Ok, I'm back, and will hopefully manage to refrain from slipping into angry rantings this week. Following up my suggestion we read something and discuss, to avoid spending all my writing time covering ground that's been covered elsewhere - and recognising you won't necessarily want to just go out and buy a book I recommend - I propose using some material from the web. I flag up a Christian apologetics site, and wd first direct to two very useful ground-clearing sections, Mistakes Christians make when dialoguing with atheists, and Mistakes Atheists make when dialoguing with Christians . Picking up on one of the recent hot topics, I then suggest Arguments from morality for the existence of God. I've just read the first section, There is a universal moral law.
I have 2 initial qs: Billy, you expressed wariness of philosophy as dealing in theory and not evidence. Expanding the evidence notion to include 'what we actually think and do in practice': is it not true that in practice you recognise moral absolutes or 'universal moral law' eg if someone tripped you up maliciously, wd you not think they actually did something 'wrong'? I disagree with your opinion that Cns exaggerate the 'universal moral law'. Of course there are differences across time and culture, but wd you deny that basic practices such as murder and theft have pretty universally been regarded as wrong? Lastly, if there are no moral absolutes, on what grounds do you continually appeal, in no uncertain terms, that certain practices in the Bible are 'wrong'? (let's stick for the moment with this q - the q about why such practices are there is a separate one). On this point you seem to want to have your cake and eat it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
17 comments:
Bruce,
Two of your links dont work.
Please read the monkey link I keep puting up if you want to see evolution of justice.
If someone wilfully trips me up, I will defend myself - like any other animal.
The concept of moral absolutes you give are not absolute - people do commit murder after all - some even like it. Some people even like murder. Murder has got many people what they want through out history. Often you hear people say they would kill others if they could get away with it (strangely a large number of christians say "if there is no god, why shouldn't I just go about killng people?") You seem to be confusing Laws with moral thoughts and actions.
Here ate two questions for you on this theme (well 3)
1 Is homosexuality immoral?
2 Is blasphemy immoral
3 Why do you rule out naturalistic explanations for moral behaviour?
Billy
PS, I can get that philosophy book from the library. Dont know if others can.
More later, I've a physio appointment - Here's a little prayer test for you "Pray I get better instantly. I'm sure I wont, but at least you cant say I didn't give you the chance
All the links should work now.
Hi Billy. The purpose of prayer is not to test God's existence, rather to invite him to act in a situation over which we have no earthly control. The purpose of the prayer must be in line with his perfect will, and we have to pray in faith, trusting that God is capable of doing what we ask, should he be willing.
Christians believe that God is pleased by acts of faith. There are always areas where there are doubts as to whether God's hand was really in a situation, but the Christian trusts in God despite this. I think it's impossible to have faith without having doubt, and vice versa. God is constantly trying to bring us into a relationship where we trust him completely, even when there is evidence for doubt.
I will pray for your healing, even though you don't believe it will do anything. In this circumstance, I believe it is my faith, and not your doubt which matters, and infinitely more: God's will.
Get well soon :)
Beat Attitude
I do actually know this particular version of christian doctrine (needless to say I disagree with it on biblical grounds though).
It was said more in a form of gentle banter
Take care
Billy
Forgot to add Bruce.
Do you think it is immoral for a starving man to steal food? If this were an absolute as you claim, then you have to say it is immoral. I however disagree - the very fact that we disagree means that there is no absolute universitality here.
Billy
On that one Billy, I'd say you're taking a faulty view of the moral absolutes concept. This relates to Beat's post a couple of weeks ago, where he pointed out that in this world sometimes a lesser evil must be committed to avoid a greater one. In this case the man's death wd be the greater evil. Perhaps absolute isn't the most helpful word here because of it's connotations of inflexibility, which you're latching on to. The fact there may be circs where stealing is justified doesn't stop the principle about theft from standing; it is still generally accepted that in a normal set of circs, all other things being equal, taking what doesn't belong to you is wrong. Similarly with murder. The image of say a trampoline - anchored but with built in flexibility - is more useful here than something immovable and hard like a rock.
I will try and address your other points later, but I'd still like to hear what you make of my q: if you really are a complete relativist and don't believe in universally held moral values or any foundation for them, then on what grounds can you appeal to them to attack the bible? Because you are clearly appealing to eg a universal or at least very widespread conviction that certain kinds of killing are wrong eg of innocent children. Once we've tackled that, I'd be more prepared to go on and explore the bible's depiction of such practices.
Bruce,
A definition of absolute is :"complete and without restriction or qualification".
If you mean anything else, then please state it.
You miss the point, I dont even believe it is slightly immoral for a starving man to steal. Do you think the man he steals from should be compensated?
By introducing situational ethics here, you have destroyed the concept of absolutes.
To suggest that stealing is wrong suggests that you feel there is a standard that we compare against. Do people think that stealing is wrong, or do they think stealing from me is wrong? In truth, there is a spectrum of responses to that question, so where is this absolute standard?
if you really are a complete relativist and don't believe in universally held moral values or any foundation for them, then on what grounds can you appeal to them to attack the bible?
I thought it was obvious. They disgust the standards that I have. I donot consider it a morally good book. To me, infanticide is always wrong, discriminating on sexuality is always wrong etc. If you disagree with that, that only underlines that moral values are not written in stone.
If I were in the Hitler youth, I would think that killing Jews was moral. If I was part of Joshua's army, I would think spearing babies was moral - even more so, because god tells me to do it.
We may broadly agree on many things, but as pointed out previously, there is survival value in moral codes. Where do you think those colobus monkey's get their values from? God? Dr Cornelius? Does co-operation help you survive during tough times?
One problem is that the bible claims that god has written his laws on the hearts of men. Strange I dont recognise them in that case- wouldn't you say?
Now you can answer my questions. Why do you defend this monsrous god of the OT? We clearly do not share a common moral source in this respect.
Billy
Just occurred to me, in one of those lesser of two evils (flexible and not absolute) morality scenarios,what would Jesus do? He is allegedly perfect and can not do even the smallest evil. So, that would imply a non lesser of two evils approach - an absolutely right approach. How then do you not know what this should be if god sets the standards?
Billy
"This relates to Beat's post a couple of weeks ago, where he pointed out that in this world sometimes a lesser evil must be committed to avoid a greater one."
Bruce, did I say that?
Things keep comming to me today inbetween experiments.
If the assumption is that it is right to save a life (eg the starving man) What if that man were Stalin and saving him would cause the death of many. How flexible are you on this? Many would say let him die. Some would say save him - a mixed response. Again, no consensus.
Billy
PS Bruce, did Beat attitude not say he was going to make us all strawberry cheese cake? What is his memory like ? :-)
'To me, infanticide is always wrong, discriminating on sexuality is always wrong etc.'
Billy, my point is that you yourself are appealing to what you evidently regard as a universally held moral standard here - or at least one you think SHOULD be so held, otherwise how cd you use it to attack the bible? Someone cd just turn to you and say that's just your subjective opinion! I do think you're inconsistent in your thinking here. You can't just loudly proclaim there are no universal or ultimate moral standards and then employ an argument that plainly assumes there are. Is that consistent?
Other qs will have to wait.
Beat, I put words in your mouth, sorry, but in your mother baby story you hypothesised a mum smothering her child - an evil or let's say not good thing - to save others (avoid the greater evil of their deaths).
Woah, bit behind on the discussion! Just a quick point.
Billy said- He is allegedly perfect and can not do even the smallest evil (referring to Jesus).
It just occurred to me, didn't Jesus cast out the money-changers and sellers of doves from the Temple with great anger? Perhaps a small sin there?
Sorry, this isn't about the main discussion! Just struck me, so thought I'd mention it.
Jonathan.
Bruce,
If you remember, you suggested that moral absolutes were evidence of God. I am actually arguing such things dont exist in the first place.
Someone cd just turn to you and say that's just your subjective opinion!
Erm, that's my whole point about moral values! Thet are not universally accepted or absolute
You can't just loudly proclaim there are no universal or ultimate moral standards and then employ an argument that plainly assumes there are. Is that consistent?
How does that stop me having my own values and judging the bible by them? There is no inconsistency in what I am saying. You are making unjustified assumption that I am comparing the bible against some immutable template. I most certainly am not. Please re read the stuff about Hitler again. How am I appealing to a universal? Is a child molester appealing to a universal when he is complaining that he is not allowed access to children? We both dont share the feeling of injustice he may have about the situation, but that doesn't change the fact he feels it. We both would say he is wrong,so where is the need for an absolute to feel that some thing is wrong. I feel it is wrong to make children pray at school, you may disagree, but I am not appealing to some moral standard. You may disagree because you have a different set of moral values on this subject - just like the homosexuality issue. We both disagree on that, so then, where is the absolute standard that allows us to feel that issues relating to homosexuality are right or wrong. You dont need an absolute to feel a sense of injustice
Do you actually defend the bad stuff in the bible? I would really like to hear your answer to that. I think we have clearly shown a lack of universal acceptance of values here, and in so doing proved my point.
Billy, my point is that you yourself are appealing to what you evidently regard as a universally held moral standard here - or at least one you think SHOULD be so held, otherwise how cd you use it to attack the bible?
Just to further clarify that there is no inconsistency here. Since I know you and you generally seem decent, I perhaps erroneusly assumed that you would think infanticide is wrong and that would be some common ground to work from - obviously snuff video fans would disagree with us (again moral standards are shown to be relative). Then you could weigh the bible against that and see if these are the actions of a being that you would consider worthy of praise. Also, does such a being measure up to what you consider to be loving.
It's time you answered some of these questions now.
Billy
Ah, it was in regards to the post about the refugees hiding with the baby, yes?
I don't think that "lesser evil" is the correct term, though.
The situation had a choice and that was to do something positive (i.e. out of agape love) by smothering the infant or negative (i.e. out of selfish love) by saving it and condemning the group.
Where agape love is the motivation, for God or for man, a circumstance which seems evil in isolation suddenly is the scene of an outpouring of good. (and again, sometimes that is only visible with an eternal perspective).
I actually think that Jesus was into situational ethics, based on the principles of loving God and loving your neighbour. He said that the laws and prophets all hung on these rules.
The ways in which we do those things depend on knowing what that actually means.
The fifth principle of situational ethics (Only the end justifies the means and nothing else) seems contrary to biblical teaching on matters such as law. However I think that the principle stands, so long as we have an eternal perspective, and a right understanding of what it is to Love God.
Therefore, the problem is that if you don't believe God exists, there can be no justification for certain acts which are done out of love towards Him. Yet the biblical circumstances where God has ordered people towards a course of action seemingly contrary to their natural instincts (who EVER thinks that killing children is a good idea, unless they are seriously depraved?) are all justified on this premise alone.
God is God, and as a result, all of our instincts, our sense of morality (however relative) must submit to his authority on these matters. If they did not, then they are incomplete, and prone to leading us in the wrong direction. I believe we are called to Divine Situational Ethics.
Jesus teaches the parable of the talents. The guy with only one, who buried it and returned it had a sense of the justness of his action. But God sent him to hell. The reader says: hell? For that? He didn't even steal it! How can that be just?
The Christian reader says "Oh man. That is serious. My understanding of justice, of loving God is not what it should be. I should try and learn how Love can mean this".
Of course, the danger lies in the fact that it might not be true, and we're being called, not to a higher ethical standard, but a lower one. Misinterpreting truth can lead to that, as can rightly interpreting untruth.
We're all still working on understanding what is right and what is wrong, and to speak of situations in isolation is not going to get us anywhere. It's the sadducees all over again. I know you're having fun with your "stealing bread for Stalin" story, but it is of limited value here.
Regarding your question of naturalistic explanations for moral behaviour...
Monkeys that show a sense of justice? Hold the front page! The world is full of monkeys displaying a rudimentary sense of justice :)
Humans are not hugely dissimilar to monkeys, are they? Kinda like more developed versions (sorry creationists, but I think this.)
I believe we do have a naturalistic sense of morality. To suggest that it is conclusive proof of a creator is a rather shaky suggestion. It's nothing more than a hint.
I also believe that we are called to a higher sense of morality than that incomplete, personal and societal one which we have developed "naturally". (I won't say "apart from God, because I still think God's hand is in it).
Acting on advice from my personal trainer, I sweat it out at the gym three times a week, and on the advice from my dietician, I limit my intake of my favourite foods.Mmm cheesecake.
Someone with monkey thinking wouldn't understand my reasons for doing something painful to myself, or denying myself something tasty. Yet it is beneficial. I witness short term hints/reassurances and long term results when I put my faith in the guidance of these experts.
In the same way, understanding life based on the laws and guidance of God may at times seem inexplicable to those without the experience of seeking and discerning God's will.
I don't have a personal trainer or dietician by the way. You can probably tell.
Beat attitude
Am I right in assuming you dont buy the argument for god from morality?
I agree, Jesus did use situational ethics, such as his sabbath controvesy. However, the law stating that sabbath breakers should be killed has no condtions attatched, so in that respect, I find his actions in contradiction to OT laws.
You seem to be saying that people should accept that god is right and moral and learn to understand why. I wonder what Bruce's thoughts as an absolutist are here.
My big problem of coures is that I dont share that faith. If you need faith to believe that god is just despite the evidence of the bible, then it is not an argument that god really is just. Am I right in saying that you pre-assume that he is, then seek to justify it (in a way that most athiests won't accept). I dont see how this is any different to pre- assuming Hitler was right, then changing your thinking to conform to his. On what basis do you believe god is right? and how do you personally justify Exodus 11? Obviously we are going to disagree given the relative nature of moral thinking, but I would be intested to hear your rationalisation.
Billy
Hi Bruce I thought I would tell you about vervet monkeys today, just for the hell of it. There are interesting for two. Firstly, they have a rudimentary language. They have words for Eagle, Leopard and Snake, which they call out to the troop when such a threat appears. Imagine they didn’t co-operate in this way. Each would be responsible for its own safety. It cant look in all directions at once, so it is not able to scan the sky, trees and ground simultaneously, so it is more vulnerable to predation. If however, there are many sets of eyes looking in many different directions, and these send out a warning, everyone’s survival chances are improved – would you not agree? So, your survival is actually dependant on the survival of and co-operation with those around you. Imagine you are in the trenches of Paschendale, some one tosses in a grenade. You either run and keep quiet, or you shout a warning and run. Which benefits you most? It’s the same principle.
Now, let us assume for the sake of argument that there are some moral universals; the scenario above shows how vacuous Lewis’ claims are that the only possible explanation of “absolutes” is an anthropomorphic law giver. The above scenario is absolutely impartial. It is called natural selection, but can work to produce a scenario where it is beneficial for you to be concerned about the well being of others.
Oh yeah, the second thing: they have the brightest blue pair of little monkey nuts that you have ever seen :-). Despite its humour value, it is actually the result of sexual selection driving this process. The bluer your balls, the more females choose to mate with you. Sexual selection also goes a long way to shaping the evolution of other male specific characteristics and behaviours.
Billy
Post a Comment