Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it?
We can suggest answers, but we don't state that they are true until we have evidence.
It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
Not at all. Questions are worth asking. The problem is when people say they have definitely found answers using highly questionable methods (such as divine revelation).
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
Perhaps that is true, but it seems to me a bizarre idea that religion is a better method of answering them. I don't think that "I have a feeling" is a way to answer such things.
There are surely better ways, such as philosophy.
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
Coming up with a testable explanation for how it got going, such as to show that a timeless quantum fluctuation could give rise to everything.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
A reply to More Faith
Steve, not too much to add. Just this:
"the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered."
Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it? Granted, there are some questions -- "What is the meaning of life?", for example -- that are philosophical in nature, and as such, seem ill-suited for testing by the scientific method. However, I don't see what one gains by simply stating we should "leave the question unanswered." It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
You are certainly within your rights to say that the only important questions are the ones that science can answer, but it would be naive to think you could ever persuade the majority of people on this point. People want answers to these questions and they aren't going to (and can't, I suspect) stop asking them simply because a scientist says they're unimportant.
By the way, this is an interesting idea to consider when pondering the question of God's existence, as well as your statement about "test[ing] the God idea - to run the 'paternity test' for the Universe."
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
I'm not sure I have the answer, or even that there is an answer. Very interesting question, though.
"the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered."
Hmm. That's not exactly in keeping with the spirit of scientific discovery, is it? Granted, there are some questions -- "What is the meaning of life?", for example -- that are philosophical in nature, and as such, seem ill-suited for testing by the scientific method. However, I don't see what one gains by simply stating we should "leave the question unanswered." It seems to me that you're basically saying that any question that doesn't lend itself to a naturalistic explanation isn't worth asking.
But the fact that questions about meaning, purpose, etc. cannot be answered by science in any definitive way does not suggest to me they aren't worth asking, only that the answers to them, if answers can be found, will not be provided by science. These kinds of questions are hugely important to a vast majority of people and it has been so since the dawn of civilization.
You are certainly within your rights to say that the only important questions are the ones that science can answer, but it would be naive to think you could ever persuade the majority of people on this point. People want answers to these questions and they aren't going to (and can't, I suspect) stop asking them simply because a scientist says they're unimportant.
By the way, this is an interesting idea to consider when pondering the question of God's existence, as well as your statement about "test[ing] the God idea - to run the 'paternity test' for the Universe."
I'm curious. What do you envision as a good test for God's existence? Would would a "paternity test" for the Universe look like?
I'm not sure I have the answer, or even that there is an answer. Very interesting question, though.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
More Faith...
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
I suspect so.
But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof.
Yes, that is just what I thought. My view is that the ones who really have the most "faith" are the theologians, who have thought about the question of the existence of God in great detail, and perhaps all realise, as the theologian Denys Turner puts it - "in the end it all comes down to faith".
I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
Of course (I would say), the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
That is a very good point! It does, however, act as a kind of shield for religious belief. If this matter was of great importance, it could be tested. I believe that when people say (for example) "God hates fags", then it is appropriate to test the God idea - to run the "paternity test" for the Universe!
I suspect so.
But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof.
Yes, that is just what I thought. My view is that the ones who really have the most "faith" are the theologians, who have thought about the question of the existence of God in great detail, and perhaps all realise, as the theologian Denys Turner puts it - "in the end it all comes down to faith".
I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
Of course (I would say), the correct response to that is to leave the questions unanswered.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
That is a very good point! It does, however, act as a kind of shield for religious belief. If this matter was of great importance, it could be tested. I believe that when people say (for example) "God hates fags", then it is appropriate to test the God idea - to run the "paternity test" for the Universe!
Monday, March 24, 2008
Einstein First, then Faith
Well, I think I differ on Einstein, though nothing I would be dogmatic about. I said that Einstein believed there were important questions that science did not answer. Here are some quotes (just googled) that seem to support my view:
"All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
Anyway, on to your question about faith.
I think faith actually does play a big part in the everyday life of the typical Christian, although I don't think it's primarily exercised in relation to the question of God's existence.
Frankly, I don't think most Christians walk around pondering God's existence. To the extent they think about it at all, I suspect they're not obsessed with finding what you'd call "empirical" proof. But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof. That proof, they believe, is revealed in Nature and the natural order of things. The Bible specifically addresses this in Romans 1:20-25:
"[S]ince the creation of the world God's invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."
Now, I understand you don't believe the Bible and I've generally tried to avoid using it in our discussions. I quote it here simply to point out what, I think, most Christians believe, even if they're not familiar with this particular quotation. I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
What's more, I think the way in which people live their everyday lives is pervaded by a certain kind of faith or assumption. Let me give you one example.
I have five children. Now, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my wife is the mother of our five children, since I was present for the delivery.
But wait. Can I really say that? How do I know they didn't switch the babies in the nursery room when I wasn't looking? Now that I really think about it, I don't really have any good evidence.
Or what of this questions: how can I be certain I'm really the father of those five children? After all, if one believes the latest polls on adultery, about 50% of married people in the U.S. run around on their spouse. And yet, inexplicably perhaps, I firmly believe they are my children. I don't have have any real "proof," and yet I live my life in a way that simply accepts it as a fact. True, I could get a DNA test that would give me the kind of evidential proof a legal court might accept, but I would then have to accept that the individual in charge of doing the test wasn't having an affair with my wife, or that she hasn't paid them in order to hide her affair with someone else.
And hey, how do I know those folks I call "Mom and Dad" are really my biological parents? I'd be hard-pressed to justify this belief, since I have no real proof of this. But despite a lack of evidence, I somehow don't feel compelled to demand they submit themselves to a paternity/maternity test to prove it to me. I just accept it as truth. Strange as it may sound, I've lived my entire life without ever once wondering whether those people who claim to be my parents are actually biologically related to me. I just accept it as truth, though I have nothing you would call "real" proof. Being able to do this, I think, is very helpful to the getting on with one's life.
So yea, I think Christians believe they have faith about God's existence. But I don't think they really spend much time thinking about it that way.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
"All our knowledge is but the knowledge of schoolchildren. Possibly we shall know a little more than we do now. but the real nature of things, that we shall never know, never."
"To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness."
I'm not attempting to prove Einstein was religious, or monotheistic, or even deistic. All I'm saying is that I think he believed there were questions, important questions, that science does not answer.
Anyway, on to your question about faith.
I think faith actually does play a big part in the everyday life of the typical Christian, although I don't think it's primarily exercised in relation to the question of God's existence.
Frankly, I don't think most Christians walk around pondering God's existence. To the extent they think about it at all, I suspect they're not obsessed with finding what you'd call "empirical" proof. But I do think you are correct. Most Christians believe they have proof. That proof, they believe, is revealed in Nature and the natural order of things. The Bible specifically addresses this in Romans 1:20-25:
"[S]ince the creation of the world God's invisible attributes — his eternal power and divine nature — have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles."
Now, I understand you don't believe the Bible and I've generally tried to avoid using it in our discussions. I quote it here simply to point out what, I think, most Christians believe, even if they're not familiar with this particular quotation. I think they look at the world around them, and feel that no matter how much knowledge man possesses, there will always be questions they believe cannot be answered.
What's more, I think the way in which people live their everyday lives is pervaded by a certain kind of faith or assumption. Let me give you one example.
I have five children. Now, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that my wife is the mother of our five children, since I was present for the delivery.
But wait. Can I really say that? How do I know they didn't switch the babies in the nursery room when I wasn't looking? Now that I really think about it, I don't really have any good evidence.
Or what of this questions: how can I be certain I'm really the father of those five children? After all, if one believes the latest polls on adultery, about 50% of married people in the U.S. run around on their spouse. And yet, inexplicably perhaps, I firmly believe they are my children. I don't have have any real "proof," and yet I live my life in a way that simply accepts it as a fact. True, I could get a DNA test that would give me the kind of evidential proof a legal court might accept, but I would then have to accept that the individual in charge of doing the test wasn't having an affair with my wife, or that she hasn't paid them in order to hide her affair with someone else.
And hey, how do I know those folks I call "Mom and Dad" are really my biological parents? I'd be hard-pressed to justify this belief, since I have no real proof of this. But despite a lack of evidence, I somehow don't feel compelled to demand they submit themselves to a paternity/maternity test to prove it to me. I just accept it as truth. Strange as it may sound, I've lived my entire life without ever once wondering whether those people who claim to be my parents are actually biologically related to me. I just accept it as truth, though I have nothing you would call "real" proof. Being able to do this, I think, is very helpful to the getting on with one's life.
So yea, I think Christians believe they have faith about God's existence. But I don't think they really spend much time thinking about it that way.
(As a side issue, I can't help but wonder what my wife's reaction would be if I demanded my children be subjected to a paternity test. Or what my parents' reaction would be if I ask them to prove they were actually related to me. Good questions to consider, perhaps, when we get around to discussing "blind faith.")
Friday, March 21, 2008
Faith?
They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it.
Yes, it is.
As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
Ah, no. That was not what I was pointing out. Einstein did not believe science could not answer certain questions. He believed that science was the best method for understanding the nature of the deist "god".
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
Right. I have this theory. I don't believe that faith has the role in the lives of believers that many think it has. I think that most believers think that they have evidence for what they believe, so that God is real to them, and does not require the so-called "leap of faith", abandoning reason. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Yes, it is.
As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
Ah, no. That was not what I was pointing out. Einstein did not believe science could not answer certain questions. He believed that science was the best method for understanding the nature of the deist "god".
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
Right. I have this theory. I don't believe that faith has the role in the lives of believers that many think it has. I think that most believers think that they have evidence for what they believe, so that God is real to them, and does not require the so-called "leap of faith", abandoning reason. I would love to hear your opinion on this.
Conclusion to Deism, And a Far Bigger Question
Good point.
I think the idea of God being some sort of cosmic force or essence is rooted in the fact that people have important questions for which they feel science fails to give satisfactory answers, at least at the moment -- questions about purpose, meaning, how the universe started, etc. As I see it, those who feel compelled to answer these kinds of questions have two options. They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it. The only other option, in my opinion, is to attribute them to some supernatural being, a creator. As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
I agree with you as far as deism being a sort of a "half-way house" between Christianity and atheism. A Christian who rejects the notion that Jesus was the Son of God is effectively dismissing the claims of the Gospels and would, I suspect, soon come to view the entire Bible as wholly unreliable. They might still have nagging questions, however, about how the universe started, the meaning of life, etc., at which point I think deism would begin to look like a reasonable position.
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
I think the idea of God being some sort of cosmic force or essence is rooted in the fact that people have important questions for which they feel science fails to give satisfactory answers, at least at the moment -- questions about purpose, meaning, how the universe started, etc. As I see it, those who feel compelled to answer these kinds of questions have two options. They can either say things like purpose and meaning exist only in our minds, which is your position as I understand it. The only other option, in my opinion, is to attribute them to some supernatural being, a creator. As you point out, people as brilliant as Einstein apparently believed these were important questions that science didn't answer.
I agree with you as far as deism being a sort of a "half-way house" between Christianity and atheism. A Christian who rejects the notion that Jesus was the Son of God is effectively dismissing the claims of the Gospels and would, I suspect, soon come to view the entire Bible as wholly unreliable. They might still have nagging questions, however, about how the universe started, the meaning of life, etc., at which point I think deism would begin to look like a reasonable position.
Okay, let's move on. What is your "far bigger question?"
My opinion
No - I was just curious, as unlike many in my position I am not supportive of the idea of deism. You see, I even disagree with both Richard Dawkins and Albert Einstein about this! I feel one either believes in a God or one doesn't, and deism seems to me to be some vague half-way house that has no credibility. If God is simply considered some kind of "essence of existence", it seems to me He just as well might not exist, as this really isn't a "God".
However, I did wonder if you could see some Christians moving towards deism, perhaps after accepting the simple humanity of Jesus. A deist God could be thought of as instantiating Natural Law (if you believed in that).
If you have any more thoughts, I would be interested. Otherwise, I have just thought of a far bigger question.
However, I did wonder if you could see some Christians moving towards deism, perhaps after accepting the simple humanity of Jesus. A deist God could be thought of as instantiating Natural Law (if you believed in that).
If you have any more thoughts, I would be interested. Otherwise, I have just thought of a far bigger question.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
My opinion of deism
What is my opinion of deism? Good question. I would not pretend to be any kind of expert on deism. I would assume, however, as is true with any other philosophy or worldview, one would find many different flavors of deism.
I suppose I tend to think of deism of sort of a "cousin" of theism. As I understand it, deism generally give preeminence to reason as a way of understanding the world, but also accepts that the existence of God, and attributes to Him what some call the "fine-tuning" of the laws of the Universe. I think many who subscribe to deism would also profess a belief in some form of Natural Law as a way of explaining morality.
Functionally, however, I suspect a deist's view of the world might not look too terribly different than that of an atheist. He believes God created the world, but does not (and has not -- an important point, I think) involve himself in the affairs of mankind.
I do think deism has some good points. However, I tend to view deism as something of a reactionary philosophy in that it seems to have been developed specifically as an opposing view to Christianity (and secondarily Judaism), rather than being based on its own merits apart from Christianity. As a result, they hold a certain quasi-monotheistic view of a creator with the proximate powers of the God of the Old Testament, but jettison what they see as the trappings of religion (e.g. scripture, miracles, etc.) Thomas Jefferson is one well-known example of someone who holds this view. His Jefferson's Bible (literally a "cut-and-paste" version of the New Testament Gospels denuded of any miracles or supernatural events) paints a picture of Christ as a great moral philosopher, a good man, if you will, but nothing much more.
I'll close by saying once again that I don't profess to be any kind of expert on deism. My comments here reflect my thoughts of deism as I understand it.
Maybe deism is to Christianity what atheism is to deism. That's one way to look at it.
Or did you have a more specific question about deism?
I suppose I tend to think of deism of sort of a "cousin" of theism. As I understand it, deism generally give preeminence to reason as a way of understanding the world, but also accepts that the existence of God, and attributes to Him what some call the "fine-tuning" of the laws of the Universe. I think many who subscribe to deism would also profess a belief in some form of Natural Law as a way of explaining morality.
Functionally, however, I suspect a deist's view of the world might not look too terribly different than that of an atheist. He believes God created the world, but does not (and has not -- an important point, I think) involve himself in the affairs of mankind.
I do think deism has some good points. However, I tend to view deism as something of a reactionary philosophy in that it seems to have been developed specifically as an opposing view to Christianity (and secondarily Judaism), rather than being based on its own merits apart from Christianity. As a result, they hold a certain quasi-monotheistic view of a creator with the proximate powers of the God of the Old Testament, but jettison what they see as the trappings of religion (e.g. scripture, miracles, etc.) Thomas Jefferson is one well-known example of someone who holds this view. His Jefferson's Bible (literally a "cut-and-paste" version of the New Testament Gospels denuded of any miracles or supernatural events) paints a picture of Christ as a great moral philosopher, a good man, if you will, but nothing much more.
I'll close by saying once again that I don't profess to be any kind of expert on deism. My comments here reflect my thoughts of deism as I understand it.
Maybe deism is to Christianity what atheism is to deism. That's one way to look at it.
Or did you have a more specific question about deism?
A question
You were fine! Robust debate is good!
Anyway, I think I have a question (actually, I have loads of them, but I don't want to ask the same old boring ones you must have heard so often):
What is your opinion of "deism"?
Anyway, I think I have a question (actually, I have loads of them, but I don't want to ask the same old boring ones you must have heard so often):
What is your opinion of "deism"?
I hope I didn't come across as mean-spirited...
Well, I sure hope I didn't come across as mean-spirited or anything like that. I hope I have expressed myself in a way that is honorable, even if you and I are at odds on some of these fundamental questions.
I don't know if it's possible, but I think it would be beneficial for others to see that Christians and Atheists really can talk to one another about these things without taking cheap shots and ripping into one another. A lot of the debates I've watched, and much of what I've read, tend to degenerate into just that very thing.
I hope you you weren't made to feel I was putting you were "on the spot" as it were. I really am interested in what you think. And I understand atheists don't necessarily march in lock-step, and that your views aren't necessarily representative of other atheists. But they are important.
If you have any questions of me, I will be more than happy to try to answer them. If you don't, I hope you'll be open to further discussion. But I understand if you can't (or won't). I know some of these kinds of questions can take a lot of time to work through and think through. In either case, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and patience.
I don't know if it's possible, but I think it would be beneficial for others to see that Christians and Atheists really can talk to one another about these things without taking cheap shots and ripping into one another. A lot of the debates I've watched, and much of what I've read, tend to degenerate into just that very thing.
I hope you you weren't made to feel I was putting you were "on the spot" as it were. I really am interested in what you think. And I understand atheists don't necessarily march in lock-step, and that your views aren't necessarily representative of other atheists. But they are important.
If you have any questions of me, I will be more than happy to try to answer them. If you don't, I hope you'll be open to further discussion. But I understand if you can't (or won't). I know some of these kinds of questions can take a lot of time to work through and think through. In either case, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and patience.
Where next?
It is hard to know where to start. I was happy to sit under the spotlight, as it where, and be interrogated as to how an atheist like me might think about things. I had not planned any questions in return!
I think you're right
Yes, I agree with you. I think we've reached an impasse on the issue of morality. Hopefully, we've generated at least a little more light than heat.
I'm sure there are many more issues we could discuss here, though I don't have anything specific on my mind right now. Do you have any questions for me?
I'm sure there are many more issues we could discuss here, though I don't have anything specific on my mind right now. Do you have any questions for me?
An impasse?
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
I am prepared to accept that there are such scientists. I am not prepared to accept that they are right.
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
I am a biologist. Flight has evolved in many different families of animals. Just like certain moral frameworks.
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
It was a deliberate choice, as Ramapithecus is a great ape ancestor, and we see clear evidence of moral behaviour similar to ours in the great apes.
I feel we are at an impasse. Even if one does not assume that morality is not something that has been subject to evolution (which I find a rather bizarre viewpoint, considering the evidence obtained from studying animal behaviour), there is still no basis to claim it is objective and universal.
I am prepared to accept that there are such scientists. I am not prepared to accept that they are right.
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
I am a biologist. Flight has evolved in many different families of animals. Just like certain moral frameworks.
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
It was a deliberate choice, as Ramapithecus is a great ape ancestor, and we see clear evidence of moral behaviour similar to ours in the great apes.
I feel we are at an impasse. Even if one does not assume that morality is not something that has been subject to evolution (which I find a rather bizarre viewpoint, considering the evidence obtained from studying animal behaviour), there is still no basis to claim it is objective and universal.
Moral evolution, a response
"I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue."
I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.
However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.
"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"
Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.
"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia
"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com
I am not, as you put it, trying to "escape from the evolution issue." In making this statement, you are attempting to foist upon me a position that I do not hold. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other.
However, in pressing this point, you continue to imply that anyone who believes in evolution must agree with you on the idea of evolved morality. This, as you yourself have acknowledged in previous discussions, is simply untrue. And yet you continue to make this assertion.
"If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution."
No. You have already acknowledged there are scientists who can, and do, believe in evolution, but reject the notion of evolved morality. Why do you persist in making claims that are in direct contradiction to your previous statements?
"There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't."
Is the power of flight "natural?" I'm sure you will agree with me that, yes, it is. But can you fly? I find your definition for what is "natural" (that it must "apply everywhere") to be quite peculiar. Certainly, it is at great variance with the way in which most biologists would apply the term.
"Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral?"
Good questions. Honestly, Steve, I don't know. Of course, you could ask the same question of our capacity to reason, to use logic, etc. At what point in time did humans possess these abilities? Who knows? I would humbly suggest that currently, the best we can do is speculate. However, we can be sure of this much. We can say without fear of contradiction that we are indeed in possession of these faculties now. That you and I can discuss the question proves as much.
"Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?"
I'm sure you're much more knowledgeable about anthropology than I. However, you may want to reconsider your placement of Ramapithecus in the family tree of homo sapiens. At the very least, there seems to be a lack of consensus among scientists where Ramapithecus is concerned:
"Ramapithecus is no longer regarded as a likely ancestor of humans." -- Wikipedia
"Although it was generally an apelike creature, Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor on the basis of the reconstructed jaw and dental characteristics of fragmentary fossils. A complete jaw discovered in 1976 was clearly nonhominid, however, and Ramapithecus is now regarded by many as a member of Sivapithecus, a genus considered to be an ancestor of the orangutan." -- Encyclopedia.Com
Moral evolution
I don't see how you escape from the evolution issue. Either we fully evolved or we didn't. If there was a break in evolution in which God suddenly put in the "morality", then this is a denial of evolution. Perhaps you could give a time at which we were gifted with morality? Was it after the neanderthals? Was Homo erectus moral? Maybe God gave morality to Ramapithecus?
There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't. Some parts of the universe aren't protected from gravity, so why should they be protected from some universal moral law?
There are major implications if one asserts some universal principle like objective morality.
There is a similar denial problem with Natural Law as a source of objective morality. It is either Natural (so applies everywhere) or it doesn't. Some parts of the universe aren't protected from gravity, so why should they be protected from some universal moral law?
There are major implications if one asserts some universal principle like objective morality.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Maggot Morality
A couple of things, Steve.
"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."
A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."
I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.
But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."
Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"
It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?
Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.
In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.
It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.
"If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen..."
A person does not and cannot "imply" anything simply by believing. You might infer I hold certain beliefs based on something I did or did not say. And certain beliefs/concepts may imply other beliefs/concepts (e.g. "Speech implies a speaker" or even "Your lack of belief in morality in animals implies you don't believe in evolution"), but a person doesn't imply anything just by "believing."
I made no such implication, and to the extent you made an inference to that effect, it would be incorrect. I have not reached a conclusion about evolution, one way or the other. Currently, I am considering the evidence.
But with all due respect, Steve, your statement is just wrong on its face. As you well know, and in fact, have acknowledged in our discussions here, there are many reputable scientists who believe firmly in evolution, yet totally reject the notion of "evolved morality." It is simply impertinent for you to suggest belief in evolution requires one to share your view of "evolved morality."
Finally, you state: "If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?"
It "has to apply to all of Nature?" Please tell me you don't seriously mean this. Honestly, I find this to be astonishing. Are you actually suggesting that in order for you to allow for the possibility of objective morality, I would have to prove that all life forms -- maggots, amoebas, beetles, apes, fish, trees, shellfish ("all of nature") -- possess some sense of morality?
Not only do I not believe this, the absence of a moral sense in "all of nature" tends toward supporting the very point I am trying to make. That is, that it is through Natural Law that man possesses a sense of morality. For you to be willing to consider this proposition, however, you are asking me to present evidence that would disprove the very point I seek to establish.
In your view, whatever differences there are between the morality of man and animals proves that morality evolved. Paradoxically, you also view the fact that certain animals seem to demonstrate behaviors that are similar to human notions of morality as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality differs from that of animals, you count as proof of evolved morality. Where man's sense of morality is similar to that of animals, you also count as proof of evolved morality.
It seems like this "evolved morality" you're describing is a very convenient idea indeed. Apparently, there is no evidence one can offer that it cannot consume.
Objectivity and Natural Law
But you seem to be saying that in order for you to accept the concept of objective morality, it would require me to demonstrate that animals show a special kind of morality as well. In other words, I have to prove animals have morality in order to prove humans have it.
If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen, in my view. The problem with humans is that they are very self-aware, and can just make stuff up. They can adjust the criteria by which they apply standards of morality, as happens when cultures give up slavery for example - the slaves become classified as "one of us" and so subject to moral considerations.
If you are going to stick to humans, then you aren't really being objective. If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?
If you don't believe animals have some form or morality, then you are implying that evolution didn't happen, in my view. The problem with humans is that they are very self-aware, and can just make stuff up. They can adjust the criteria by which they apply standards of morality, as happens when cultures give up slavery for example - the slaves become classified as "one of us" and so subject to moral considerations.
If you are going to stick to humans, then you aren't really being objective. If there is some independent objective standard based on some kind of Natural Law, then that Law has to apply to all of Nature! How else can we know it is there?
No, not animal "morality"
Uh...I'm not saying animals necessarily have morality, at least not in the sense that man has it. But you seem to be saying that in order for you to accept the concept of objective morality, it would require me to demonstrate that animals show a special kind of morality as well. In other words, I have to prove animals have morality in order to prove humans have it.
That is, I would have to prove something that I don't even believe in order to prove something I did believe.
Surely, I must be missing your point.
That is, I would have to prove something that I don't even believe in order to prove something I did believe.
Surely, I must be missing your point.
Wolves and Sheep
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Yes, I would. Lions evolved to be lions! Their social situation is different from our, and their "morality" is different. We evolved as roaming bands of apes with males and females having a considerable degree of equality. We see similar morality in species that have the same social organisation.
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Yes. If there was some general "be nice to each other" behaviour between species, that was beyond what would be reasonable for survival. If wolves went vegetarian to stop eating sheep, for example. Because we are pretty sure that wolves don't rationalise behaviour much if at all, this would be pretty convincing.
Yes, I would. Lions evolved to be lions! Their social situation is different from our, and their "morality" is different. We evolved as roaming bands of apes with males and females having a considerable degree of equality. We see similar morality in species that have the same social organisation.
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Yes. If there was some general "be nice to each other" behaviour between species, that was beyond what would be reasonable for survival. If wolves went vegetarian to stop eating sheep, for example. Because we are pretty sure that wolves don't rationalise behaviour much if at all, this would be pretty convincing.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Are we at a standstill on this issue?
Well, Steve, it's seems like we're kind of spinning our wheels here.
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
If I point to something I believe demonstrates that morality is basically common to mankind, no matter what it is, you'll say it was "evolved." Yet you point out that male lions, when they take over a pride, kill the offspring of the previous male in charge, and that this too, somehow, proves morality (albeit lion "morality") evolved. "Evolutiondidit," you might say? :-)
Could you give me a good example of a type of morality would look like that wasn't "evolved" morality, but indicated that there was such a thing as "objective morality?"
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Final post on morality?
Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
This isn't a contradiction.
Gravity is a universal law. It is the same, as far as we can tell, everywhere in the universe.
Morality isn't. We see aspects of what we would recognise as shared morality in other animals, but nothing universal. For example, it is usual for male lions, when they take over control of a pride, to kill the offspring of the previous male in charge. That is their morality. It is not ours.
Our morality has evolved because of the way we used to live - as small wandering bands of apes. Our opinion of morality is based on that.
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be."
It has been shown to be. By studies of other animals, and by evolutionary theory.
I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality."
Yes, indeed,
(And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Well, other species survive well without our form of morality (such as lions).
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Yes, he is and they are!
This isn't a contradiction.
Gravity is a universal law. It is the same, as far as we can tell, everywhere in the universe.
Morality isn't. We see aspects of what we would recognise as shared morality in other animals, but nothing universal. For example, it is usual for male lions, when they take over control of a pride, to kill the offspring of the previous male in charge. That is their morality. It is not ours.
Our morality has evolved because of the way we used to live - as small wandering bands of apes. Our opinion of morality is based on that.
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be."
It has been shown to be. By studies of other animals, and by evolutionary theory.
I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality."
Yes, indeed,
(And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Well, other species survive well without our form of morality (such as lions).
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Yes, he is and they are!
Morality and Gravity, cont.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Exactly where is the problem?
Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
In response to my claim that "Life is sacred" was an irreducible principle, you said that "Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be."
Nor are they reducible simply because we say they are. I suppose you could just say "Life is," but that wouldn't really be a "principle," per se. But hey, if you can reduce it, I'm open to correction.
On where people's derive their sense of morality, you said "I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!"
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be." I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality." (And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Would you like to move on to another topic? I kinda feel like we're not making much progress here.
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Exactly where is the problem?
Steve, you are contradicting yourself. You imply (above) that, unlike gravity, morality can not be "shown to exist independently of human opinion," yet in a prior post, you raise the "issue of the presence of moral behavior in other species," and that there is "clear evidence of such behavior in complex animals such as apes, cetaceans and elephants."
In response to my claim that "Life is sacred" was an irreducible principle, you said that "Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be."
Nor are they reducible simply because we say they are. I suppose you could just say "Life is," but that wouldn't really be a "principle," per se. But hey, if you can reduce it, I'm open to correction.
On where people's derive their sense of morality, you said "I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!"
Well, to paraphrase something you said, "Claiming that morality evolved doesn't make it so. It have to be shown to be." I'm sure you are aware there are scientists who share your view on evolution, but strongly disagree with you on the notion of "evolved morality." (And by the way, I would take your statement one step further and say I don't know how a species like ours would have survived at all without it!")
Would you like to move on to another topic? I kinda feel like we're not making much progress here.
(By the way, I visited Brian's site (he made a comment). Sharp guy, as are some of his commentators.
Morality and Gravity
By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
Yes, but I can't see any basis for that opinion.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
I agree that it doesn't disprove anything, but I put it to you that how we feel is the only connection we have to rightness and wrongness. We can postulate absolutes, but that is pointless unless we can prove their existence.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Yes. They have evolved to deal with gravity, as they have evolved a moral sense.
But here is the problem. Gravitation can shown to exist independently of human opinion.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
Yes, but I can't see any basis for that opinion.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Principles don't become irreducible simply because we state they are. They have to be shown to be.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
I say they have evolved that way. A species like ours would not survive for long if we hadn't!
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
I agree that it doesn't disprove anything, but I put it to you that how we feel is the only connection we have to rightness and wrongness. We can postulate absolutes, but that is pointless unless we can prove their existence.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Yes. They have evolved to deal with gravity, as they have evolved a moral sense.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Right and Wrong, my (perhaps) final statement
As far as I can tell, we're in general agreement about the process most people go through to arrive at ideas about what's wrong and right and morality in general. Our fundamental disagreement lies in how we view the nature of our conclusions and the implications those conclusions have.
Here's what I mean.
To the Christian -- at least to this Christian -- Natural Law embodies universal truths about how men are to live. By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us go back to the question of genocide. I have asked whether genocide is morally right or morally wrong.
You stated that you "feel" genocide is, in some sense, "wrong," perhaps even "evil," and the very thought of it makes you hurt. Moreover, you have discussed it with others who confirmed your view: "And so [you] act on that, and condemn genocide."
Your condemnation, however, comes with a proviso that gives away the farm: being subject to "illusions" as we are, humans cannot be too careful about making absolute pronouncements about genocide, because at the end of the day, regardless of how palpably miserable one may feel about genocide -- or any other moral question -- it's really just an opinion.
I would submit to you that there are many questions of morality that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion nor are they a product of it.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
I'm not saying feelings can never lead you to the wrong conclusion. But neither should we assume that a conclusion is wrong just because, in the process of reaching it, we had a corresponding feeling.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Of course, many of the laws man has invented from time immemorial, injunctions against murder, for example, are derived from this basic principle. Now, that is NOT to say that this principle exists in isolation to other principles or that there aren't ever competing principles involved when considering it. But it is a basic, fundamental principle I hold to be true.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
It was upon this fundamental principle that Jesus could say: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (And yes, I'm aware that others down through the ages have articulated this same basic idea).
You mentioned the charitable contributions you had made to organizations who oppose human rights violation and torture. Were it possible for you to objectively assess your motivation, do you think it would be because A) these groups agree with your opinion that torture is probably one of the least preferable ways to deal with people, but that we cannot be sure, since we don't all agree nor can we appeal to some universal written code, or B) these groups believe torture, in some very real, fundamental way, is wrong?
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Maybe that's a corny example. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Here's what I mean.
To the Christian -- at least to this Christian -- Natural Law embodies universal truths about how men are to live. By extrapolation, it reveals principles that are as real as Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. And they are every bit as binding on the human race as gravity itself.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, let us go back to the question of genocide. I have asked whether genocide is morally right or morally wrong.
You stated that you "feel" genocide is, in some sense, "wrong," perhaps even "evil," and the very thought of it makes you hurt. Moreover, you have discussed it with others who confirmed your view: "And so [you] act on that, and condemn genocide."
Your condemnation, however, comes with a proviso that gives away the farm: being subject to "illusions" as we are, humans cannot be too careful about making absolute pronouncements about genocide, because at the end of the day, regardless of how palpably miserable one may feel about genocide -- or any other moral question -- it's really just an opinion.
I would submit to you that there are many questions of morality that are not subject to the vagaries of public opinion nor are they a product of it.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the reason you (and I) "feel" genocide is wrong is because it is wrong?
I'm not saying feelings can never lead you to the wrong conclusion. But neither should we assume that a conclusion is wrong just because, in the process of reaching it, we had a corresponding feeling.
Let me give you one example of what I consider an irreducible principle:
Life is sacred.
Of course, many of the laws man has invented from time immemorial, injunctions against murder, for example, are derived from this basic principle. Now, that is NOT to say that this principle exists in isolation to other principles or that there aren't ever competing principles involved when considering it. But it is a basic, fundamental principle I hold to be true.
Can I prove it? Perhaps, but perhaps not. At the very least, we can say that people act, almost universally, in a way that strongly suggests they believe that their life is sacred.
It was upon this fundamental principle that Jesus could say: "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (And yes, I'm aware that others down through the ages have articulated this same basic idea).
You mentioned the charitable contributions you had made to organizations who oppose human rights violation and torture. Were it possible for you to objectively assess your motivation, do you think it would be because A) these groups agree with your opinion that torture is probably one of the least preferable ways to deal with people, but that we cannot be sure, since we don't all agree nor can we appeal to some universal written code, or B) these groups believe torture, in some very real, fundamental way, is wrong?
I would humbly suggest to you, Steve, that there reason you feel torture is wrong is precisely because it is wrong. The fact that you feel it's wrong doesn't disprove anything.
To put it another way, ignorant tribesman "feel" something about gravity. They know about angles and velocity (think bow and arrow), even if they don't express those concepts the way we do. Heck, they may never express them at all. But there's a truth in their understanding. Gravity is a force that's self-evident to them. It acts upon them every day. Even if they've never heard of Isaac Newton.
Maybe that's a corny example. Hopefully, you get the gist of what I'm saying.
Friday, March 7, 2008
Wright and wrong - my final statement
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
Good. This is important, as it clears up a major and frequent misunderstanding about how someone can be a materialist atheist like me and still be moral. I am generalising from my own experience, but I would say that we don't seek out some universal perfect standard for our morality, as we don't believe that such 'universals' exist, but neither are our standards arbitrary, or purely for convenience. We try (if we are good people - although this may sound circular) to feel our way through this as best we can, and build up our own moral system (although in discussion with others) that can be a firm foundation for the way we think and act. We stick with this moral system, although if we find our feelings changing, or discussion with others over a period of time can convince us we have been mistaken, we are willing to change our moral systems, although carefully and slowly.
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
I am certain it is, but then I would say that, because it is my belief that religious moral systems are reflections of the way our minds work, rather than through access to some transcendental standards. I believe that almost everyone who has a moral sense uses the same process.
I would like to point out that you are the first Christian I have had a coherent discussion about this with.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
No, I think this has gone very well so far, and I am happy to move on.
(If you know a way to delete duplicated posts, as the forum software crashed, could you let me know?)
Good. This is important, as it clears up a major and frequent misunderstanding about how someone can be a materialist atheist like me and still be moral. I am generalising from my own experience, but I would say that we don't seek out some universal perfect standard for our morality, as we don't believe that such 'universals' exist, but neither are our standards arbitrary, or purely for convenience. We try (if we are good people - although this may sound circular) to feel our way through this as best we can, and build up our own moral system (although in discussion with others) that can be a firm foundation for the way we think and act. We stick with this moral system, although if we find our feelings changing, or discussion with others over a period of time can convince us we have been mistaken, we are willing to change our moral systems, although carefully and slowly.
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
I am certain it is, but then I would say that, because it is my belief that religious moral systems are reflections of the way our minds work, rather than through access to some transcendental standards. I believe that almost everyone who has a moral sense uses the same process.
I would like to point out that you are the first Christian I have had a coherent discussion about this with.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
No, I think this has gone very well so far, and I am happy to move on.
(If you know a way to delete duplicated posts, as the forum software crashed, could you let me know?)
Right and wrong - agreeing to disagree
Great! I can work with that. I think it needs a little unpacking, though. So let's break it down:
"I believe that those acts are wrong by the[se] standards..."
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
This is the very same view I hold as do many, if not most, Christians.
Continuing on, you explain what these standards are: 1) what you have "learned and understood," 2) in combination with your "conscience", and 3) your ability to "empathize."
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
"I believe that those acts are wrong by the[se] standards..."
What you've said makes perfect sense to me: 1) you believe some things are wrong, and 2) what leads you to this belief is not arbitrary, pulled out of thin air, or invented for the sake of your own convenience, but is based on some sort of standard or standards.
This is the very same view I hold as do many, if not most, Christians.
Continuing on, you explain what these standards are: 1) what you have "learned and understood," 2) in combination with your "conscience", and 3) your ability to "empathize."
Steve, this is pretty much the same process a Christian uses to answer questions of morality.
Listen, my "critical battery level" warning for my laptop is beeping at me to recharge, so I need to wrap this up.
Do you have any questions for me?
Pain of wrong-doing - more explanation
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Ah, but we don't know what it is like. We don't know it feels bad. It is a concept with no associations.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
No. Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I said actions can't be objectively morally right or morally wrong because there's no way to objectively measure these qualities. However, we can subjectively measure them, because of our feelings and understanding.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
I am a little confused, because I thought I had.
I can condemn unethical acts by saying "I believe that those acts are wrong by the standards I have learned and understood, in combination with my conscience and my ability to empathise".
What I can't do is say "I believe those acts are wrong by some universal objective standard of how wrong certain acts are", because I have no idea of any foundation on which to base such a statement. There is no universally accepted book, or stone tablet, or sign in the sky that say "this act is wrong" (and even if there where, how do I know those are telling the truth?)
But I will condemn acts that I consider evil. (In fact, I not only do condemn them, I actively support charties that campaign against abuses of human rights and torture).
I think that is the best I can do. I can go into more detail about how I believe my conscience and empathy works, with a discussion of the evolution of altruism, and the operation of empathy-inducing "mirror" brain cells...
Ah, but we don't know what it is like. We don't know it feels bad. It is a concept with no associations.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
No. Sorry, I may not have made myself clear. I said actions can't be objectively morally right or morally wrong because there's no way to objectively measure these qualities. However, we can subjectively measure them, because of our feelings and understanding.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
I am a little confused, because I thought I had.
I can condemn unethical acts by saying "I believe that those acts are wrong by the standards I have learned and understood, in combination with my conscience and my ability to empathise".
What I can't do is say "I believe those acts are wrong by some universal objective standard of how wrong certain acts are", because I have no idea of any foundation on which to base such a statement. There is no universally accepted book, or stone tablet, or sign in the sky that say "this act is wrong" (and even if there where, how do I know those are telling the truth?)
But I will condemn acts that I consider evil. (In fact, I not only do condemn them, I actively support charties that campaign against abuses of human rights and torture).
I think that is the best I can do. I can go into more detail about how I believe my conscience and empathy works, with a discussion of the evolution of altruism, and the operation of empathy-inducing "mirror" brain cells...
The pain of wrong-doing, cont.
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm not following you. To my way of thinking, your analogy with pain actually serves to illustrate my point.
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
"Is there an objective, independent standard of pain?...I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear other describe a similar pain."
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Let me ask again. If one believes there are no real, objective standards by which to judge actions -- moral actions, if you will -- upon what basis would you condemn this statement:
"We can rightly say that we believe passionately genocide is right, because of the pleasure we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense."
I'm not asking you to approve of genocide, Steve. I'm simply asking you to give me a definite answer, one way or another, to my question.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
As you say, there's probably not an objective way to measure pain. And yet somehow, even if we haven't personally experienced pain, we know it exists.
Prior to this, you said actions can't possibly be "morally right" or "morally wrong," because there's no way to measure them. Now it sounds like you're saying something entirely different:
"Is there an objective, independent standard of pain?...I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear other describe a similar pain."
Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Let me ask again. If one believes there are no real, objective standards by which to judge actions -- moral actions, if you will -- upon what basis would you condemn this statement:
"We can rightly say that we believe passionately genocide is right, because of the pleasure we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense."
I'm not asking you to approve of genocide, Steve. I'm simply asking you to give me a definite answer, one way or another, to my question.
I'll be happy to give you, in my own feeble way, my answer to this and any other follow-up questions you have. But I would really, really appreciate it if you could just give me a straight answer.
The pain of wrong-doing
However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
Perhaps this analogy might help. Is there an objective, independent standard of pain? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! Other people's suffering hurts me. When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear others describe a similar pain.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
We can rightly say that we believe passionately it was wrong, because of the pain we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Thank you.
I don't see how the question of Natural Law helps. First, many people don't follow it (like Hitler), secondly, where is this Law "written"? Who says how we read it?
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.
That is how civilised people should act.
I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
I may be an atheist, but I rarely yell :)
Perhaps this analogy might help. Is there an objective, independent standard of pain? I don't know, but I doubt it. I think you would probably agree with me that there isn't. But you know when something hurts! Other people's suffering hurts me. When I think of genocide, it hurts even to think of it. I hear others describe a similar pain.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
We can rightly say that we believe passionately it was wrong, because of the pain we feel thinking about it because of our moral sense.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Thank you.
I don't see how the question of Natural Law helps. First, many people don't follow it (like Hitler), secondly, where is this Law "written"? Who says how we read it?
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things.
That is how civilised people should act.
I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
I may be an atheist, but I rarely yell :)
Right and Wrong (closure?)
"This argument assumes some independent standard of 'legitimate' by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs."
First, when I question whether genocide is legitimate, what I really mean to do is question whether genocide is right. The fact that you put 'legitimate' in scare quotes illustrates how problematic this issue can be for someone who doesn't accept objective morality. (If you can think of a more accurate term, I will be happy to consider it, but I think it does convey the sense of what we're talking about here).
You wrote: "I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide."
Now, I don't have any real issues with what you're describing here. For someone who tries to apply what they believe about morality, this is a pretty good description. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
On what basis would one conclude that those like Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom, who protected Jews, did the "right" thing if there are no objective standards?
One final observation:
"I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be 'wrong' by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right."
Your point is well taken. I'm not saying one necessarily gains anything or could win a debate by appealing to Natural Law. Yes, Hitler would absolutely argue the point of genocide. You are right in saying some people "will say they know what the standard is, and they are right."
But we both know people are dishonest. I can't prove it, Steve, but I firmly believe Hitler knew genocide was wrong. And why do I believe it?
Natural Law.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things. I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs."
First, when I question whether genocide is legitimate, what I really mean to do is question whether genocide is right. The fact that you put 'legitimate' in scare quotes illustrates how problematic this issue can be for someone who doesn't accept objective morality. (If you can think of a more accurate term, I will be happy to consider it, but I think it does convey the sense of what we're talking about here).
You wrote: "I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide."
Now, I don't have any real issues with what you're describing here. For someone who tries to apply what they believe about morality, this is a pretty good description. However, I can't seem to reconcile it with your basic, overall idea that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.
If we assume that Hitler 1) felt genocide was right, perhaps even intensely so, and also assume 2) others confirmed his view (which would seem to explain his rise to power), upon what basis, then, can we rightly say the Holocaust was "wrong?"
On what basis would one conclude that those like Oskar Schindler and Corrie Ten Boom, who protected Jews, did the "right" thing if there are no objective standards?
One final observation:
"I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be 'wrong' by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right."
Your point is well taken. I'm not saying one necessarily gains anything or could win a debate by appealing to Natural Law. Yes, Hitler would absolutely argue the point of genocide. You are right in saying some people "will say they know what the standard is, and they are right."
But we both know people are dishonest. I can't prove it, Steve, but I firmly believe Hitler knew genocide was wrong. And why do I believe it?
Natural Law.
If you think we're getting bogged down on this, I'd be glad to move on. I'm not a philosopher or theologian, but if you have any questions for me, I'll give it my best shot.
Steve, I really appreciate your willingness to discuss these things. I've always felt like it's far better to sit down and talk to one another, than yell across the room at one another. So thank you.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
More on the Question of Right and Wrong
Steve, thank you so much for your very honest and obviously heartfelt reply. The question of right and wrong, and morality in general, is a tough one. Your answer really presents a good example of how you try to put your ideas into practice, which is very helpful to me. I think it also illustrates one of the core differences between atheists -- some of them, anyway -- and Christians (I won't use the term "theists" here, since I'm not sure what other religions believe).
You raise several important points I'd like to address.
You raise several important points I'd like to address.
My view
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
This arguments assume some independent standard of "legitimate" by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs.
This arguments assume some independent standard of "legitimate" by which things can be judged. But, there is just us. I feel intensely that genocide is wrong. I have spoken to others I respect and they have confirmed my view. So I act on that, and condemn genocide. What else can I do? I gain nothing by telling someone who disagrees with me that there is an absolute standard of right and wrong and that they are found to be "wrong" by that standard, as they simply won't believe me. They will say that they know what the standard is, and they are right.
All we can do is to build up an idea of what is right and wrong from our consciences and from discussion, and hope. My view is that is what everyone does, no matter what their beliefs.
Right and Wrong, a continuation
Alright, fair enough. Let's talk about the implications of your view.
In recent years, it has become popular for philosophers of different stripes to point to the Holocaust and Hitler as a way of proving or disproving a particular theory about this or that. I think this is because of the horrific singularity of the event. The worst fears of mankind were realized in the Holocaust, and personified in Hitler and his henchmen. Oddly enough, Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza can both point to the Holocaust to prove opposing points. I assume you know the arguments of both, so I won't bother going into them at this point.
But what are the implications of your view if we apply them to the Holocaust?
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
Have you ever heard of Corrie Ten Boom? She was a Dutch Christian Holocaust survivor who hid Jews in her home during the Holocaust. Doesn't your view, logically applied, imply that her actions and beliefs were no more "right" than those of Hitler? If they're not, please explain why they aren't.
In recent years, it has become popular for philosophers of different stripes to point to the Holocaust and Hitler as a way of proving or disproving a particular theory about this or that. I think this is because of the horrific singularity of the event. The worst fears of mankind were realized in the Holocaust, and personified in Hitler and his henchmen. Oddly enough, Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza can both point to the Holocaust to prove opposing points. I assume you know the arguments of both, so I won't bother going into them at this point.
But what are the implications of your view if we apply them to the Holocaust?
If some actions or ideas are utterly devoid of any intrinsic "rightness" or "wrongness," wouldn't it follow, then, that genocide is every bit as legitimate as the notion that we should treat people with kindness? Understand, Steve, I'm NOT suggesting you approve of genocide or the Holocaust, nor am I suggesting most atheists believe this. I am simply asking about the implications of what you believe.
Have you ever heard of Corrie Ten Boom? She was a Dutch Christian Holocaust survivor who hid Jews in her home during the Holocaust. Doesn't your view, logically applied, imply that her actions and beliefs were no more "right" than those of Hitler? If they're not, please explain why they aren't.
Definition of Right and Wrong, cont.
Just so I'm clear on this, let me make sure I understand your point of view.
You believe right and wrong are the labels we give to certain actions or ideas, and our designation of a thing as "right" or "wrong" depends on 1) how those actions/ideas make us "feel" and/or 2) input from others.
Is this correct?
You believe right and wrong are the labels we give to certain actions or ideas, and our designation of a thing as "right" or "wrong" depends on 1) how those actions/ideas make us "feel" and/or 2) input from others.
Is this correct?
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
In what sense is there right and wrong?
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
We have consciences and "a moral sense". It is unpleasant to "do wrong", and we feel happy when we "do right". This moral sense is combined with discussions with others. Our minds can model what other minds feel, and that gives us empathy.
So, I believe "right" and "wrong" are, at the core, labels for feelings.
We have consciences and "a moral sense". It is unpleasant to "do wrong", and we feel happy when we "do right". This moral sense is combined with discussions with others. Our minds can model what other minds feel, and that gives us empathy.
So, I believe "right" and "wrong" are, at the core, labels for feelings.
Man, you are fast!
Ha! I went back and changed my question, but by the time I posted it, you had already responded.
Continuation of Right and Wrong Discussion - criteria for allowing for existence
What, exactly, is your criteria for allowing for the existence of something or the possible existence of something?
Corroborated, reproducible, testable evidence for simple interpretations, or careful extrapolations from them.
Start simple, work up from there carefully, and don't assume that what seems obvious is true.
Corroborated, reproducible, testable evidence for simple interpretations, or careful extrapolations from them.
Start simple, work up from there carefully, and don't assume that what seems obvious is true.
Back to Right and Wrong...
I think we're far afield here, so lets get back to the original issue. You said this:
"Yes, I do believe in right and wrong, but I don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
"Yes, I do believe in right and wrong, but I don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
In what sense is there "right" and "wrong?" Please explain.
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Right and wrong, a digression, continued further
I think you're the first person I've come across who compared the notion of happiness with the color red. Then again, we're probably not reading the same books ;-)
Probably not! Have you read any Paul Churchland, or Daniel Dennett? :)
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Actually, no. I am talking about what happens in our brains to generate the feelings.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept
Sure, but just because there is a concept, this does not mean that anything "real" exists. There is no "essence of red".
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
No, it doesn't. But we have to be wary of assuming that because we have perceptions that there is anything external and real behind them. The example of phantom limbs comes to mind, when people experience sensation in limbs that are no longer there.
In a sense, we live in a "phantom world". All we have are experiences in the brain.
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
Not at all!
Probably not! Have you read any Paul Churchland, or Daniel Dennett? :)
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Actually, no. I am talking about what happens in our brains to generate the feelings.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept
Sure, but just because there is a concept, this does not mean that anything "real" exists. There is no "essence of red".
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
No, it doesn't. But we have to be wary of assuming that because we have perceptions that there is anything external and real behind them. The example of phantom limbs comes to mind, when people experience sensation in limbs that are no longer there.
In a sense, we live in a "phantom world". All we have are experiences in the brain.
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
Not at all!
Right and Wrong, a digression...
I must admit, your answer caught me off guard. I didn't expect your reply to be so thoroughly naturalistic. I think you're the first person I've come across who compared the notion of happiness with the color red. Then again, we're probably not reading the same books ;-)
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Of course, we use "words" to describe what we experience in life.
That thing that barks, and wags its tail, and chases after a ball when we throw it is called a "dog." I suppose we could call it a platypus or a tree or anger, but that wouldn't change the fact that dogs, do in fact, exist. When we speak of dogs, we're just appealing to what we all assume to be a shared understanding about what happens in our *brain* when we see, or otherwise perceive, that thing we call a dog.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept. Color is the concept we use to describe what happens in our brain when we see things. But our ability to perceive it has nothing to do with its existence.
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
When you say "They [beauty, happiness] are words we use to express what we experience in our brains," it seems to me you've made a point about language, not happiness.
Of course, we use "words" to describe what we experience in life.
That thing that barks, and wags its tail, and chases after a ball when we throw it is called a "dog." I suppose we could call it a platypus or a tree or anger, but that wouldn't change the fact that dogs, do in fact, exist. When we speak of dogs, we're just appealing to what we all assume to be a shared understanding about what happens in our *brain* when we see, or otherwise perceive, that thing we call a dog.
I would also submit that the very idea of color is, itself, a concept. Color is the concept we use to describe what happens in our brain when we see things. But our ability to perceive it has nothing to do with its existence.
My question is this: How does the fact that our brains have some correspondence to our perceptions have any bearing on the existence of anything, as you put it, "as an independent concept?"
Hopefully, I'm not being too pedantic in my reply.
Right and wrong, a digression, continued
Is it your view, then, that emotions like happiness, loneliness, and peace, concepts like dignity, liberty, and beauty do not exist, because there is no "absolute way to measure" them? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm trying to understand your point of view.
It is a reasonable point to raise. This is the question of "universals" - the idea that there must be a some independent measure of a quality in order for that quality to make sense. Previous supposed universals have been shown to be unnecessary. It used to be thought by some that, for example, "red" was some kind of essence that has to be part of an object that looked red. Now we know it is due to the differential absorption and reflection of different freqencies of light. I would argue that other universals (such as happiness and beauty) will go the same way as we find out more about the brain.
We experience red when certain patterns of excitation are present in sets of brain cells. I have little doubt that the same will apply to happiness and beauty, and peace and the others. We experience those in similar ways because our brains are pretty much the same, and we are within the same culture. These things are real, because the patterns in our brains are real. But as for any idea that they exist as independent concepts, I don't believe so. They are words we use to express what we experience in our brains.
Are you saying that, unless a thing can be subjected to measurement, you do not acknowledge its existence?
I realise that I am subject to illusions, both optical and mental, and also to wishful thinking. If I want to find out what it is useful to believe about reality, I start with simple ideas, and build up from them using a high standard of evidence (which may, or may not, involve measurement), and not just feelings or thoughts. I am also prepared to accept that even my initial simple ideas may be wrong, or may need to be simplified further. You may call this science.
It is a reasonable point to raise. This is the question of "universals" - the idea that there must be a some independent measure of a quality in order for that quality to make sense. Previous supposed universals have been shown to be unnecessary. It used to be thought by some that, for example, "red" was some kind of essence that has to be part of an object that looked red. Now we know it is due to the differential absorption and reflection of different freqencies of light. I would argue that other universals (such as happiness and beauty) will go the same way as we find out more about the brain.
We experience red when certain patterns of excitation are present in sets of brain cells. I have little doubt that the same will apply to happiness and beauty, and peace and the others. We experience those in similar ways because our brains are pretty much the same, and we are within the same culture. These things are real, because the patterns in our brains are real. But as for any idea that they exist as independent concepts, I don't believe so. They are words we use to express what we experience in our brains.
Are you saying that, unless a thing can be subjected to measurement, you do not acknowledge its existence?
I realise that I am subject to illusions, both optical and mental, and also to wishful thinking. If I want to find out what it is useful to believe about reality, I start with simple ideas, and build up from them using a high standard of evidence (which may, or may not, involve measurement), and not just feelings or thoughts. I am also prepared to accept that even my initial simple ideas may be wrong, or may need to be simplified further. You may call this science.
Right and Wrong: a small digression
There is much ground to be covered on this subject.
But before continuing on, though, I'd like to go back to something you said I found to be quite interesting. That is:
"[I] don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that you "don't believe in [x] because [x] can't be measured."
Is it your view, then, that emotions like happiness, loneliness, and peace, concepts like dignity, liberty, and beauty do not exist, because there is no "absolute way to measure" them? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm trying to understand your point of view.
Are you saying that, unless a thing can be quantifiably measured, you do not acknowledge its existence?
But before continuing on, though, I'd like to go back to something you said I found to be quite interesting. That is:
"[I] don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness."
I don't want to put words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that you "don't believe in [x] because [x] can't be measured."
Is it your view, then, that emotions like happiness, loneliness, and peace, concepts like dignity, liberty, and beauty do not exist, because there is no "absolute way to measure" them? I'm not trying to be facetious here. I'm trying to understand your point of view.
Are you saying that, unless a thing can be quantifiably measured, you do not acknowledge its existence?
Right and Wrong...
Thanks for an informative reply.
There are several points I'd like to raise.
Regarding my question about morality and belief in God, yes, I deliberately wrote the question that way, to illustrate the difference between "belief" (religion is true) and "belief in belief" (religion is good for people). In past experience I have found that it can be hard to know which of these is being discussed!
The idea of Natural Law is not an unreasonable one, but the term itself sounds too much like there is something "written" somewhere, whereas much of it could be emergent.
Regarding the issue of where "Natural Law" comes from, I am interested in how a theist who believes in God deals with the issue of the presence of moral behaviour in other species. We see clear evidence of such behaviour many more complex animals, such as apes, cetaceans and elephants. Such "moral" behaviour is just what one would predict using evolutionary theory.
As Darwin showed, "design" can be an illusion (or at least unnecessary as an explanation).
I am happy to discuss this further, or we could move on to another topic.
There are several points I'd like to raise.
Regarding my question about morality and belief in God, yes, I deliberately wrote the question that way, to illustrate the difference between "belief" (religion is true) and "belief in belief" (religion is good for people). In past experience I have found that it can be hard to know which of these is being discussed!
The idea of Natural Law is not an unreasonable one, but the term itself sounds too much like there is something "written" somewhere, whereas much of it could be emergent.
Regarding the issue of where "Natural Law" comes from, I am interested in how a theist who believes in God deals with the issue of the presence of moral behaviour in other species. We see clear evidence of such behaviour many more complex animals, such as apes, cetaceans and elephants. Such "moral" behaviour is just what one would predict using evolutionary theory.
As Darwin showed, "design" can be an illusion (or at least unnecessary as an explanation).
I am happy to discuss this further, or we could move on to another topic.
Right and Wrong, cont.
Your question is: "How [does] a Christian think that God, or a belief in God, provides a standard of morality (other than the idea of reward and punishment)?"
Your question is, perhaps by design, worded in such a manner as to be taken a couple of ways. "How does God give us a sense of morality?" is, of course, a much different question than "How does belief in God give us a sense of morality?" These are as far apart as, say "How does believing in evolution give us a sense of morality?" and "How does evolution give us a sense of morality?"
Do you see the difference?
As to how belief in God provides for a standard of morality, my answer is simply this: I don't think it does, nor do a great many other Christians. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of Christians (at least those I would describe as thoughtful) do not hold this view. So to the extent popular atheists like Christopher Hitchens use this notion to try to "debunk" religion in general, and the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular, this is a straw man.
For obvious reasons, I will generally refrain from quoting the Bible here. In this case, though, I think that you will find at least some common ground with the Apostle Paul.
"Whenever the Gentiles [non-Jews], who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend. - Romans 2:14-15"
To put this idea in secular terms, let me quote from a New York Times book review of Moral Minds, a book written by Marc D. Hauser, Harvard Biologist:
"The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauser’s view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society — do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill; avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
So although there is obviously disagreement about where our sense of morality comes from and how it got there (like you, Hauser believes it "evolved"), there seems to be at least some consensus on the fact that we do have it -- regardless of one's belief in God. Christians generally refer to this idea as "Natural Law," the belief that God has given mankind a shared sense of morality.
(Wikipedia gives a very good overview of Natural Law, pointing out that Aristotle is considered the "Father of Natural Law." As a practical example, the principles of Natural Law are enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.")
If, on the other hand, you are asking a question about process -- that is to say "How does God give us a sense of morality?" -- honestly, Steve, I do not know. It is a mystery to me.
There is much more to say on this, and points you raise that need to be addressed, but I'd like to keep these posts short. Before moving on, please let me know if I am on point here. If not, I'll try to go back and clarify my view.
Your question is, perhaps by design, worded in such a manner as to be taken a couple of ways. "How does God give us a sense of morality?" is, of course, a much different question than "How does belief in God give us a sense of morality?" These are as far apart as, say "How does believing in evolution give us a sense of morality?" and "How does evolution give us a sense of morality?"
Do you see the difference?
As to how belief in God provides for a standard of morality, my answer is simply this: I don't think it does, nor do a great many other Christians. I would even go so far as to say that the majority of Christians (at least those I would describe as thoughtful) do not hold this view. So to the extent popular atheists like Christopher Hitchens use this notion to try to "debunk" religion in general, and the Judeo-Christian tradition in particular, this is a straw man.
For obvious reasons, I will generally refrain from quoting the Bible here. In this case, though, I think that you will find at least some common ground with the Apostle Paul.
"Whenever the Gentiles [non-Jews], who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend. - Romans 2:14-15"
To put this idea in secular terms, let me quote from a New York Times book review of Moral Minds, a book written by Marc D. Hauser, Harvard Biologist:
"The moral grammar too, in Dr. Hauser’s view, is a system for generating moral behavior and not a list of specific rules. It constrains human behavior so tightly that many rules are in fact the same or very similar in every society — do as you would be done by; care for children and the weak; don’t kill; avoid adultery and incest; don’t cheat, steal or lie.
So although there is obviously disagreement about where our sense of morality comes from and how it got there (like you, Hauser believes it "evolved"), there seems to be at least some consensus on the fact that we do have it -- regardless of one's belief in God. Christians generally refer to this idea as "Natural Law," the belief that God has given mankind a shared sense of morality.
(Wikipedia gives a very good overview of Natural Law, pointing out that Aristotle is considered the "Father of Natural Law." As a practical example, the principles of Natural Law are enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.")
If, on the other hand, you are asking a question about process -- that is to say "How does God give us a sense of morality?" -- honestly, Steve, I do not know. It is a mystery to me.
There is much more to say on this, and points you raise that need to be addressed, but I'd like to keep these posts short. Before moving on, please let me know if I am on point here. If not, I'll try to go back and clarify my view.
One Atheist's View of Right and Wrong
Yes, I do believe in right and wrong, but I don't think that there are actions that are intrinsically morally right or morally wrong, because I don't believe there is any absolute way to measure intrinsic rightness or wrongness.
This certainly does not mean I believe in full moral relativism (or even slight moral ralativism!) I believe we all have to have firm standards of morality, but it is up to us to work them out, based on feelings and discussion with others in society.
This tends to work out, and, I believe, with good reason. We have an evolved "moral sense" (which I can go into in more detail).
I would like, if you don't mind, to ask a related question, which is how a Christian thinks that either God, or a belief in God, provides standards of morality (other than the idea of reward and punishment)?
This certainly does not mean I believe in full moral relativism (or even slight moral ralativism!) I believe we all have to have firm standards of morality, but it is up to us to work them out, based on feelings and discussion with others in society.
This tends to work out, and, I believe, with good reason. We have an evolved "moral sense" (which I can go into in more detail).
I would like, if you don't mind, to ask a related question, which is how a Christian thinks that either God, or a belief in God, provides standards of morality (other than the idea of reward and punishment)?
Monday, March 3, 2008
Right and Wrong
Do you believe in such things as "right" and "wrong?" I mean, of course, do you believe there are actions that are intrinsically either morally right or morally wrong? Please explain your view.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)