recognizes the value of protecting human life, then the society must decide when human life begins. Both decisions impact the society. This is what I said except that I chose terms consistent with my previous comments up to this point.
Maybe you can’t see the forest through the trees. I’m saying that in order for protection under the “mutual benefit” a baby must be recognized as part of the society. In current U.S. law, fetuses are not recognized for this purpose. If they were, abortion would be as illegal as killing an inconvenient one-month-old. So how did I say something had water on it but wasn’t wet?
Still “beneficial” can only be determined as fact in hindsight. That’s unfortunate, but the goal is at least objective. I still contend that absolute morality doesn’t seem to help here either as nobody can agree on what the absolute is. My argument continues to be that this is going to always be the case. I still don’t see where anyone has given any reasonable example of someone’s notion of absolute morality actually proving useful.
Sorry, by “everyone” I had meant those arguing here in this discussion, so that’s my mistake. I didn’t mean to add to confusion. I should have said, “isn’t mutual benefit our goal?” In fact, the rest of that paragraph only makes sense if you read it that way, so you’ll need to reread it with my correction.
So for your questions:
How big is a society? The level at which rules are agreed upon indicate the size of the societies to which they apply. So it can be a nation, a globe, a neighborhood or a family. Societies are even members in larger societies, and the rules are not always written. These are the societies that I am talking about.
Why beneficial? I hold this truth to be self-evident actually. If you can’t see the benefit of benefit, then I’ve overestimated you.
As to everyone having a different idea of beneficial, that’s why I tend to be a bit of a libertarian. Laws are to be used only when absolutely necessary so that people have liberty to live and pursue happiness. This is how “beneficial” was declared in the past, and “mutual” is why any laws are necessary in the first place.
I have not been trying to demonstrate the usefulness of moral absolutes. To anyone who does not believe in them or that one can never be sure of what they are, it is obvious that to him moral absolutes are quite useless. I would not be able to change his views.
I don’t think I would use the word “useful” (to everyone) to describe how I feel about moral absolutes. Maybe a better word for me would be fundamental. You see, I believe that none of us would have any morals, let alone think some are absolute, if it were not for God. Even unbelievers in my view have a moral compass because they are created in the image of God. When we humans get it right morally I think it is because of the inate sense of morality placed in us by God. When we get it wrong it is because we are relying on another god and/or we try to dig deep within our corrupted selves for truth.
We are kind of at an impasse in our discussion because we both start our argument with an assumtion that cannot be proven. You say morals can be derived through logic and when people get together to form societies they naturaly come to a concensus on morals and then write laws. I believe that without God we would have no concept of morals.
We also probably have two completely different views about how we have reached this point in our planet’s history. If it were true that we are here due to completely naturalistic processes, then I would agree with you. But, because of my beliefs I don’t want to sit on the sidelines and allow those who I percieve as immoral to have all the input in how our country is run.
If I believe something is moral because God said it, and you agree because it is logical, then what differece does it make how I came to my belief? You and I could try to convince people of the same concept that we came to using two tifferent methods. You think your method is superior to mine, but I think human logic can only take you so far.
I know you say that we can not be sure who’s god is right and that even within a religion there are lots of different interpretations. I agree. That is why I am not dogmatic about my approach. If someone wants to join me because of their religion, great. If they agree because my argument has appealed to their logic, wonderful. Likewise, if someone disagrees with me based on those things I will not be angry and insist that I am right and all should live by the rules that I live by.
You may have addressed this earlier but I don’t recall. Are you willing to call the Taliban immoral? Would it be just for another country that has the moral high ground to invade and take the Taliban out just based on morals?
I find belief in God to be totally logical and of course IF He exists, Extremely pertinant. It would be utter foolishness to have a system of any kind of government and deny an essential truth out-of-hand. What if we said that even though the earth is round, we will operate as if it were flat because that makes it easier to understand; after all, that way nobody is upside down!? Of course this would be ridiculous. You all and I BELIEVE the world is round because of evidence and act accordingly. Have you ever personally been in outer space and seen it?
In the same way there are many former Athiests who now believe in a God because of persuasive evidence. My point here is to say that starting with a belief in God is not only logically sound, it is most prudent. While it is true that bad things have been done in the name of gods (Including mine), this does not negate the validity of my argument or right to invoke morality based on my beliefs any more than it does to your beliefs. Great amounts of good, far exceding the bad, has come of Christianity. MUCH MORE suffering has come at the hand of Athiest dictators or politics based on nothing but misguided “givens”.
This is why I think a view that says belief in God should never enter into one’s politics is ridiculous and foolish. But I don’t deny you the right to vote your conscience (or, if you are conscience neutral, just ‘to vote’) and I will most certainly vote mine.
I think it’s important to be able to say more than that it’s totally logical to believe in God. There were many logical and smart people who believed fervently in gods of all types, including the sun, moon, mountains, etc. Then people learned how mountains were formed, how stars were born and how stars even died. So too did the gods. Today no one thinks it’s logical or even rational to believe in Apollo, Zeus. Prometheus, etc. etc. etc. But at one time it was logical and even natural. So the fact that it’s logical or natural to believe in God does not prove the existence of God.
I’ve always been puzzled by this: If an elementary school student behaves in class because he thinks the teacher is watching, is that conduct in some way to be admired more than the student who behaves believing that no one is watching?
Melissa, I’m not sure what you’re trying to communicate with the “flat earth for simplicity’s sake” thing, but isn’t that exactly what a map is?
Denying God’s existence is not denying an essential truth unless he exists. Of course, if he does not, then denying that he doesn’t exist is also denying an essential truth.
If it’s relevant that many former atheists are now Christians, then it must be relevant that many thousands more former Christians are now atheists based on evidence.
If there is persuasive evidence of God’s existence, please provide it.
It is, indeed, not illogical to believe there’s a God, but I do contend that your version is illogical because it is self-contradicting. I also say that just because it isn’t illogical, doesn’t mean it is therefore logical. I challenge you to demonstrate the logic which evidences the existence of God.
Uncle John, I was not saying that it is impossible to have a logical reason to believe that there isn’t a God. Of course there are many intelligent people who do not buy the argument. Appollo, Zeus, etc… are very good examples of the fact that people logically know there must be a first cause not only of the physical but also of the non-physical that we find in ourselves(love, good, etc…) Therefore you are partly correct in that it was (and still is) logical to believe in a God. It has never been logical to believe in multiple gods. It has always had way too many problems.
As for the children in the class, the analogy actually helps my point because there has to have been a definition of ‘behave’ in order for the children to misbehaved when the teacher wasn’t looking.
I understand, though, that this is not your point. As I understand it, your point is to say that if the children only obey because the teacher is looking, then it isn’t that the children have obedient characters, just that they can keep from getting caught. This is nice for keeping the order but not a deep commitment for integrity’s sake to be commended. Yes, I agree.
Applied, I believe you are saying that if I (in this case) only think killing for sport is wrong because of my belief in God, then that is somehow inferior to your belief that killing for sport is wrong because that is how you feel. As if your feeling is somehow more trustworthy than me basing my beliefs on something outside of myself.
to answer this I just say that I never said that I do not also hold the position in my heart that killing for sport is wrong. This is my point then, We all tend to agree on this. Why? Well, I have a reason, as you know. I just don’t think that without an Ultimate Authority, you do.
Warren, and all,
There is a lot of very good ‘evidence’ of a god. Then, if there is a god, has he spoken? I think he has, I also have ‘evidence’ convincing me of this. This leads me to the Christian Bible since simply the Jewish Bible would not be enough considering that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies in the Old Testament.
I am not going to bother going through all this as I have other things to do. I will give you the very brief view of Thomas Aquinas’ 5 Proofs for the Existance of God:
1. Without a first cause nothing can be set in motion.
>If something is set in motion, something else must have done it and so on and so on but not to infinity because that would require a first mover.
2. Therefore there must exist a First Cause OUTSIDE of the “caused” that does not require a first cause itself.
3 There must have been a time when Earth was NOT.
>Things corrupt over time. Therefore there must be a time where it is possible to be and possible not to be.
4. Goodness and Justice, Universal qualities of man, must attribute their varying qualities to God (Particularily here, the uncaused Creator), the source of maximum and perfect justice.
>In classifying something there is always something which displays the maximum fullness of that characteristic. (for something to be sort of hot, we need to know what Hot is.)
5. The existance of order and natural laws presupposes a divine inelligence who authored the Universe into being. (First Cause again)
> Chance does not bring about order. Go ahead drop a cup, it will break into disorder. It will never happen the other way around. Before you pick at this illustration remember that you still must have first cause.
That is a very brief summary of a lot of information. As for the rest of my logic, you will have to do your own research. I won’t even reply to this part of the subject anymore on this thread. Whether or not my argument is perwuasive to you has no bearing on the logiic of my argument. (I would guess you would agree with me since whether or not you persuade me does not affect the voracity of your argument.) My point is simply to say that my belief, if you want to call it that (I do.), is not illogical or simply inherited. It has very good logic and Aquinas is only one of Many. And it Certainly does not disqualify me from using information based on it when I vote.
Also,
I don’t understand what you mean about my ‘version of God’ being illogical. Please explain.
Melissa:
Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, my point was not to say that morals based on natural law are superior to morals based on divine law. Just the opposite, many of us were taught that divinely-inspired morals are superior. That without the divinve, there can’t be true morality. Therefore, any “morality” based on anything other than the divine is a false morality.
Since I have lived virtually my entire conscious existence with that belief it has taken some time to try to at least understand people who did not grow up in that orientation and who nevertheless appear to have an inner code of conduct, mostly inherited I assume from family. It has intrigued me that some of these people, with no apparent concern how their conduct will be judged by the divine, hold firm moral views. I am not suggesting that such conduct will redeem them, but as I compare the underpinnings for my code versus their’s, it strikes me that their’s may be more remarkable. Perhaps they have a subconscious awareness of the divine or perhaps they exist in a perpetual state of denial, I don’t know. What I have in common with them is this: I was taught that there is a God and there are certain things that I ought to do and certain things I ought not to do. They have been taught that whether or not there is a God, as far as their family is concerned there are certain things they ought to do and certain things they ought not to do. Their moral principles are infused into their marrow as much as mine. I’m not saying one is necessarily superior to the other. I just find it intriguing and it has made me wrestle with some of my preconceptions about people who do not have faith. I think I looked down on them and felt superior to them. Ironically, I even felt morally superior to them when I was less outwardly moral than them.
Given that we are all concerned with the apparent rapid evaporation of moral underpinnings in our society, I just wonder if it might make more sense for us to consider embracing more fully people who feel inclined to respond positively to their conscience whether or not they acknowledge God as the author of the impulse. There are many such people and I’m ashamed to say their moral compasses have at times put mine to shame.
Uncle John,
That was an interesting line of thought and well said. My upbringing must have been similar to yours in regard to how to view morals. So with me too, it came as a surprise to me how well one could live one’s life outside of a theistic worldview at all.
But Christian theology can step in on this point and say that those who behave themselves are not anymore righteous than a thief or murderer, and those who do well are merely better at hiding their depravity. That’s exactly the accusation, however uncharitable it may seem, that they are hiding their problem and not confessing to and relying upon God.
I wonder if that’s how most Christians process the phenomenon you mention. If so, there’s backing in the book of Romans for it, so it wouldn’t need to be questioned on the basis of its being pessimistic toward the judgment of others.
Relating this back to the discussion at hand, how can Christians recognize that the unbeliever can do good things for good reasons and still claim religion as necessary to morality? Speaking from my experience, I would say that first off, there’s great motivation to advocate your religion on all fronts regardless of whether that front is critical to belief. Thus in the case of God being the basis for morality, you’d still argue the point because it speaks well of the Faith.
Second, with religion historically being at the forefront of certain moral issues, it’s not altogether impossible to claim.
Third, you believe that God has made a positive difference in your life and without this difference, you would be evil, even if possibly outwardly moral. That is, there’s a personal aspect to this, which has been evident to me in some of the arguments.
What do you mean that it’s important to be able to say more? What sort of thing should one be able to say?
The First Cause and ontological arguments are not new to me, but they have fundamental problems:
The chemical elements were once considered to be the fundamental building blocks on which all matter was based. Then a couple hundred years ago the atom was proposed. The atom was the fundamental building block until protons, electrons and neutrons where proposed. Then quantum theory and quarks emerged. Who thinks that quarks are the most fundamental building blocks?
The “heavens” used to be thought of as a canope that was stretched over the earth like a tent, from which stars were hung. We know of no such boundary now and have no reason to believe “the heavens” do not go on for ever in all directions. Stars belong to galaxies which belong to clusters which belong to superclusters, etc.
It was once thought that if you sailed in one direction long enough that you would literally sail off the face of the earth. It is now known that you could sail in one direction indefinitely and never sail of the end because earth’s surface is circular.
Melissa, the basis of your first cause argument is that the causal chain cannot extend inifitely or be circular, but you have provided no reason here to believe that it is not just “turtles all the way down.”
Your point (4) above is also known as the ontological argument. The problem with this argument is that “evil” and “malevolence” are also qualities, which, by the same argument, must attribute their values to the uncaused creator, making God as infinitely evil as he is good.
The problem with point (5) is that you never define “order.” If it is just the opposite of entropy, then diamonds, crystals and snowflakes are just a few examples of order forming from disorder naturally without a divine intelligence. You can continue to claim that someone needed to “invent” the natural laws governing behavior of snowflakes, but who is to say that there is no infinite regression of inventors?
Even if these a priori arguments were valid support of the existence of an uncreated creator (and therefore absolute morality), accepting the existence of absolute morality is not the same thing as knowing what is morally absolute. Since many claim the existence of an uncreated creator, but have differing notions of morality, this concept remains useless. Whose version is accurate, and by what standard should we evaluate the accuracy of each?
The reason I said that your version of God was illogical is because he essentially has two wills, (1) that which he wants to do and (2) that which is his sovereign plan. He essentially wishes not to follow his own predestined plan but that will is powerless against the other. So he dislikes morality, but his plan requires it. He wants to save all men, but that is not the plan.
Oh, come on! Turtles all the way down is stupid and you and I both know it. I don’t see how this supports your claim. The world is floating in space and is relative to____ which is relative to____, etc…. THIS is your defense? Where do the Quarks come from? Turtles? The very term “building blocks”gives everyone away. We all know that there is design and predictable structure that is caused by something. Order, and its definition is obvoius.
As far as the ontological argument goes, is light as much dark as it is light or is dark the absence of light? How does God have two natures? That whole argument makes no sense to me. But then I said I would leave this alone and that is that. This may be fodder for another post someday.
My view has no problem with any of this. I know why the Earth is harder to move than a tree with roots, God made it that way! The analogy was obvously meant to be framed in a way where a more relavant question would have been, “Which is easier to move? A tree with roots or one floating in a deep lake?” Besides, I thought you said you weren’t relativistic.
This all seems to me to be straining at a gnat to swallow a camel.
Oops, I combined two posts in my response. You’ll have to do a little cross-referencing if the tree thing doesn’t make sense!
BTW, if differing opinions of the Bible renders its authority as “useless”, then the same can be said of opinions not based on the Bible since these also are only as falliable as the person who claims them. Not only that, but who can even call them falliable? They’re simply opinions. Today we kill Jews and cripples, tomorrow we say, “Well, that was a mistake, but now we’re right.”
There’s so much cross commenting on these two threads that I’m just going to answer this on the other thread to bring them together.