The Myth of Moral Neutrality
Here is a great article on the “progressive” myth of moral neutrality. I promise it is ok to visit TownHall.com I regularly visit Dailykos.com and MoveOn.org and nothing bad happens to me.
www.townhall.com/columnists/GregoryKoukl/2007/03/16/the_myth_of_moral_neutrality
My opinion on General Pace’s comments is:
It was politically inept to say but by no means should be career ending. I suppose Gen Pace could always check into rehab and all would be forgiven.
Steve
Reporting from inside-joke etiquette reform school rehab
Steve (et al):
Interesting article. I understand why the author doesn’t think Fay Watelton was being morally neutral and tolerant in her life’s work but that doesn’t mean that moral neutrality is a myth. It just means that once you start advocating a position in an attempt to change public policy you can’t claim to be morally neutral on that particular issue.
I am happy to see that our core values list has evoked such passionate blogging. I have to say I am a little perplexed by the notion that any of us was purporting to state that there are no absoutes. It is absolutely true that humans need oxygen in their blood stream to sustain life over a normal lifespan. It is theoretically possible that one day that statement may no longer be true. That does not mean that the statement is not an absolute truth today. But if the theoretical possibility I referred to turns into reality, we will have to revise our absolutes. That doesn’t make me a relativist, it makes me an observer.
Physical absolutes are of course easier to prove then moral absolutes, since moral absolutes begin with an assumption. As Christians we hold dear certain absolutes not because we can prove them (after all that why it’s called “faith”) but because we start with an assumption that a supreme being exists whose will has been revealed to us. We don’t know if these “truths” are absolutes or not but we trust that they are and we order our lives accordingly. If someone else doesn’t start with the same assumption as I do, it doesn’t necessarily make him any less moral. We’ve already agreed for this purpose that man-made laws (even based on assumed absolutes) can’t transform men into “moral” beings.
The reason Progressives are wary of moral absolutes is because these absolutes often obscure real truth. In other words, once someone labels someting an “abslute” it is human nature to cling to that “truth” even in the face of mounting evidence that what we thought was true actually isn’t. For that reason, I like the idea of constantly challenging anything we label as an absolute. If it truly is an absolute, it will stand up to the test. If it isn’t we can’t get rid of it fast enough.
For the record, the list we put together was intended to be a list of classic core values for conservatives and progressives. It was not intended to relect the actual core values of any of us. I for one, like Warren, shamelessly borrow from both lists.
Uncle John
I am not too surprised myself at the large thread of comments. After all, the title was “Core Values”! These must be things that we hold dear. I agree with Warren that this is a good use of the site. A picture can show us what a person LOOKS like and what they did over the weekend but the deepest that goes towards letting us get to really know the thoughts of anyone is to show us what they enjoy doing for entertainment or things like that. Not to say I don’t enjoy pictures, I just really enjoy personalities–Particularly of you all!
It is interesting to me the surprise conveyed here; not just from you ,Uncle John, but in general, that one could get the idea that anyone else believed in No Absolutes despite the list clearly saying “#1: Opposition to Absolutes”. Actually, there are plenty of people, though none in our family that I know of, that DO say just that –at least if you are speaking including all absoultes, physical, moral, spiritual… But anyway, since, as the title indicated, the topic has to do with values, I think that puts it in a different light than, say, the physical laws of nature. Granted, we can all agree that a human needs oxygen to survive, but can we all agree on whether or not it is morally acceptable to deprive that human of his/her oxygen? What about if the oxygen is being administered through a tube? What about if it is coming through an umbilical cord?
As to the article, though the tone was a little bit mocking, I agree with the general content.
BTW, Uncle John, you said that “… once you start advocating a position in an attempt to change public policy you can’t claim to be morally neutral on that particular issue.”
While I agree with that part of the statement, I’m curious, do you think that if she holds these views yet does nothing, she is then morally neutral?
I am not trying to be argumentative just for the sake of argument but although I can certainly take your comments at face value and agree with most of them, I personally can not think of a situation in which someone could be truly morally neutral. Can anybody pose an example?
Perhaps this is the confusion, then. The list clearly said “opposition to absolutism.” Which is quite a bit different from opposition to absolutes.
If you have registered on this site and prefer not to receive e-mails when someone comments, you can turn it off. Just sign in to 816pine.com and click the ‘profile’ link at the top of the page. Then find at the bottom of that page the check box marked “Suppress Notification E-mails of New Posts” make sure it is checked and click “Update Profile”
Whoops. My mistake there. The problem is that it only makes it worse to say, “I believe in absolutes, but I choose not to apply them.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolutism
It sounds like you are trying to change the meaning of absolutism now to be opposition to a totalitarian dictator. If so I proudly declare I do not support absolutism. It doesn’t seem inherently fair or honest to change definitions in the middle but I sure hope that is what you are doing; otherwise I am left to understand your statement this way: Of course there are absolutes but any thinking man would clearly see that you cannot believe in absolutes.
I would really appreciate you explaining this to me because, in my simpleness, it seems to be rather self-refuting . That is, unless you have changed the definition of absolutism mid-stream. Either scenario doesn’t exactly pass my smell test.
Steve, to whom is this response directed, and to what statement(s) specifically? I can’t seem to find a statement on this thread that fits your description.
It sounds like we are going to get into a very deep philsophical discussion where I will be out of my depth. So at great risk of being exposed as a philosopher poseur I will take this on. Just to be clear I am speaking only for myself and not for any of the others who helped create the lists.
As Warren points out the list does say “Opposition to Absolutism”. I guess we could have been clearer that we were talking about Moral Absolutism not autocracy (as Steve may have assumed). At least I was.
In the realm of morality I believe there are some actions that are morally wrong without regard to context (e.g., the intentional, voluntary killing by an adult of another human purely for sport against that person’s will). With respect to those kinds of issues and those issues only, I am a “moral absolutist”. However, as you can probably tell I don’t hold many moral absoutes. The problem for me is that almost any moral pronouncement depends on the context. I might believe that stealing is morally wrong generally but welcome it when my government is spying on other countries and stealing their secrets for my protection. I might believe that adultery is morally wrong generally but not in the context of an adulteress who is under the mistaken impression that her husband is dead (particularly if the punishment for adultery is death). Under NY law you could be prosecuted for the act I described. I don’t think it’s happened but I suspect that’s because prosecutors generally are not moral absolutists.
Some of you may describe my positon as “moral relativism”. I don’t believe that would be accurate. Moral relativism begins with the proposition that no conduct can be judged by any absolute standard and that therefore what is right or wrong is determined separately by each society. A moral relativist will not say that any particular conduct is wrong absolutely in any context. As I indicated above, I am able to say that certain conduct is absolutely wrong regardless of the context. In other words, I would judge it immoral regardless of the societal context and therefore I would not fit the definition of a “moral relativist”.
My moral philosophy is what I remember being described as “moral contextualism”. I belive most peoplel’s moral standards fall into this category. Tell me the conduct and the context, and I will tell you if I think it is right or wrong. The moral relativist would say, “tell me the conduct, the context and the pariculars of the communtiy in which the conduct will occur, including the standards of that community, and I will tell you whether it is right or wrong in that community at that time.”
If any of you have generally thought of yourselves as having moral absolutes, I would encourage you to think about which conduct you would say is morally wrong for any person, in any society, at any time and under any conceivable context or circumstance. Those are your moral absolutes. It will be a very short list or the description of each conduct will be so qualified that it will look like this: the intentional, voluntary killing by an adult of another human purely for sport against that person’s will. In other words, moral contexutalism masquerading as moral absolutism.
Uncle John
My point right along has been that we all make decisions based on some kind of absolutes. This is Absolutism. I see people keep taking issue with the “ism”. That only means that not only do you believe in absolutes, you apply them. So essentialy, they are one in the same– one implies the other.
I agree with you Uncle John. We all do what you are describing. I think, though, that the qualifications really are indicators that this is not the absolute itself but what is added to the statement to make it fit the absolutes.
“You shall not murder” was God’s way of giving a law to the people based on a previous absolute. Jesus himself demonstrated this about the commandments by summarizing them this way (Matthew chapter 22): “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and soul and Strength (the first of the commandments) and the second is like it, Love your neighbor as yourself (the final commandments)”. Here, he is quoting From Deuteronomy chaper 6, the Shemah. There is an even more basic absolute given there.
Because there were absolutes, the laws made sense. The laws only made sense because there were absolutes.
I am not advocating establishing a Theocracy (God can do that if he wants on his own), I am simply using an example.
I agree with the definition of Moral Relativism that John stated. But a defense of a position of moral absolutes reduces to nothing without Someone to be accountble to,
logicaly speaking.
Even statements such as “Best for society”, or “logically derivable” still need a foundational reason. I guess what I am saying is that without admission of moral absolutes, law is essentially illogical at its core.
I would Guess that Steve knew EXACTLY what he was saying. Apparently, Warren, you think that to reject the statement ‘Opposition to Absolutes’ means to sign up with the TALIBAN. {grin} Steve has never been know for delicacy! LOL.
This has become quite an interesting and worth while discussion in my view, even if I don’t follow every commenter’s thought processes completely. I appreciate your last post, Uncle John, it clears up a lot to me. I have been addressing moral relativism because I think there are many people out there who do subscribe to that point of view. The fim makers I mention in my first post I believe were moral relativist.
Warren, I’m sure you are not a moral relativist either, but I have had a harder time pinning down what you do believe. From what I gather, you believe in absolute truth, but you just would never want to impose your views on anyone else.
It is hard for me to understand that you don’t see there being much differerence in me and the Taliban - except, of course, our method. I do not believe the method is irrelevent though. I am working in a peaceful way within the framework of a democracy to try to achieve a result that I beieve will benefit the society as a whole. Isn’t that what people are supposed to do in a democracy? Since I am opperating under the authority of the Constitution people would still have the freedoms guaranteed there, I am not trying to change those. People would still be able to choose whatever religion they want or don’t want. They would still be able to vote, speak freely, peaceably assemble, not have their head cut off for looking at a man the wrong way, etc… If moral and just people do not stand up for what they believe in, then this county and the world will be run by the immoral and unjust. I guess the Taliban is no more immoral or unjust as I am in your view and their method of achieving their goal is just a little more unpalatable than mine. We wouldn’t want to call it wrong though.
Melissa, I agree with your last post, but would like to add one thing about Hitler. He also used an evoutionary mindset to justify his genocide. To him, Black People, Asians, and Jews were inferior because they were less evolved than the “Arian Race.” Evolution, along with Atheism, caused him to reason that since we are all here by chance and nothing more than evolved pond scum, there is really no purpose in our lives. Why not create a super race of humans, he thought. He was simply speeding up the processes of evolution (survival of the fittest and natural selection) in his twisted mind. His use of the Bible was a propaganda campaign because he knew there were a lot of Christians out there, and he wanted their support. Fortunately, not all the Christians bought into his lies and many Jews owe their lives to the brave people who did not believe Hitler. His views about evolution were pretty logical though, in my opinion.
Yes, Atheism must deny a Creator. Great post, Jonathan. Very thoughtful and well articulated.
What about the purpose of this thread: Moral Neutrality? What would you think of me if I declared myself gravity neutral? Would I be enlightened or would I kill myself walking off a 25 story building?
If the purpose of this thread is Moral Neutrality than we shouldn’t be talking about Physical Neutrality. If you want to be a knucklehead and walk off a 25-story building, you will die and no one will talk about the morality of gravity because gravity is a physical not a moral prinicple. However, if you danced your way off the 25-story building doing the macarena, some people would say you’re on your way to hell because your sin was not in the denial of gravity but in the denial of a moral absolute that dancing (even the macarena) is wrong. Others, who may have believed the same thing just a few short years ago, have changed their minds and now dance the macarena without fear of hell. So what changed, the moral absolute that dancing is wrong? Or are they enlightened? Or is the macarena such a lame dance it doesn’t even qualify as dancing.
Uncle John, even though I can think of no set of circumstances in which your example of absolute immorality (”the intentional, voluntary killing by an adult of another human purely for sport against that person’s will”) could be considered “right” that doesn’t mean that such a circumstance cannot exist, however far removed from our imagination it might be, correct?
I still ask (anyone), what properties of this statement affords it “absolutely immoral” status. And more specifically, is this a question that you ever ponder?
Melissa, the reason I asked about Steve’s comment is because the Taliban comment occurred in another thread. Making his comment in this thread makes it appear to be directed toward Uncle John, rather than me, but I didn’t think that made sense.
But Steve is then saying that I equated absolutism with totalitarian dictatorship. That’s not the case. I said that imposing one’s own beliefs (about some absolute) on others is comparable to what the Taliban had done. So what Steve says could only be true if absolutism is the same thing as imposing one’s own beliefs about some absolute on others. If it’s the same thing, then I don’t need to change the definition. If it’s not the same thing, then I haven’t changed the definition.
Jonathan, I think your film makers were simply being journalists. In that capacity, they simply limited themselves to descriptive statements rather than prescriptive or normative statements. In other words, “We report, you decide.” They might be moral relativists, but I don’t think that not proclaiming something to be “wrong” in their film makes them so.
I do believe in absolute truth. But I am careful not to use any of my personal beliefs in any of my arguments because nothing was ever true or false on the merits of my beliefs. So to invoke them in an argument can only serve to confuse. I puzzle why others are so interested in my personal beliefs.
I do see difference between you and the Taliban, but I want you (et al) to consider if that difference is enough to absolve you of the same things which for which they are condemned. Method, whether by peace or coup is not relevant because one who is forced to observe a law for fear of incarceration is still forced. You say, “…result that I beieve will benefit the society as a whole.” Exactly! That is the difference! But I suggest that what progressive’s fear is that this is only lip service and that if you (et al) had to choose between your moral absolutes and the benefit of society that you’d choose your absolutes. If this is the case, then I’d like to suggest that such a priority is “bad for everyone” by definition.
But now I ask (anyone): If we use the ten commandments, for example, as a template for our laws, then would that also not make sense to use all of them, essentially making it illegal to be a Muslim or Hindu, illegal to break the sabbath, and illegal to covet your neighbor’s things? Are these also moral absolutes? Does the Constitution have more authority than the Bible on these matters?
Hitler’s basis was eugenics, not evolution. There’s a big difference, but it all has to do with assuming that one knows the “goal” of natural selection, which is absurd. That’s why eugenics has not been a popular practice in any recent history. And that’s just one reason. Another is that “more evolved” has essentially no meaning because evolution is not a goal-oriented process. Are we to think that a Caucasian from the Netherlands would out-survive a native African in the jungles of Africa? And who thinks that humans are likely to out-survive cockroaches or bacteria? Bacteria evolve many times faster and have been evolving many times longer than humans. Hitler also invoked Christian principles when they suited him. Hitler had his own ideas of absolutes.
Steve,
You won’t know until you try.
The difference between morality and gravity is that statements on morality must be normative whereas statements on gravity (especially in this context) are descriptive. It’s the difference between saying that you “will” fall off a 25 story building and you “ought” to fall off a 25 story building. (If you dance the macarena you “ought” to.)
Warren, I was responding to John’s comment, not yours.
Also to answer your question: “I still ask (anyone), what properties of this statement affords it “absolutely immoral” status. And more specifically, is this a question that you ever ponder?”
This is the problem with the logic only camp. You can’t answer it. And Yes, It is an important thing to be very sure about.
Your view that logic is all you need is VERY obvioulsy what you are holding as the absolute authority by which you AND EVERYONE else should (yes, I did use that word) base their decisions on. This is your BELIEF. Why do I know that? Because. Somewhere in your argument you will have to prove why your statement is logical. At the very basest level, there you will find your moral absolute. Otherwise, its just your opinion. (aka: belief)
Regarding the comment about evolution: Evolution is not called Devolution for a reason. It implies a forward motion.
Regarding Hitler’s eugenics not evolution defense: Wikipedia says this about it:
“…the modern field and term was first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1865, drawing on the recent work of his cousin Charles Darwin. “, confirming what I suspected that evolutionary ideas influenced Hitler, even if indirectly. (though I don’t think it was only indirectly)
To all,
Steve’s gravity neutral comment serves its comedic purpose. It is not to say that morality and physics are both covered under this topic but to illustrate the logical absurdity of saying something logically absurd.
Melissa,
Logic is not actually an absolute in that sense, because all statements of logic must be based on something else. Those who reject logic are irrational by definition. The validity of logic is a given in any rational discussion.
So logic is not all I need, because one must first be provided a “given” truth before he can use logic to derive another. My “given” was that in making rules for a society, we share the goal of mutual benefit to its members. If you are denying the truth of the given, then your argument might be valid (and even more disturbing).
“Devolve” is not the opposite of evolve at all. But it’s hard to characterize the evolutionary path of whales or dolphins as being always “forward.” This is the error in making artificial characterizations, and this error is the basis for eugenics.
Hitler’s extermination of Jews was based on an accurate interpretation of eugenics. Eugenics was based on an inaccurate interpretation of natural selection. So Hitler’s views weren’t really based on evolution, but his caricature of it. In this way, Hitler is to evolution what Muslims are to Jehovah.
* You misspelled “demonstrate.”
What does “logical absurdity of saying something logically absurd” even mean?
Warren,
Yes, just journalists, like the one who took the picture of the starving Ethiopian boy alone in the desert in the shadow of a vulture and then flew away in his helicopter to let the boy die. You are right that I cannot be sure whether they are moral relativists, but based on their actions it is my opinion that they are. They put their journalistic integrity above their humanity in my opinion.
I did not say that Hitler’s basis for genocide was evolution, I said it was his mindset. There is a big difference there too. Of course Hitler thought he was helping socitey as a whole through his eugenics programs. But how did he justify the pain and suffering of the people in the gas chambers? Like I said before, to him they were less evolved, even sub-human, so it was no different than sending cattle to the slaughter house. I realize that evolutionists today don’t believe that, but he did. In my opinion, Hitler’s god was science and he placed all his faith in it, even though science is conducted by falible men. Evolutionist Atheists today still have to grapple with this question: “If we are all just highly evolved atoms that somehow arranged themselves into life forming amino acids with no direction or purpose, why would it be wrong to kill another person - survival of the fittest right?”
The reason I brought up the Constitution is because I am happy to be living in a country where we are protected by it. I don’t see why, in a secular society, there would be a problem with using only some of the Commandments. The reason I think it is OK to use some of the Ten Commandments as a basis for law has to do with how the government is set up. When Israel received the Ten Commandments they were governed directly by God. In cases where the law was broken and the people did not take care of the problem, God intervened and took care of it himself. Ever since the Jews asked to be governed by a king, God has been less and less active in man’s government and more and more active in our individual lives through the Holy Spirit. Of course it is impossible to have a law in which the only way to be sure if it is being broken is if we can see into the hearts and minds of people. So, since we are not God, I think it would be good to use the Commandments only as a guidline, keeping in mind that only God can enact absolute justice. Also, since Jesus came, some of the Commandments are no longer relevant.
By the way, I am curious about your personal beliefs because I want to know where you are coming from and if you have any presuppositions. Everyone has them, and I let mine be known, but you seem to be quite good at keeping yours a mystery. Or maybe you believe you do not have any.
Sorry I did not respond in the order of your comments. I hope it will not cause confusion.
The idea of “moral neutrality” is as absurd as being “gravity neutral” It would be equally absurd to claim that I am “time neutral.” None of these are rational.
But given the anti-supernatural presuppositional bias of the “progressive” they cannot afford to yield this because if there is a moral absolute it shakes the very foundation of their world view.
(I am sorry I can’t use the term progressive any longer. The term implies progress which is a positive move forward. I believe there is movement but it is not positive and not forward. I think it would be just as fair to call them “change for the sake of changers”, “to hell with tradition-ers”, “we’re smarter and more advanced and you are a total dunce because you can’t get this-ers” or even regressives. But I cannot with a clear conscience call the agenda this world view espouses progress)
Anyways, It is impossible to be “morally neutral” even in silence. Even if you cut your tongue off, cut your nose off, caulk all your orifices shut, poke out your ear drums, burn off all your touch receptors and gouge out your eyes, you are only ignorant, not neutral. Everybody has his own values that guides his choices. Give me one example of “moral neutrality” other than being dead. You can’t do it. It is not possible!
To Warren:
Regarding your twisted view of the old “killing for sport” argument strategy. You are much smarter than such an asinine response. You refusal to unequivocally admit that is always wrong to kill under these circumstances doesn’t show intelligence; it shows belligerence and stubbornness.
Steve
PS What about General Pace and the original article?
Jonathan,
It is possible to be a Journalist in one capacity and still a humanitarian in another. The journalist that left the Ethiopian is a terrible humanitarian. I get what you’re saying, though, but I don’t think it’s a valid comparison unless the British journalists had reason to believe that remaining silent on the morality of it would cause some people to conclude that it was therefore moral. You characterized it as obviously wrong, though, so that was not needed.
If evolution is truth, it will be so regardless of what Hitler does as a result. He was trying to benefit himself, not society, and so he ignored the well-being of a huge section of society to achieve that goal. Men are indeed fallible. That is all the more reason that using their guesses (educated or not) of moral absolutes is ill advised. If men had instead thought about the implications of being allowed to arbitrarily declare large swaths of humanity to be subhuman, perhaps they could have seen through him a little easier. It wasn’t just Jews and Blacks that are hurt by such a policy. The policy itself is dangerous.
It’s perfectly valid to invoke the Constitution, but does it trump the Bible in matters of government or vice versa? Who decides which of the ten commandments are no longer applicable? What I don’t think anyone, yet, has shown, is a case where one must invoke a “moral absolute” in order to derive beneficial rules. I mean you can, but no one has demonstrated a case where it’s more useful than the method I described. So why invoke it?
It seems that presuppositions have been attributed to me throughout this discussion without me needing to providing any explicit bases for them. (evidenced by Steve’s comment immediately following yours). Still, they remain irrelevant because if a thing is true it is true regardless of who is saying it or his personal beliefs.
Steve,
I don’t like the term “progressive” either; but I dislike the term “conservative” also. A rose by any other name etc. It’s just an accepted term, so I’m not switching now.
You simply gave an absurd definition to “moral neutrality” and then declare it to be so. Since nobody who disagrees with you espouses this definition, your statements are worthless.
If to be gravity neutral means that gravity does not work on you, then it is absurd. If it means that you don’t go around preaching about your version of how gravity ought to work to others, without a reasonable basis, then it is far closer to the definition of “moral neutrality” espoused by those who oppose Pace’s comment. (This doesn’t make any of them right or wrong).
Your assertion as fact that progressives are afraid of moral absolutes due to fear of upsetting their world view is baseless. Why would I be afraid of the existence of your version of moral absolutes? I simply find the concept useless, and no one has yet shown them to be of any use except to invoke as an invisible friend who conveniently always takes your side in an argument.
If I had reason to fear, it would be fear of the rise to power of those who cannot distinguish fact from belief.
I agreed that I believe that killing for sport as described is always going to be wrong. But I can’t say that I “know” it, because such would require proving a universal negative.
If distinguishing between fact and belief is belligerence and stubbornness and accepting, without question, inherited notions of absolutes is intelligence, then I would rather be belligerent and stubborn.
I cannot apologize for the way God made me.
I think your statement directed toward me essentially outs you as a “we’re smarter and more advanced and you are a total dunce because you can’t get this-er.”
So what about General Pace? His statement is political suicide, not unlike decrying segregation in the south less than a century ago. The difference between him and his detractors is that they can claim he has no reasonable basis for his claim. They don’t need to prove that homosexuality is moral (though they may very well believe that), only that Pace has no reasonable basis for claiming it isn’t.
Warren,
Here are some of my thoughts on a few of your quotes:
**First of all, What are you talking about, “inherited notions of absolutes”?
**You said of Hitler,”But how did he justify the pain and suffering of the people in the gas chambers? Like I said before, to him they were less evolved, even sub-human, so it was no different than sending cattle to the slaughter house.”
This is the same argument the Pro-choice camp uses and why it is so often compared to Hitler’s regime.
**You said to Steve, “You simply gave an absurd definition to “moral neutrality” and then declare it to be so. Since nobody who disagrees with you espouses this definition, your statements are worthless.”
I don’t see Steve’s definition. But anyway:
‘Moral’ has a definiton and ‘Neutral’ has a definition. The absurdity comes in saying that ‘moral neutrality’ means anything but that. I agree with Steve and challenge you to come up with an illustration of someone being morally neutral. And I don’t mean someone who calls himself morally neutral because he believes he shouldn’t get involved. That’s not morally neutral, by definiton.
**”Why would I be afraid of the existence of your version of moral absolutes? I simply find the concept useless, and no one has yet shown them to be of any use except to invoke as an invisible friend who conveniently always takes your side in an argument.”
I don’t think you find the concept useless. Fear actually sounds like a good word to me. Actually, YOU are the one comparing the promotion of absolutes to the Taliban. Or maybe you don’t fear the Taliban?
Why do say you find the concept useless?
**”If I had reason to fear, it would be fear of the rise to power of those who cannot distinguish fact from belief”
I agree (sort of) to a point. But two things come to mind. One thing is: beliefs can also be facts; and the Second: I would also add “…and those who do not recognize a belief when they see it.”
** “You misspelled “demonstrate.”
Thatsok; I’m spleling neutral.
Jonathan,
I cannot state that I “know” something to be moral. At most one can only say that he “believes” something is moral. Since my beliefs about the morality of a thing are irrelevant, I find no use in talking about them. It appears certain others want very badly for me to make such a statement for some reason.
I want to correct this notion that I believe morality is derived from logic. This is not what I believe or intend to say. I’m saying that provided we desire mutual benefit, then let’s draw conclusions logically on that basis. Technically logic alone is only a means and never a basis.
It is not a novel concept to strive toward mutual benefit when agreeing on a set of rules. (It seems pretty clear to me that you understand this concept). After all, why would anyone discuss rules with another who would refuse to consider the benefit of the former?
It isn’t that I agree because it’s logical. I agree to subject myself to a rule because I recognize that the rule is a conclusion derived logically from what will be mutually beneficial to me and to those with whom the agreement is made. I strive to suggest rules which meet these criteria.
It isn’t that I am suggesting that this way is superior. I’m suggesting that in fact this is also how you usually do it. And if it is, then I’m questioning the usefulness of ever invoking absolute morality. But if it isn’t, then what progressives fear is exactly that you will strive to implement a law based on some “absolute” regardless of its detriment to them.
I know you oppose homosexual behavior. I do not know if you are in favor of prohibiting it by law. If you are not, then I’m pretty sure the previous paragraph’s suggestion is correct. If you are, the question becomes: Are you in favor of prohibiting others from it because (A) God says it’s wrong, or are you in favor because you believe that (B) prohibiting it is beneficial to everyone? If (A) then this is what progressives fear. If (B) then you should be able to make a case for this assertion which is all anyone asks.
Logic is what it is. There is no “human” flavor; it’s abstract and its rules are as self-evident as arithmetic with which it’s integrally linked. The context of your above statement suggests human “intelligence” or “wisdom,” perhaps?
Melissa,
“Inherit” means to get something from one’s parents.
The “how did [Hitler] justify…” quote was Jonathan’s, not mine. In fact, in the other thread, I compared Hitler’s assessment of Jews to the Pro-Choice assessment of fetuses before you did it here. I believe that when I did it, you compared my comparison to saying water wasn’t wet or something. It’s beginning to sound as if you disagree with my arguments on the grounds that I’ve argued them.
I don’t fear moral absolutes. I fear a specific idea of moral absolutes being imposed on me by others (such as the Taliban). Whether by votes or guns, I still fear it. It isn’t moral absolutes I fear, I fear moral absolutism.
I say that moral absolutes are useless because it is still anyone’s guess as to which morals are absolute. There are many examples of cases where invoking a supposed moral absolute ended with undesirable results because something wasn’t so absolute after all.
I don’t fear beliefs that are facts. I fear those who can’t tell the difference (specifically that they might rise to power). Whether or not a belief might be fact, to “believe” does not mean the same thing as to “know” (even if what one believes is fact). It’s the not knowing that makes moral absolutism useless. To think it is useful is to mistake believing for knowing and that is what I fear.
Steve’s comparison of “morality” to “gravity” is enough to establish that his definition of even just “moral” is inconsistent with that of those, with whom he disagrees. If gravity makes people fall, what does morality do to people? And in order for his gravity example to make sense, one would have to interpret “neutrality” as “immunity.” So your claim about the definition of “moral neutrality” being known if “moral” and “neutral” are known isn’t relevant because even if Steve knows what they mean, his use of them makes no sense.
Sorry about the Hitler fact. It isn’t that I disagreed with the statement just that it didn’t support your points. Obviously the reason why is that you didn’t say it! Still what I said about abortion there is true.
Not that these two were ever meant to go together in the same category except in the for-the-purpose-of-illustration category, but I still don’t see Steve’s definition. And What does morality do to people? It’s immorality that I would be more worried about if I were you.
the reason I don’t think Steve defined moral neutrality is that he wasn’t trying to. He assumed we all knew what it meant. And anyway, since you brought it up, Can you have moral immunity– Morality doesn’t affect you? It is similar to moral neutrality but the other way around. Instead of you having no intuition or otherwise of morality, you are also unaffected by outward morality or lack thereof. ”
You say no one agrees with Steve on the progressive side of the board but I don’t think that it is true. Does anyone else have a view? I believe that the point of his post was to say that moral neutrality does not exist any more than Gravity neutrality does.
To wuote you: “If distinguishing between fact and belief is belligerence and stubbornness and accepting, without question, inherited notions of absolutes is intelligence, then I would rather be belligerent and stubborn.”
Who is saying you or anyone should do this?
My point was that Steve essentially said immunity from gravity is absurd, therefore moral neutrality is absurd, which is nonsense. I didn’t say that moral neutrality therefore exists, and I certainly didn’t say moral immunity exists.
If you advocate acceptance of an absolute authority, you advocate accepting it without question. This isn’t opinion, it’s the nature of absolute authority. If an authority is absolute, then there is no other authority great enough to discredit it. To assert its absoluteness is therefore to assert that questioning it is futile.
For example, if you believe that the Bible is the absolute authority and that Genesis is intended to be taken literally, then evidence of, say, evolution, or an ancient earth must be considered erroneous because the absolute authority has essentially declared it to be. Evidence lacks the authority to challenge scripture’s veracity. Its absolute status makes it impossible to question it.
If, however, you expect or require the Bible to be confirmed by empirical evidence, then you do not actually believe in the absoluteness of the Bible’s authority, because empirical evidence is your absolute authority (your standard by which you measure the Bible and not vice versa). There can be only one absolute authority, or it is not absolute.
Baloney.
If you don’t mind saying, what is baloney and why?
That whole line of reasoning. Besides trying to set ridiculous parameters in which I must frame my arguments (specifically, no empirical evidence), it fails to make the distinction between absolute truth and Absolute Authority.
I’ve been trying to follow the arguments but I got lost. Melissa, I think I see what you mean. It seems that there’s a constraint being put on your argument, that you’re prevented from using empirical phenomena because of your belief in the Bible, which is apparently a stronger belief. If I’ve read Warren right, he says that if one has two different sources of truth, one inherently accepts a certain source over the other and the order in which you accept them is immutable. That doesn’t seem necessarily true so I’d like to know if I’ve gotten that wrong.
Melissa, could you develop your point concerning the difference between absolute authority and absolute truth? I just don’t see where truth is mention in that previous post or how he’s failing to distinguish.
Absolute Authority or, in this case, God, is the source of revealed absolute truth. The terms are not always interchangeable. My Ultimate Authority is not the Bible, per se, it is God. Not just plain God, either, but a God who interacts with his creation.
Therefore, to say that I can use no part of creation to prove my case or else Creation is my ultimate authority is as silly as saying that a delicious cake cannot be used as an indicator of the existence of a recipe nor the recipe as indicator of a baker. “Cake” would not have been my Truth, The Recipe would have. The Baker, however would be the Authority. Now, don’t go crazy with my illustration, it is only an illustration and not meant to stand on all fours, but maybe it helps to clear that up.
Melissa,
No one has said anything about your ability to use creation to prove your case.
You asked me, “Who is saying you or anyone should [accept, without question, inherited notions of absolutes]?” I responded that to accept something as absolute authority is to accept it without question. The Bible, creation, and evidence were given as examples only. This is all I said, and that’s why the last two paragraphs began with, “For example…” I did not say one could not use creation as evidence of a creator.
God is your absolute authority. That’s fine. If God were to speak to you, is there any possible way you could call into question the truth of what he says? If so, then he his authority is not so absolute. If not, then to question his authority would be futile.
Read the comment above again. This is what I was saying.
So this is all in response to “Who is saying you or anyone should [accept, without question, inherited notions of absolutes]?”
I am saying that Steve is saying this with the following statement:
I have said that I could imagine no case where it was right to kill under those circumstances, but that I could not say that I “know” it to be absolute. Steve says to deny an absolute here is not intelligence but belligerence and stubbornness.
I still say that if knowing the difference between “believe” and “know” is belligerence and stubbornness, then I’d rather be those, than intelligent.
Warren, I am not sure what you are saying here since I think that I have already answered you as I understood (and still do) your viewpoint in my comment to Dan.
As for Steve’s comment, and your reply: I think you are refusing to state the obvious in order to defend the mathmatical principles behind “proving a universal negative”? Of course, using that same law, you also would not then be able to say that it is always impossible to prove a universal negative. I do understand that you qualified your statement in defense of your own moral views but I just don’t think that law is meant to fit morality nor can it even govern itself. Therefore, to refuse to admit to what you should “know” to be true in favor of protecting a pet law of logic does seem unnessessarily stubborn to me as well. But then, I can be stubborn myself.
I wonder where I get that from?
That said, I am not necessarily taking issue with that particular law. It is after all why I don’t believe one can truly be an Atheist except in practice. I think I am an A-Atheist. Sorry, Aaron! (love you!)
Interesting article below. The implication of the last sentence of the judge’s statement is that secularissts have nothing to die for and thus, nothing to live for. I understand the sentiment but feel compelled to challenge that thinking. Just what if that isn’t true? What does it mean for us? Here’s the article:
Federal judge: Faith under attack in U.S.
By Charles Babb
For The Christian Chronicle
SEARCY, ARK. — Attacks leveled at those of faith represent a great threat against America, a federal appeals court judge said at Harding University.
Judge Janice Rogers Brown, a member of the Silver Spring, Md., church, spoke on “Faith and Freedom” as part of Harding’s American Studies Institute lecture series.
“In my view, Christianity at its best is the foundation of reason and liberty,” said Brown, a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. “The true American religious tradition, the one that disciplines power, subjugating it to reason, truth and, ultimately, an all-powerful God, is not a threat to liberty but its best defender.”
Brown said those who attack the religious right “essentially argue (that) the true American religion demands acceptance of, indeed submission to, a common political vision — their vision.”
In the 20th century, secular humanism crept into American and Western governments, promising openness and tolerance for diverse groups, religions and philosophies, she said.
“What we got was narrow positivism, moral relativism and the totalitarian reign of the radical multiculturalist,” Brown said. “It promised peace. What we got was a process of permanent revolution, tumult, strife and a ceaseless assault upon the foundations of faith, family and civil society. It promised if not the pursuit of truth, at least rationality and acknowledgment of objective reality. What we got was postmodernism.” The battle, in her view, is not political but theological: “Contrary to the prevailing secularist dogma … a society cannot exist without a fighting faith. Where society has nothing to die for, it has nothing to live for and cannot long survive.”
April 1, 2007
GWB lost me when he nominated his store-front-lawyer friend Harriet Miers over Janice Rogers Brown. I would have loved to see all those rich-liberal-white-north-east males attack the first black female justice nominee for the supreme court. She would have rocked Kennedy and the senate. Here is hoping Justice Stevens chokes on a chicken bone and we get to see her nominated to SCOTUS.
John, and all,
A faith worthy dying for? Is this the answer? I don’t think we need more soldiers, Christian or Muslim, marching onward to die for their faith or to kill the faithful of other faiths.
What do you think she means by this? I want to give her the benefit of a doubt but somehow it’s hard to take this as a serious prescription for a terror-wracked world.
It sounds like Crusade talk. Is she suggesting martyrdom?
Seriously, does anyone know what she means?
Is God more concerned with motive or action? If a man is kind to his neighbor because he fears eternal retribution, does this please God more than he who is kind because he has love for his neighbors?
The problem with the Judge’s statement that secular humanists promised one thing but we got another is that one could use the same reasoning to claim that Christianity promised love for everyone and we got bigotry and hatred. Both statements have no value except as rhetoric. Not all who claim Christianity understand or agree on its principles, nor can any one Christian promise positive results from Christianity without making those promises contingent on everyone correctly understanding its principles and adopting them. The same is true of any philosophy. Does it make sense to say, “secular humanists believe faith is not the answer; some which claim to be secular humanists have not delivered on promises; therefore faith is the answer?”
Generation after generation has been raised to believe that the only reason to do right is fear of retribution from an all-powerful authority. Such practice results in a society’s dependency on that fear like an addict depends on drugs. Rapid removal of the drug from an addict that depends on it will result in violent withdrawal symptoms that can render him useless or kill him. Likewise, removal of the fear of God from a society that has been raised to depend on it and it will experience symptoms of withdrawal. Additionally, just as the long term side effects of the drugs are detrimental to the addict, so is the side effect of often-arbitrary legalism that comes with fear-based morality. It would be foolishness for a drug addict to say of rehab, “It promises good health, but all I get is vomiting, cold sweats, shaking, and irritability.”
I’m not saying “therefore secular humanism is great.” I’m just saying that concluding the opposite because the move towards it caused “strife” is not a sound argument.
By the way, honeybees are social insects; each individual lives a relatively short and relatively meaningless life performing trivial acts of pollen-gathering and hive-building, but each will selflessly give its life to defend the hive. How do honeybee societies long survive without faith? Is it likely that each honeybee believes that fetching pollen and sacrificing itself at the hive’s gate will save it from eternal damnation, or is it more likely that societies, which failed to operate based on the mutual benefit of the colony did not long survive?
By the way, Uncle Michael, in response to:
I believe that the intended audience would understand her “to die for” message as meaning a faith worth dying to defend (as opposed worth conquering for). There is and has been this growing feeling among certain churches that if current trends continue that it will eventually become illegal to be Christian in this country.
This seems to fit the context also as what she opposes of “secular humanism” is what she sees as its exclusion of or opposition to Christianity.
Perhaps someone has another interpretation.
Warren,
Your analogy—that fear of a retributive deity is a drug to which our society is addicted—powerful insight, powerfully argued. I salute you.
Equally compelling for me was your notion that as the body politic withdraws from this drug it will look and feel like sickness, whereas, in fact, it is the body’s aching, lurching endeavor to reclaim its health. If I read you right, you seem to be saying that what looks like moral decline may in fact be the moral equivalent of delirium tremens.
Which reminds me of something called state-dependent learning. It’s the phenomenon in which what is learned by a a person while drunk may not be available to him when he sobers up. This is demonstrated in the experiment in which rats that learn to run a maze when drunk perform better when tested drunk than when tested sober.
Thanks, Warren, for a key analogy. It’s the best thing I’ve read this year. I’ve had a vague notion of this very idea for some time but I never took the time to put it into words. Reminds me of Pope’s: “True wit is nature to advantage dressed/What oft was thought, but ne’er so well expressed.”
And, by the way, a vocational aside: Get thee to a lecture hall!
So who took the drug away and gave us all the shakes? We usually blame the secular humanists, the agnostics and atheists, those have no god. I think that was Judge Brown’s point. But is that fair? Don’t believers have to shoulder some of the blame for discarding their angry God?
And it isn’t just the mainline, liberal believers either. Even evangelicals and fundamentalist pastors don’t preach real hell-fire homilies anymore. (On the other hand, the wrath of God will never be officially repudiated. You don’t kill off a core dogma, you just send it into exile.)
Religious fear has crumbled and broken down. The foundation has been destroyed. We can argue about who’s to blame, but the fact is it’s broken and must be fixed. The human task today is to jack up our ethics and put a new foundation under it.
Back in 1989, Glenn Tinder wrote the now-famous Atlantic Monthly article: “Can we be good without God?” It’s time to start answering that question. Our re-habbed patient is out of detox. Soon he’ll be out the door. He isn’t shaking anymore; his fear of God is gone. But what will sustain him in the hour when anger, ignorance, aggression, greed and lust reassert themselves? Before we let this guy walk, we want him to be able to finish this sentence: The antidote to evil is _________.
Michael
All,
Yes, Warren, I agree with your summary of the article’s objective. Good that we all have that understanding at the start.
As far as what God is more concerned with, I immediately think of the verse that says,
“Without faith it is impossible to please God” (Hebrew 11:16; but then you know that one.) I have never meant to imply, and I don’t think that I did, that we should have laws that can defend their morality with the Bible so that we can please God. That would be extremely “Tower of Babel-ish” of us to even attempt. I simply say that the morals based on principles in the Bible work to benefit society ( your criteria) and are reliable even when the reasons may be unknown.
Quoting Uncle Michael:
“Our re-habbed patient is out of detox. Soon he’ll be out the door. He isn’t shaking anymore; his fear of God is gone. But what will sustain him in the hour when anger, ignorance, aggression, greed and lust reassert themselves? Before we let this guy walk, we want him to be able to finish this sentence: The antidote to evil is _________.”
Bees, rehab, drunk rats…
This has been illustrated already in the human governmental realm or have we already forgotten the USSR? China is another example.
Bees act on instinct (given by God, I might add)
and this whole notion of jacking up and laying a new foundation is exactly where my finger has been pointing throughout every argument. It is here, at the foundational level that there is nothing to build with aside from accountabilty to a creator, logically speaking.
I may be speaking in a drug-induced psycotic state but I do have some of History’s greatest thinkers on my side. {twitch, twitch, drool}
Here is plenty of reading for anyone with time to kill on a Saturday if my commented on the other thread wasn’t enough.
The honeybee illustration was not an analogy, nor should one infer it to be representative of a good government. It’s purpose was twofold. First, it was to show how societies do not require faith or fear of damnation to long survive, they require cooperation. Second, it has been suggested several times that survival of the fittest implies that every man should be selfish. This is patently false. There is natural selective pressure against societies whose individuals behave selfishly.
Principles of natural selection work the same way on human societies (whether or not they’ve been around for six thousand or six thousand thousand years). The societies that work together have a survival advantage over those that do not. This is true whether the selflessness is due to heredity or due to fear of eternal torment.
However, if selflessness is attained via fear of eternal torment, then that fear artificially affords the society the survival advantage of selflessness even though its individuals may remain selfish. The mechanisms societies might use to weed out selfishness will be “fooled” by this artificial behavior. The society essentially becomes dependent on that fear to maintain selfless behavior. If that fear is removed, the society will see selfish behavior at levels not seen by societies which are not based on fear, because those societies would have been able to more effectively weed out such behavior. This is exactly how drugs behave.
Religion, as a drug is very effective. It is not surprising to find that all but a few of the most recent of societies have some kind of religion at their cores on which they depend. But this perch is growing ever more precarious as religions relying on physical assertions find their proverbial rugs being tugged on as their assertions collide with advances in scientific knowledge.
Melissa, it is true that the principles in the Bible tend to work toward mutual benefit. But they are only as reliable as those interpreting them, so why not just use mutual benefit for societal guidelines and let the individuals choose whether or not to adopt the Bible as additional guidelines? For instance, would you be in favor of making Buddhism illegal, or is that a personal decision? Does the Bible make a distinction between which rules are societal and which are individual?
The USSR crumbled for many reasons. Forbidding religion has no philosophical difference from enforcing one and no one has advocated that approach. The USSR also suffered from greedy totalitarian leaders and enforced communism which is proven to stifle any economy by starving it of motivation and incentive. China now has one of the fastest growing economies as it slowly eliminates restrictions in its market previously imposed by communist principles.
I still say that this is false, and obviously false. The abstract properties of murder, stealing, fraud etc, within a society can be easily demonstrated to be “bad for” the society. There is plenty with which to build and absolutes are not necessary in making this determination.
Speaking of absolutes, while sitting through a class at church about the “danger of moral relativism” the analogy of a tree without roots was presented to illustrate a world view that had no absolute base. I’d like to ask, whether it would be easier to knock over a tree with mile-deep roots, or move, just the planet earth, one inch off its orbit? Yet where is the earth’s foundation? Its position is relative to the solar system which is relative to the galaxy, which is relative to the galaxy cluster, which is relative to the super cluster, which is relative to the known universe which has no known absolute position at this time. Do you feel like you’re floating? For most of history, men assumed that the earth was the center of the universe and therefore absolute. Is it not funny how foolish our notions of absolutes can be. And what of that tree? It is only grounded in a giant rock floating through space.
So again, the problem with absolutes is not that there are no absolutes. The problem is that people’s notions of them are always relative.
“Is it not funny how foolish our notions of absolutes can be……So again, the problem with absolutes is not that there are no absolutes.”
Melissa, what’s your problem my statements you’ve quoted? I do not deny that absolutes exist. Obviously you want to debate someone who does deny their existence, because every time I ask for someone to show the usefulness of the concept, you repeatedly answer that they exist.
Not a problem exactly…It comes across that you are an “Absolute” agnostic. I just thought it was funny all together like that. I should have put in the next sentence too. It’s as if you say, here’s an absolute, but it’s relative. Isn’t “All absolutes are relative” an oxymoron? Yeah, yeah, people’s notions…it all works out the same in this one.
Only the absolute authority can know what is absolute. To all others it is belief. So yes, I am an “‘absolute’ agnostic” in that sense, but then anyone who is not commits blasphemy. Do you “know” what is absolute or “believe” it?
Again, I’m not saying that all absolutes are relative. I’m saying that all claims of absolutes are relative (even this one which is only true if the law of non-contradictions is true).
Here are the responses to your comment in the other thread:
“Turtles all the way down” is just a figure of speech representing “infinite regression,” a concept understood by many. Your whole argument is based on your assumption that infinite regression is impossible. What I pointed out was that all artificially applied boundaries to existential chains in the past have been proven false. Not only is your assumption baseless, it isn’t even supported by the trend.
Of course we know that. For snowflakes we know that it’s caused by chemical properties which are caused by particle attractive forces and so on. What we don’t know is that there is an end to this regression.
I gave three examples of order arising naturally from disorder, each of which contradicts your claim. If the definition is obvious, then your claim is just as obviously false.
You better take that up with Isaiah (45:7) then. But, how is evil only the absence of good. Even if it were, what is malevolence the absence of?
I actually said that he had two “wills” not “natures.” If it makes no sense to you, then perhaps you can understand why it makes no sense to me either. I’m not the one making this argument. The Bible describes both wills. He has one “will” which is his predestined plan, and then another “will” which often contradicts the first (and is essentially useless because it can never subvert the plan).
Evil is against God’s will but he creates it and predestines it. It is not God’s will that billions of men to be tormented eternally but he creates hell and predestines it. God doesn’t want Judas to betray Jesus but he predestines it. God commands Pharaoh to release the Israelites all the while compelling him not to.
My point is to illustrate that when absolutists give examples of absolutes, even their examples are relative. The tree can only be “knocked down” relative to the earth, but what is earth’s absolute position? Even when you claim that killing for sport is absolutely wrong, it is relative to your belief in a specific absolute because no one can know what is absolute. Still useless.
My other point was to show how comical it is to compare relativism to a tree without roots and call it flimsy, when the universe is just floating in a vacuum and yet it is used as the icon of utter immovability.
Do you know what is absolute or just believe?
Warren,
You need to do a little more research on the Isaiah passage as we are talking about morality here.
You say:
““Turtles all the way down” is just a figure of speech representing “infinite regression,” a concept understood by many. Your whole argument is based on your assumption that infinite regression is impossible. What I pointed out was that all artificially applied boundaries to existential chains in the past have been proven false. Not only is your assumption baseless, it isn’t even supported by the trend.”
“Turtles all the way down” illustrates absurdity in the link you gave. It is also not at all scientific. This is why I say it looks like you strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.
You are willing to defend the absurd rather than admit to the logical conclusions based on things that are scientifically much more likely. My assumption is not only not baseless, it is nothing like you have described! Artificial boundaries? You are the one who makes the ridiculous claim here, trend or no trend. If the trendsetters jump off a cliff will you then follow? This has nothing to do with what the most basic building blocks of life are and everything to do with who built them in the first place.
The boundaries currently held to be the most basic may change at any time according to new research and learning. This has never affected my position and, in fact, still requires a beginning.
As far as being an “Absolute agnostic”, using that line of reasoning,
it’s as if you say, “I don’t know what I am talking about; and you can’t either.”
Do you KNOW the earth is round, or just believe?
Warren,
I must say I entirely agree and have so appreciated your powerful and deep insight on this matter. I hope you enjoy the rest of this 1st day of April 2007.
Steve
Quoting Melissa,
No, we were talking about the nature of the first cause, because what I said was a response to your ontological argument from the Core Principles thread. I said that by the same argument the first cause must also be absolute evil. Your response was, “is light as much dark as it is light or is dark the absence of light?” I referenced Isaiah 45:7 in order to say that it makes no difference because God says that he is also the cause of darkness, so your question doesn’t change anything.
But the point is that if there’s a first cause, then anything in existence owes its existence to that first cause, including evil and malevolence. Luckily the very same verse also says that God creates evil.
This shouldn’t be a problem for anyone who can reconcile God’s two wills. If you don’t see a problem with God’s predestined design containing things he hates, then this should be of no concern to you.
You seem to have inferred that I meant to claim that an infinite stack of turtles was an intellectually tenable claim. That was not at all my intent. If anyone else inferred the same thing, I apologize.
What I am saying is that the claim that the causal chain cannot regress infinitely has never been a tenable a priori claim. And you’ve given no reason to believe it. So this was your assumption, but now you say:
I described your assumption as being that the causal chain could not go on for infinity. Here’s what you actually said:
This is the assumption I’ve describe, how is your assumption not like this? If it isn’t baseless, what’s the basis?
In the past, the “heavens” was assumed to be a canopy. This boundary is artificial. There is no such boundary and no reason to believe it doesn’t extend indefinitely. The elements were considered to be the most reducible component of matter. This boundary was artificial and we have found more reducible forms and no reason to believe that any such “most reducible” component even exists. It was assumed that sailing in one direction, one would eventually fall off the earth because it couldn’t go on infinitely. This boundary was artificial and false.
You are saying that the causal chain cannot go on forever because something has to be first. This boundary is artificial. The trend (or pattern) is that those who assume artificial boundaries are wrong. So the trend setter here is reality. (I have no idea why you think I am advocated the emulation of trend setters.)
In other words, you notice a pattern, in which every cause has, in turn, another cause. So you extended the pattern to be the causal chain. You then apply an artificial boundary to that chain. I’m saying that if you reached your conclusion based on the extension of a trend, then why should we not conclude you are incorrect based on the trend of people who assume artificial boundaries being incorrect?
There are two possible alternatives to first cause. The first is an infinite regression of causes. The second is circular causality, in which the causal chain is more like a loop than a line (note that within quantum physics effects may precede their causes, so this is theoretically possible).
That would be true if I had said that it is not possible for one to know what he is talking about. But of course I didn’t say that. What I said was that it is not possible to know that any given authority is absolute.
In fact, I say that it is possible to “know” things. Certain a priori truths can be known. I know that two is greater than one. I know that if A is greater than B and B is greater than C then A is greater than C.
I know that the earth is round in my reference frame, but since I do not know that my reference frame is absolute, I cannot say that I know that the earth is absolutely round.
An observer passing the earth at near light speed (relative to earth) would say that the earth is nearly flat and would be correct within his reference frame. A flat earth from such a reference frame is the only explanation in which all observable phenomena could be explained.
A rectangular map of the earth is a warped reference frame (warped from our perspective). In this frame the shortest distance between any two points is not a straight line, but a curve. The distance which represents a mile decreases as you recede from the equator. This is all due to the conceptual warping of spacetime necessary to view the earth’s surface as flat and rectangular. In this frame, the earth is flat.
So I don’t know that the earth is absolutely spherical because I don’t know any reference frame to be absolute. I only know that it is spherical in my reference frame. This is useful because we share the same reference frame. This is Einstein’s theory of relativity. Isn’t that a funny name?
In order to say that the earth is absolutely spherical, one must assume that his own reference frame is absolute. This assumption is not unlike the historical assumption that the earth was the absolute center of the universe.
So do you know what is absolute or believe?
Sounds to me like a the kind of answer we could expect from a politician. Just because something looks one way doesn’t mean it is. A map, light speed traveler, etc, all are smokescreens. It was a pretty straightforward question. Even in Quantum physics, I doubt that the effects truly precede the cause, I would guess that this is one of those things that does appear like that because of vantage point or measuring tools. Quantum physics is also VERY theoretical. I am not unfamiliar with the arguments that try and use it to “explain” first cause.
If your view is that nothing except mathematical equations and formulas can be known then I disagree with you. And furthermore, I don’t see any point in discussing this further since the position that you are vehemently defending is that you can’t possibly know anything relevant to this discussion for sure.
And aside: The word “evil” in Isaiah is not of the moral type. Besides, without admiting to a God, you have no business bringing up evil since the very concept of moral evil requires a deity. You could say that he caused the possibility of evil but without it you would have to get rid of the possibility of free moral will. But then, without that, we wouldn’t be having this discission.
For starters, I’m not saying it just “looks” flat to the near-light-speed observer, but that it “is” flat in his reference frame. This is an important distinction because the shape of the earth is not actually an absolute but relative to one’s reference frame. We often think of it as absolute because for practical purposes our reference frames will always be common and constant.
And this has been the subject of this whole thread: You continue to assert that there is no meaning without absolutes, and I continue to disagree. The shape of the earth is just another example. The fact that it isn’t absolute does not mean that I can make it be any shape I want. On the contrary, its shape is bound to the relevant reference frame and is determined by what best describes the observable data and makes accurate predictions in that frame. This is what makes the concept of “shape of the earth” useful. Saying that it is round just because it is, or because the Bible says so might appear to work in our reference frame, but is no more useful. Additionally it is prone to error. The Bible refers to the “circle” of the earth, which used to be interpreted as being a flat disc. Saying the earth was round was heresy. Even with the shape of the earth, absolutes are a useless concept. Absolute tends to be an illusion.
So I’m not dodging any question by answering in that way, I’m clarifying it. You accuse me of giving a politician answer, but yours was a politician question. Let’s not forget that your question was a response to a question that I asked first, “Do you know what is absolute or believe?” Your pharisee question suggested that knowing what is absolute was like knowing the shape of the earth. My answer both answered your question and explained why the two are not similar.
No, I am not saying that mathematical equations and formulas are all that can be known, but those are very good examples. However if you were going to disagree with the statement, then what else do you assert can be known besides these?
No, I’ve been defending the opposite. What I’ve been saying is that if “knowing for sure” is important, then it is absolutism that is useless, while “relativism” is quite useful. It is very useful to condemn stealing, for instance, because of its mutual detriment, because mutual detriment is relevant. It is not useful to say “because I believe it’s sin,” because your beliefs are neither absolute nor relevant.
The effects do precede the cause in our three dimensional reference frame. The reason you doubt it is surely because you expect experiences in our reference frame (such as cause/effect/time) to extend to the quantum level.
Let me explain this a different way. You say quantum physics is very theoretical. That’s true. But gravity is also only a theory. Of course gravitational theory is far more established than is quantum theory, but it wasn’t always that way. Gravitational theory used to stipulate that everything fell “downwards” and downwards was considered an absolute. So when some suggested that the earth was a sphere, they were laughed to scorn by those who pictured people falling off the bottom and the sides. By considering “downward” to be an absolute, they essentially extended their reference frame beyond its relevancy.
Now you are saying that a theory in which an effect precedes its cause is a limitation of the tools because you consider a three dimensional reference frame to be absolute. You’ve essentially extended your reference frame beyond its relevancy. Quantum physics is not just Newtonian physics on a smaller scale. It is brand new physics, and quantum theory is the explanation which best predicts behavior at that level. I think you’ll find that scientists tend to be a picky bunch of people that are pretty smart and actually look for useful knowledge rather than spending all day trying to debunk deity.
I don’t need to acknowledge the actual existence of a deity or even a first cause in order to say, “if a first cause exists, then evil owes its existence to it.” The kind of evil that you describe requires a deity only because your use of the term implies a definition of “something against the will of deity.” Your statement is just begging the question.
Did God not design the entire universe including its beginning, its end and all the predestined details in between? When God created the universe he programmed in every choice you’d ever make. He foreknew the evil and yet created it anyway. It was already his will, therefore, that we have this discussion. How can what you call free will be anything but an illusion?
It doesn’t matter whether the evil is “moral” evil or not, just whether it exists. I believe moral evil is still a subset of everything.
Considering a universe in which everything that exists owes its existence to a first cause, where nothing is truly random, where the beginning, end and every detail in between is predetermined, and yet those inside that universe have “free will.” I do not understand how anyone can reconcile that and yet be unable to reconcile principles of quantum theory or even relativity.
Alright, Warren, suit yourself. I can see that you are not interested in discussion but disagreement. You have constantly asserted from the beginning that your arguments were not relativistic and yet now you say that is the only argument that makes sense. The irony is in how dogmatically you assert this fact.
I did not ask a question in answer to yours because I was being pharisaical but because I was feeling out your definition of “believe”. All that you have expounded on is merely your belief and under that definition, I believe that God exists and is therefore relevant to the discussion. But if your definition of “believe” was something like a belief in Santa Clause, something without evidence and completely against the natural order of things then in that case I would say I “know” that God exists. I haven’t seen God himself any more that you have seen the shape of the earth from any frame of reference but from within it. The earth never changes shape so I don’t see why frame of reference makes much difference. But whatever, that is not my point.
And as to the God’s will thing, I see you constantly mischaracterizing the argument so I suggest that when you are truly interested in an answer, you talk to someone who will articulate it to you more clearly.
To all,
I was thinking about all this talk of the “withdrawl” period and all of its “symptoms” as the country withdraws from addiction to this fictional, feel-good, God-excuse.
Two things come to mind:
One is that we are very quick to say to God, “Stay out, we’ll take over now and we’ll do a better job” and then in our arrogance proclaim that God, if he exists, is an irrational being, responsible for all the evil that befalls us.
Secondly, I would characterize the situation more like a Diabetic who needs insulin but decides not to believe in diabetes and therefore stops taking the insulin and behaves in the same way he always behaved. In one case we are talking about a recreational drug or opiate and in the other case, a life preserver meant to preserve not only life, but quality of life as well.
What if I’m wrong?
What if you are?
Melissa, all my arguments have been relativistic - I have not asserted otherwise. I have only objected to your labeling of me a “moral relativist” so that you could defeat what are essentially someone else’s beliefs. I do not assert that there are no absolutes. I am only arguing in terms of usefulness.
In other words, I have continually made arguments which are relative to that which is relevant. This is in contrast to your arguments which are relative to your beliefs. Your beliefs alone are not relevant.
You continue to assert that absolutes are relevant by virtue of their existence. But you don’t produce evidence of their existence, only insist that you have a right to believe them. I do not dispute this right, but your right to believe them would not make them relevant either.
You also keep implying that relativistic arguments are for some reason useless without some absolute. I have given examples of where the opposite is true.
So I am not just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. I keep asking someone to explain in what way the concept of absolutes is actually useful.
That’s fine, but your method was to ask a question. You then compared me to a politician for answering your question precisely.
This statement is very misleading. The earth does change shape when one’s reference frame changes, but only for those whose reference frame changes. For those whose reference frame is not changing the earth’s shape doesn’t change. How can it be two shapes at once? Because shape is relative to spacetime.
Imagine drawing a circle on a rubber band then stretching that rubber band. The shape changes as you look down on that rubber band. But to any observer who is also superimposed on that rubber band, the shape would at the same time remain a circle because the observer is equally affected by the stretch.
This is mostly how it works with relativity, but instead of two dimensions of space, it is three dimensions of spacetime. There’s no “luminiferous aether” which is the absolute by which either observer can be judged. Both are correct in their reference frames.
The effect is small at low speeds, but nevertheless exists at any relative speed. An example of where conventional Newtonian physics is demonstrably incompatible is in GPS satellite systems, which must compensate for relativistic effects in order to operate.
As for the diabetes metaphor, if I understand correctly, you are saying that the drug might be treatment for a serious illness rather than an the agent of an addiction. And if we are to believe it is the former, we should believe that the creator despises the illness which he designed into his creation, etc.
You see, the issue here is that on the one hand, you give evidence that there is a God which is absolute, is the first cause, is omnipotent, and is responsible for everything which exists. But when it is convenient you employ another God which is the essence of what is good, despises some of the very things that the first designed, and yet unfortunately is essentially powerless to affect the design (or subvert the plan) of the first.
It isn’t the existence of one or the other that’s a problem. It’s the belief that both are the same thing, which is incoherent. I’ve already read John Piper’s attempt at “articulating it more clearly.” But Piper’s take is that it’s perfectly acceptable for God to will a thing “in one sense” (desire) and will the opposite “in another sense” (sovereign plan). Unfortunately, changing the words might have made the pill slippery enough to swallow, but it hasn’t made the result more coherent.
Your insinuation that I am not interested in an answer is silly. What motive could I have for that?
This is directed specifically to Warren’s rebuttal but is also for everyone. This discussion seems to have reduced down to Warren and me arguing points that we will not resolve here. The arguments are becoming redudant. So consider this my closing summary:
Well, I will not try to do for you what John Piper couldn’t. I have no problem whatsoever with the different nuances that the word “will” can take on in different contexts. I also have no such arrogance as to think that because he allows things contrary to his plan, that he can not still accomplish his goals.
Yes, I do believe we are as one sick. We have a moral depravity that God has allowed us to choose. Why, I don’t know, except that following the logical train either direction, allowing us choice is to His glory. Fortunately, as sick and dying men that we are, we also are offered the cure. Whether or not we choose to accept is our decision. I do not have two gods but One who is infinitely loving and just at the same time. Again,fortunately, in His justice and love, He has made a way for grace. But also in His love, His grace is not forced.
I have just re-read all these posts and one theme that continues to be apparent: this difference between the words believe and know. It seems to me that you are trying to make the word Believe to mean only “how you feel about something” and the word know to mean “to understand and aprehend in every possible way with no possibility of another explanation existing, however minute or fanciful”
I think that while that may be how the word ‘know’ is used in mathematics, in everyday practice that is not how people use the word. We know things because we have good reasons. Juries are instructed to make their decisions based on whether or not ‘reasonable doubt’ exists. Not invoking the ‘universal negative’ law. Are they ever wrong? Sure. Are they always wrong? No. Even most of the time? Of course not. This method is successful because it generally works.
Now, granted, here we are talking about absolutes. Specifically absolutes and whether or not they can be applied or invoked in decision making regarding government.
You essentially say we should start with a common goal and work backwards. The problem is that while we may all agree on what is beneficial for society, we more likely will not. We can not even agree on what a society is and who it includes.
Furthermore, once we reach this point of disagreement, the absolutes immediately become relevant. After all, why should I believe you? And you may ask why you should believe me. This is where the impasse is. No common goal. No common foundation.
You pointed out China to me in defense of your definition of a society that has benefitted from your method of decision making. This was in response to me pointing out the opposite. To me, the forced family sizes, the extreme poverty outside of the cities, the child labor, the persecution of Christian-type religious views, etc… is the opposite of a ‘benefitted society’, but you,on the other hand, point out the prosperity and commerce. I don’t want to discuss China, just to point out that our ideas are different.
I am going to sign out of this discussion at this point because we are at an impasse, your method of achieving the goal you want may work to achieve that goal, but that goal is not my goal. My goal is still to benefit society but I have a different idea of what society should look like and what would benefit it. ( Do not mistake this for what the Taliban does.Trying to do so is a straw man.) So what society will be comes down to who has the most power or numbers. And that fluctuates.
Your refusal to allow the assumtion of the existance of God reduces your idea of what a society should be to mere opinion. Why should I follow you? If your method will not admit to something so crucial as God, how can I know that your method will not at some point choose to eliminate him and those who defend his existance?
I will close with this quote from trappist monk Thomas Merton:
“In the name of whom or what do you ask me to behave? Why should I go to the inconvenience of denying myself the satisfactions I desire in the name of some standard that exists only in your imagination? Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?”
The impasse and redundancy appear to be due to my explaining why your interpretations of my statements are inaccurate. In doing so I have to reiterate my arguments. A lot of the redundancy starts with some form of “no, what I said was…”
I did not say God allows things contrary to his plan. I am not even sure exactly what you mean by that. I said that he designed into his plans things that he hates.
I don’t say that we “should” start with a common goal and work backwards. I tried to point out that we already start there, and the problems appear where we deviate.
You continue to suggest that I’m pushing some absolute on you but I am not. I am asking that if our common goal is mutual benefit, then why is any absolute necessary? Why don’t we both make arguments which are based on (relative to) that goal? In other words, if your argument for limiting my freedom cannot be made based on mutual benefit, then what reason would I have to agree to it? If we disagree on what is ultimately beneficial (and we will) then let’s discuss why something is or isn’t ultimately beneficial, but not just revert to claims to absolutes. (I would have loved to have made it to this part of the discussion without being attacked as an anything-goes-er because I suggested that mutual benefit was a reasonable goal).
You also say that I’m asking you to “believe” me, but I’m not. I’m just deriving conclusions logically from things which I expect you already accept.
I did not “refuse to allow the assumption of the existence of God.” I refused to accept that his existence or nature could be self-contradicting. (however, that said, I do refuse to allow the assumption of existence to be used as a basis for argument)
My definition of “to know” was not close to your description of it. I do mean the “everyday” usage.
I am going to go ahead and explain this. I have no desire to get into a deep epistemological debate, because the everyday usage of “to know” is well understood, even if it is a bit tricky to articulate.
In a nutshell, the difference between knowing and believing is that one knows a thing when he believes it and has justification for believing it, and has justification for believing the justification and so on. This infinite regression would make nothing knowable except that in everyday usage of “to know”, context provides relevance which implies acceptable “givens” which need no justification within that context.
For example, I can say that as I type this, “I know that I am not moving anywhere.” This would “make sense” and be considered valid even though it is not absolutely true. The context of my statement simply suggests that the ground is to be considered stationary even though we can’t actually say it is, and also it is accepted that my senses are trustworthy.
I stated the obvious here, so this won’t be news to anyone, but what seems to be missed is that this illustrates what I have been defending, which is that “relativism” does not mean “anything goes” as is repeatedly suggested. Nor is knowledge useless because it is relative. Anyone who is able to understand the usefulness of the word “move” should be able to understand this principle.
There is no absolute that is known against which one can justify motion. And yet motion remains a well understood and useful concept (obviously).
Again this is not to say there are no absolutes, but that absolutes cannot be “known” according to even the common usage of the term, because of the nature of absolutes. Additionally our most well understood concepts are based on knowledge which is completely relative.