Time; 11/14/2005, Vol. 166 Issue 20, p98-98, 1p, 1c Remember Behe's testimony?Cornell claims that science isn't about knowing the mind of God, but about understanding nature and the reasons for things. For science, Cornell claims, Intelligent Design is a dead-end idea because it claims that the scientific reason for things is that God wanted it that way. Cornell calls on scientists to keep Intelligent Design out of science classes, and to keep moral and religious judgments out of science.
Back to Cornell Cornell is quick to point out that from a theological perspective, Intelligent Design is an exciting concept. Even Dembski seems to be returning to his long lost love of 'apologetics'. From a scientific perspective, Intelligent Design is 'boring' or as I refer to it 'vacuous'.Q Intelligent design says nothing about the intelligent designer's motivations? A The only statement it makes about that is that the designer had the motivation to make the structure that is designed. Q How can intelligent design possibly make that statement, Professor Behe? A I don't understand your question. Q How can it possibly say anything about the intelligent designer's motives without knowing anything about who the intelligent designer is?
Cornell calls to action scientists to oppose Intelligent Design being taught in science classes where its impact will be disastrous.But as exciting as intelligent design is in theology, it is a boring idea in science. Science isn't about knowing the mind of God; it's about understanding nature and the reasons for things. The thrill is that our ignorance exceeds our knowledge; the exciting part is what we don't understand yet. If you want to recruit the future generation of scientists, you don't draw a box around all our scientific understanding to date and say, "Everything outside this box we can explain only by invoking God's will." Back in 1855, no one told the future Lord Rayleigh that the scientific reason for the sky's blueness is that God wants it that way. Or if someone did tell him that, we can all be happy that the youth was plucky enough to ignore them. For science, intelligent design is a dead-end idea.
Cornell however realizes that scientists are human too and may overstep the bounds of science.My call to action for scientists is, Work to ensure that the intelligent-design hypothesis is taught where it can contribute to the vitality of a field (as it could perhaps in theology class) and not taught in science class, where it would suck the excitement out of one of humankind's great ongoing adventures.
This is an important reminder for scientists. Stay within the limits of what science can tell us.Now for my call to inaction: most scientists will concede that as powerful as science is, it can teach us nothing about values, ethics, morals or, for that matter, God. Don't go about pretending otherwise! For example, science can try to predict how human activity may change the climate, but science can't tell us whether those changes would be good or bad. Should scientists, as humans, make judgments on ethics, morals, values and religion? Absolutely. Should we act on these judgments, in an effort to do good? You bet. Should we make use of the goodwill we may have accumulated through our scientific achievements to help us do good? Why not? Just don't claim that your science tells you "what is good"...or "what is God."
Act: fight to keep intelligent design out of science classrooms! Don't act: don't say science disproves intelligent design. Stick with the plainest truth: science says nothing about intelligent design, and intelligent design brings nothing to science, and should be taught in theology, not science classes.
216 Comments
Clark · 27 November 2005
Now for my call to inaction: most scientists will concede that as powerful as science is, it can teach us nothing about values, ethics, morals or, for that matter, God. Don't go about pretending otherwise! For example, science can try to predict how human activity may change the climate, but science can't tell us whether those changes would be good or bad.
Why do most scientists accept this notion? The only way I see in taking this view is that values, ethics, and morals are supernatural. I'm unaware of any evidence pointing in that direction, so I suspect that science has a great deal to say about values, ethics, and morals, the only problem being that to date, most scientists have abdicated the study of such to other disciplines. Most unfortunate.
Michael I · 27 November 2005
The point is that values, ethics, and morals are not things for which there is an objective factual standard to compare to.
Science can potentially give insight into what sorts of values, ethics, and morals are likely to develop in given situations. And potentially give insight into what the likely effects of specific values, ethics, and morals will be in a given situation. And can be used to judge any factual claims used to try to support specific values, ethics, and morals. What it can't do is judge whether specific values, ethics, and morals are "good" or "bad" because that isn't a factual question.
Registered User · 27 November 2005
Clark, as I see it Cornell's statement is a bit broad and vague ... but that's because the terms "values" "ethics" "morals" and "God" are poorly defined. To the extent the terms can be defined in a way that allows science to ask questions about them, then science can teach us something about them.
But deities, including the Christian deity, are not typically defined in a way that is amenable to scientific inquiry.
For some people, what is "right" and "wrong" (i.e., "morals" "values" "ethics") is determined by looking at some "holy text" or consulting the local shaman or priestess, who allegedly are able to channel the answers directly from the relevant deity or deities.
Science can not tell us whether those deities exist, unless those deities are defined such that their existence can be tested.
I'm guessing this is what Cornell means when he says that "science can tell us nothing."
It goes without saying that science has thus far not stumbled across any positive evidence to suggest that shaman and priests are actually more capable of communicating with deities than you or I.
So it goes.
RupertG · 27 November 2005
Religion's even more hopeless. Is eating pork "good" or "bad"? Depends which religion you ask. What science can potentially say is why people feel they have to divide things into good and bad, and why certain things will be categorised into either in given situations - which I think will give greater insight into the nature of morals than anything religion says about itself. You only have to look at the horrendous, self-destructive mess the mainstream Christian churches have got themselves into over homosexuality to see how their internal systems of morality just don't cope with change.
If you asked a behavioural scientist whether homosexuality was 'good' or 'bad', you'd get a funny look - but if you said 'how does it affect a society's viability' or somesuch you'd get a reasoned answer in the end. If I ask an Anglican priest the first question, I'd get one of a wide variety of answers and the second question would get the funny look. I think the scientific approach is the more useful...
R
Osmo · 27 November 2005
What it can't do is judge whether specific values, ethics, and morals are "good" or "bad" because that isn't a factual question.
---------
That's part of a major debate in metaethics. I think what is "good" or "bad" is a factual question, as do lots of people, theist or not. I dare say the idea that moral statements refer to propositions and some of them are true (i.e. there are moral facts) is the dominant view. (The formal name for this position is moral realism). In addition to that, the sub-position of moral naturalism is perfectly respectable.
I say all this to point out that it does not suffice to simply assert there is no objective factual standard for ethics or that ethics cannot be understood via respectable natural properties, etc. At the least, that's up for grabs.
Jim Harrison · 27 November 2005
That science can't decide moral questions does not imply that morality is supernatural. There are, after all, lots of things that are neither scientific issues nor religous ones. No tests or objective measurements are going to determine which paintings are the most beautiful, for example, or settle legal disputes or tell me what I want for lunch but that doesn't make art, law, or eating a theological matter. Meanwhile, it is far from clear whether the circle labeled "supernatural" in the Venn diagram has any nonimaginary content.
Jeffrey Worthington · 27 November 2005
Morality and ethics are as old as human societies. Social Science shows how ideas of morality have evolved over time. Ethics and morality are NOT supernatural, nor are they necessarily 'natural'. They stem from the human need to have rules that govern civilized behavior. (Greco-Roman society predated Christianity and had some strict rules of conduct.) That being said I believe that science is amoral but not unethical, there are ethical rules that scientists should follow. Also, science does not exist in a vacuum. Forces outside science often influence how scientific inquiry is conducted, sometimes with deleterious results.
Jeffrey Worthington · 27 November 2005
Sometimes?! That should read "usually"!
MartinM · 27 November 2005
Corkscrew · 27 November 2005
MartinM · 27 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 November 2005
Clark · 27 November 2005
The natural world is full of things one might label subjective. IMO, that term is similar to the use of 'instinct' in biology, it is a polite cover for ignorance. I see no reason why anything that exists should be outside the realm of science in principle. It might well be beyond the current state of knowledge however. There are areas in this context which are not outside the current state of scientific knowledge, yet scientists fail to point them out.
For example, Christian theology wrestles with the issue of theodacy, why is there evil in the world if God is good? Science provides a very specific answer to this question. In fact, Darwin in his 'tangled bank' says it quite well: "a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life". We are truely children of a lessor god, the fabric of our genes being imbued with original sin if you will. If the anthropomorphic constants of biology had been different, we could live in a world largely free of evil. But for whatever reasons, we find ourselves in a world where the constants (reproduction rate) requires evil, in fact, that one constant created evil long before any life form was complex enough to qualify as something capable of sin as defined by theologians. By common descent, we still have those genes.
The fundamental problem I have with those who argue that science cannot infringe too far into the world of values and morals is this: I suspect that values and morals which spring from a poor or incorrect understanding of the world & universe will in general be inferior to values and morals which are compatible with more accurate knowledge of the world & universe. If anyone cares to make an arguement against this, I would love to here it.
For example, the Judeo-Christian concept of the immutable immortality of the human soul is clearly a bedrock belief which guides much of Judeo-Christian morality. Science on the otherhand tells me there is mutable immortality of my DNA, a fact shared with all other DNA on earth. The contrast between those two starting points for developing a logical set of moral beliefs is almost completely opposite. It is a shame that so many scientists turn their backs on such a quest.
MartinM · 27 November 2005
Got any objection of substance?
Registered User · 27 November 2005
Brian Axsmith · 27 November 2005
How can the same concept be interesting theologically but vacuous as science? Garbage is garbage regardless of its disciplinary container.
Corkscrew · 27 November 2005
MartinM · 27 November 2005
Registered User · 27 November 2005
The greater point is that, absent a supernatural component to the mind, these 'subjective' feelings ought to correspond to some objective physical process, which can in principle be studied through the scientific method.
I am reminded of some of Joe Carter's philosophical musings about "zombie materialists" at the Evangelical Outpost.
If I may borrow a quote from the unfortunate father in Toby Hooper's Poltergeist:
Why????!!!! WHY??!!!!!!!
Corkscrew · 27 November 2005
OK, on reflection you could well be right here. Whether it's possible for you to be right is heavily dependent on linguistics - I'd consider you to have been proved right if we can ever look at a brain scan, note a particular pattern of signals and say "ooh, that's a qualia".
And Right and Wrong could theoretically be determined if you take them as meaning "good/bad behaviour in a particular circumstance", where good/bad are taken in terms of maximisation of pleasure and minimisation of pain. Ah, the wonders of enlightened self-interest...
Sam · 27 November 2005
We may want to act in a certain way towards other people. Science can show us which actions will bring about certain results. However, Science cannot tell us if the result is "good" or "bad." Science deals in the "If such and such then such and such follows." There is no implication of facts to a certain "good." There is implications but "we" (The French, The Iraqi,The....)may not consider it "good." Science can tell us how to build an atomic bomb, but it cannot tell us if we SHOULD build it. This is a moral decision and scientist can make it. But it is not a scientific decision. I think this is what Cornell had in mind.
Cheers!
Julie · 27 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 27 November 2005
k.e. · 27 November 2005
Lenny
Should the obvious be stated about the "Behe and Dembski's VersionsTM" of the Big Bannana?
Who is really behind the curtain in the Vatican ?
The obvious distortion of the truth and "materialism" as defined by the DI
Jack Chick and
He alone, who owns the youth, gains the Future!
-- Adolf Hitler, speech at the Reichsparteitag, 1935
asg · 27 November 2005
Engineer-Poet, FCD, ΔΠ&Gamma · 27 November 2005
W. Kevin Vicklund · 27 November 2005
k.e. · 27 November 2005
hahahha
A gastrointestinal tract and immune system that doesn't throw a hissy fit you you ingest them :>
God works in mysterious ways
Arden Chatfield · 27 November 2005
k.e. · 28 November 2005
ah yes
reminds me of the old joke about the about the
Young tourist who goes to Rome and asks for a pint of whatever the Pope drinks.
He is served Creme de Menth
He has 2 more Pints
finding himself legless and very very sick gets his friends to carry him back to his lodgings in a Chair.
Jim Harrison · 28 November 2005
Every so often somebody has to remind us that ethics has to do with what we should do, not with some state of affairs. The is does not imply the ought, even though matters of fact, in combination with some sort of rule, are often relevant to making moral choices--if you think that one should act so as to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people, for example, then factual information about the probable consequences of a proposed action is certainly worth acquiring. The difference between ethics and science is not the difference between one kind of facts and another or between subjectivity and objectivity. Ethics is about prescription. Science is about description.
This is a very old observation. Aristotle made in his Nicomachean Ethics over 2300 years ago. Hume reiterated the point. It is simply valid.
Note: the independence of ethics from science does not imply the irrationality of ethics. That's a separate issue.
k.e. · 28 November 2005
http://www.poddys.com/jokes/reli_071.htm
Osmo · 28 November 2005
Figuring out what would best fulfil your desires - like what you'd like to eat, is the exact kind of question approachable by science. A statement like "Ice cream is good!" isn't neccessarily factual. Typically, it is raw expression of personal feeling. Statements like, "So and So likes Ice Cream" or "Most people will like ice cream," are factual claims. Moral realists consider moral statements more like the latter kind. You are an real thing in the observable world as are your desires. They are mental states that exist and can be known. To make an even stronger point, it's reasonable to suspect those states supervene on physical properties (mental states are the result of brain states). It's only the limits of our empirical toolset that keep our knowledge of each others desires rough. We still have some knowledge though.
Most naturalist theories of value and ultimately ethics in some way hinge on the satisfaction of preferences/desires. In the words of Hobbes, "Whatever is the object of any man's appetite or desire, that is it which he for his part calleth good."
Jim Harrison · 28 November 2005
Science may very well be able to figure out what I'd like to eat. What it will have trouble doing is figuring out what I ought to want to eat without combining its observations with some rule of action.
When scientists attempt to deny the independence of philosophical reasoning, they simply turn into philosophers themselves--bad ones.
Mark Studdock · 28 November 2005
If ID is to be interesting and worthwhile in theology and continue to be a philosophical argument which makes claims based on scientific findings (such as the codical nature of DNA) about the existence of an intelligent agent who constructed our world, what tends to then happen is science becomes the "handmaiden of theology."
Cornell's comments thus come across as quite the encouragement for people who view theology as the queen of the sciences and science as just another way of knowing about a limited set of empirical facts.
I'm not arguing against this point of view, but it certainly would be a return to a middle age and early scientific revolutionaries epistemological hierarchy.
MS
k.e. · 28 November 2005
Jim
You make such an obvious point (to me at least) that I wonder why it should even be open to question.
The conclusion I am being drawn to is that the state of objectvism some people take to extremes -the paranoid search for facts in isolation of context-- the motives behind the people supplying those facts --some of whom have are able to manipulate the media and the Political process to distort the facts and thus the value of truth.
Leaving the man in the street in a state of complete distrust of the facts and the value of truth and in the questioning of values overall.
It seems to be a political divide more than anything liberal v conservative.
The striking part about the Fundamentalists is that they seem more like socialists to me, not to themselves of course, but then they just can't see that.
The "facts" presented as "Truth" are from true to false with no moral judgment.
I can see now why uncovering the 'facts' with Americans is such an obsession but the truth can always be hidden. If people are not given the "thinking tools" to see beyond facts and trust their subjective judgments the propagandists will always win. Is this time for the renewal of culture. Teach comparative religion, ethics,polemics,rhetoric as history in school?
Whoa that sound like the DI. --can't win.
EZGoing · 28 November 2005
Was this a positive review of the speech? I know Eric Cornell committed the unforgivable sin of mentioning ID without the required vicious attack. (Brian pointed that out) The adaptation of the speech sounded great to me.
k.e. · 28 November 2005
Its a pity GWB didn't ask Cornell to make a speech like that last year.
The Value of DI as a Theology is no different to counting the number of angels you can fit on the head of pin it is pure tautology and obscurantism*
T
he best it can do is natural theology which requires at minimum some form of deism
It just spins every ones wheels.
It would seem to me that there should not be divide between truth/received wisdom/nature or truth/history of ideas/all life.
Cornell suggests science indulges in obscurantism as to the nature of mans relationship with god. Huxley had it right its time to ditch the father in heaven thing this will happen in the secular world anyway(except for kids)and put the "nature of god" back into Adult man/women as one and in part of the whole. Through repeating mans "timeless tales(not Fundamentalist interpretations)" to our children.
Spreading the word will be left to cat fights like this every 20 years between people who know this and those that don't. And let Cornell and his ilk come in at the end to take the Glory
The principles or practice of obscurants.
A policy of withholding information from the public.
A style in art and literature characterized by deliberate vagueness or obliqueness
http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_51_100/obscurantism.htm
Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005
Osmo · 28 November 2005
When scientists attempt to deny the independence of philosophical reasoning, they simply turn into philosophers themselves---bad ones.
I don't think I put philosophers out of business with my statement.
Science can answer the question what you ought to want to eat if ought were to mean something like "will satisfy relevant desires." If oughtness is most coherantly understood in acting in such a way to fulfill relevant desires, then science can resolve disputes over "rightness" or "wrongness" to the extent it can investigate the matter. Philosophy, of course, is the business of figuring out the nature of "ought." On this view, Hume isn't being violated here. He's arguably being channelled, since since our desires (passions, feelings, sentiments) which spring from a non rational source are the basis for our moral facts. This is more of an argument over what moral statements mean, which if correct would place them squarely in the domain of science. Statements like, "The earth is dound" don't occur in a vaccuum outside of buttressing philosophy nor would "Torturing babies is wrong," even if that was the same kind of claim as the former. The metaethics of moral statements are still philosophy, just as metaphysics is, but the truth of the statements themselves both fall within the range of scientific tools.
Osmo · 28 November 2005
Someone asked if ID is vacuous as science, why would it be interesting as theology?
Julie replied:
The very idea of whether or not there is a God (or more than one, for that matter) is both interesting theologically and not useful to the natural sciences.
I think this misses the point, however. ID is an attempt at scientific reasoning that fails. It's not just failing to meet some arbitrary demarcation criteria for what science is; it's failing to be sound reasoning. ID isn't bad science, but arguably successful philosophy. It's bad science because of the poor reasoning involved. Consequently, ID doesn't provide anything to the table of whether there is a God, beyond being a symbol of the failure of one common mode of reasoning for there being one. If it fails at science, it's got nothing to offer theology, minus understanding the whys and implications of ID's failure.
Corkscrew · 28 November 2005
BWE · 28 November 2005
RavenT · 28 November 2005
Martin--
Say a man has an advanced case of prostate cancer with a terminal prognosis. Radiation therapy (Option 1) would give him a few more months, but those months would be diminished by the side-effects of the radiation. Watchful waiting (Option 2) means he would die sooner, but those months (at least until some indeterminate point near the end) would be of higher quality.
Are you suggesting that all we need to know is enough of how the brain works to predict in advance which man with that diagnosis chooses which option? And is there a "right" option and a "wrong" option?
k.e. · 28 November 2005
BWE
You may already know this but the extreme Fundy diatribe is pure projection because of the "Broken Truth TM"
And the old Sexual Repression thing.
Total lack of self identification and irrational nihilism
Worldwide they seem to be the same.
MartinM · 28 November 2005
BWE · 28 November 2005
k.e.- FOr some reason that I choose not to explore, a get a wierd sense of comedy out of the things that the fundies say. It may be black humor, but it is humor. For example, I have google news set to give me the top 9 news items for "intelligent Design", "Christian Wingnuts" (which, surprising as this may sound, isn't very fruitful) "evolution", "Fundementalists" and "Funny Christians". I go to sites like this one to read other people's views on the absolute inanity of Religion (Buddism is slightly off that mark because, in some iterations it isn't really religion). SOmetimes I go to the Christian blogs, Dembski's for example. I publish funny things about christian beliefs (and jews and muslims- I'm equal opportunity) on my own blog. I guess I am mocking them to some extent, but I harbor only a little ill-will. Mostly, I am truly amazed. over and over and over.
"Hey, Bruce" You might say."It's the way the world works. Get used to it. There is something neurotic about this curiosity and fixation of yours."
Ok. Maybe. But, like I said, there aren't very many jokes you can really laugh at more than once. I will stop when it no longer makes me laugh. True, sometimes I cry. But then I laugh again. Then I sit in stark amazement and wait until I can move enough to lift my jaw from the floor and peel my eyelids shut so I can blink again.
MartinM · 28 November 2005
MartinM · 28 November 2005
BWE · 28 November 2005
improvius · 28 November 2005
Steve · 28 November 2005
improvius · 28 November 2005
ID isn't bad science, but arguably successful
philosophymarketing.BWE · 28 November 2005
Corkscrew · 28 November 2005
Corkscrew · 28 November 2005
I'm suddenly rather nervous about how mystic my understanding of philosophy seems (where did this idea that qualia are formally unknowable, and that morals are rationally incomprehensible, come from dammit?). Can anyone recommend any down-to-earth sites on philosophy to add to my defluffyising list?
BWE · 28 November 2005
You're born. You Live. You die. It's what's in between that counts.
oooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm.
modig · 28 November 2005
BWE · 28 November 2005
One man's wheat is another man's Koala bear.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
k.e. · 28 November 2005
Corkscrew
The "scientism" I hope is not the outcome of all this nonsense.
get hold of "The Hero with a Thousand faces"
Or "Myths to Live By"
By J.Campbell
The DI *was* a postmodernist construct of "Identity Politics"
Orwell had his revenge "1984"
Plus the DI planned to renew culture by killing History
"History is Bunk" Huxley had HIS revenge "Brave New World"
All it ever was, was no religion, no philosophy
the brocken truth of
objectivist atheism they are unable to see "God forgives those who forgive
themselves" and they have a lot of forgiving to do for all the lies and the
attempt to steal innocence
just solipsism and tautology
and Nabokov saw Dembski, Behe, and all the other DI Fundy freaks around the world years ago
That is why he wrote Lolita HIS revenge. Perfect.
BWE · 28 November 2005
k.e.- Huh?
Stephen Elliott · 28 November 2005
MartinM · 28 November 2005
MartinM · 28 November 2005
tally-ho · 28 November 2005
Martin, you are right. WHat is the confusion here? Why can't you understand me when I say Rnflkeeeeb!?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 28 November 2005
Jim Harrison · 28 November 2005
Why do people think that everything that is not science is merely "subjective?" People do all sorts of stuff besides science. Why would anybody think that historians or jazz musicians or cooks are raving irrationalists? What the sciences do, they do very well IMHO; but their jurisdiction is not boundless and it argues a mighty narrow notion of human affairs to claim that the universe of discourse is divided between science and nonsense.
MartinM · 28 November 2005
k.e. · 28 November 2005
BWE · 28 November 2005
John Lyon · 29 November 2005
Lots of different "goods" have been defined by man, such as the "useful" (a fairly objective standard, but a rather empty moral code), the "beautiful" (highly subjective and even arguable), and even some really harmful things, like racial purity. There is the golden rule, which is "nice," but is it really "good" if followed purely for selfish reasons? Maybe yes (per Ayn Rand) and maybe no (per anyone else). One could argue that "good" is anything that preserves life, but even that heads you down a tough road on issues such as abortion.
A non-subjective good can only be the result of a supernatural being "saying so." Everything else is a convention defined by man. Therefore, I agree with the point that scientists shouldn't let factual overload be misunderstood as an insight into what is good or evil. Any good or evil defined in that way can easily be countered.
k.e. · 29 November 2005
John ---who ever owns the truth ....obscures the truth
You said
"A non-subjective good can only be the result of a supernatural being "saying so.""
MEANS
Your "Objectivist"* idea of "good" can only be YOU saying so.
Good is decided in the secular "Roman Court" here on earth by who you voted for.
For better or worse gods and devils on earth decide what is good or bad.
Who decides what your "God Thinks".... you ?
For me that would be Hell.
"The governors of the world believe, and have always believed, that virtue can only be taught by teaching falsehood, and that any man who knew the truth would be wicked. I disbelieve this, absolutely and entirely. I believe that love of truth is the basis of all real virtue, and that virtues based upon lies can only do harm." -- Bertrand Russell
"The foolish reject what they see and not what they think; the wise reject what they think and not what they see." -- Huang Po
"Beautiful as is the morality of the New Testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." -- Charles Darwin
"We should not believe anything unless there is reasonable cause to believe that it is true" -- Ingemar Hedenius
"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." -- Thomas Jefferson (Letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787)
"If ignorance is the tool of the devil, then why is it ignorance that makes people continue to belive in the biblical god?"
K.E. The Truth NEVER Lies.
*objectivism = "the idea that all acceptable knowledge must take the form of exact, impersonal, context-neutral 'facts'" p.1 related to Modernity results in 'hyperrationalistic technocratic tyranny'
He who obscures 'facts... John's version of the truth' can only lead to a Brave New World ....Huxleys revenge on objectivism
relativism = the opposite, or ultimate conclusion, where "no knowledge claims of the objectivist kind can be found, there is no true knowledge and rival knowledge claims are incommensurable". p.1 related to late-Modernity or sometimes Post-Modernity. results in 'deconstructive irrationalistic nihilism'. How to get beyond this objectivist-relativist dichotomy?
He who obscures 'the truth... John's version of the truth' can only lead to '1984' Orwells revenge on relativism.
k.e. · 29 November 2005
BWE
and the Flip Side "the here and now"
Stephen Elliott · 29 November 2005
I fail to see how "beauty" could ever be defined in a scientific manner.
What is beautiful to one person may not be so to another.
It is that which makes us human and not just machines.
We are all different and I defy science to prove otherwise.
Renier · 29 November 2005
Stephen
The idea of beauty is subjective. But is it possible that it is a result of various factors? DNA, socio-political influence, upbringing, experience? If this is true, then the definition of beauty is not universal between all human beings, but it might allow science (in a couple of years time, with quantum computers perhaps) to run algorithms that predict what you would find beautiful?
Just a thought...
Renier · 29 November 2005
I know I am rambling, but the definition of beauty would be different from person to person. If a way could be found to unravel what a person defines as beauty, then perhaps a way could be found to apply the definition to data and make a prediction. But because there are so many factors involved, it is not possible to do something like this right now, but it does not mean it is impossible.
Although, marketing people understand this... they know what type of woman looks good to the majority of men, and this definition of beauty has changed since 'ol Monroe stood over the air vent... since 'ol Ugh used his club as a mating ritual. I don't know, but perhaps marketing has gone one step further and tries to define what YOU would find beautiful...
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 November 2005
Steve · 29 November 2005
Jim Harrison · 29 November 2005
What if it were discovered that Pythagoras came up with his theorem because of a bad case of insomnia brought on by eating too many fava beans? Would that shorten or lengthen the hypoteneuses of right triangles?
The question isn't whether all sorts of subjective factors enter in to the history of science. Everybody agrees on that. That the results of scientific research are therefore "subjective" in some other and more problematic way is a very different matter. In what respect, for example, is modern evolutionary biology "subjective?" Even the Nazis had trouble making sense out of their notion of Jewish physics, though the physics in question certainly owed a lot to the efforts of various Jews.
John Lyon · 29 November 2005
Posted by k.e. on November 29, 2005 12:49 AM (e) (s)
John ----who ever owns the truth ....obscures the truth. You said "A non-subjective good can only be the result of a supernatural being "saying so."" MEANS Your "Objectivist"* idea of "good" can only be YOU saying so. Good is decided in the secular "Roman Court" here on earth by who you voted for. For better or worse gods and devils on earth decide what is good or bad. Who decides what your "God Thinks".... you ? For me that would be Hell.
All that is very interesting, but reveals an assumption that my suggesting that a supernatural being is only logically possible source of an objective, universal "good" means that 1) I am sneakily talking about a Christian god and 2) I want to also tell you what "good" is (presumably with some quote from the Bible). I made neither of these statements and would instead be very interested in whether others can think of a universal "good" other than one originating from a supernatural being. If the answer is "no," it isn't an argument that one must therefore believe in God. It simply means that "good" is subjective ("man is the measure of all things") and changeable according to your culture, time period in which you live, and maybe your personal instincts. Either way, its worth acknowledging.
Steve · 29 November 2005
Jim,
You are missing the point here. I'm not disputing that something is 2 feet is indeed 2 feet. My point is that scientists believe in thoeries. This belief is in part subjective. What sets scientists apart from dogmatists is that they revise their subjective beliefs when data tells them too.
Lets look at the issue of beauty. I say a particular painting is beautiful and Bob says its ugly. The idea that beauty is objective like 2 feet is objective implies that either Bob or I are wrong. Most people would disagree with this. MartinM says he could, with sufficient time and research predict our answers to whether or not a particular painting is beautiful. This in no way invalidates the notion that beauty is subjective. My feeling/view/belief that a painting is beautiful is based on my feelings/views/beliefs and so are Bob's. Note that in both cases it depends on the person, which is one definition of subjectivity. In short, MartinM's test/procedure does nothing to establish an objective notion of beauty and thus MartinM is quite wrong in the implication that there is such a standard (see comments #60343, #60343, and #60347).
This also applies to beliefs in scientific hypotheses. The objectivity of science is in the methods (this is why I was hoping Bayesian Bouffant would jump in here). For example, the Bayesian method of evaluating models, hypotheses, and theories can utilize subjective knowledge, but the process is fully objective (i.e. it relies on the laws of probability). The Bayesian method also allows for the researcher to update and even change his beliefs as new data comes in. Similarly Frequentist statistical methods are also objective (although many Bayesians view them as problematic/flawed). Even things like constructing a particular test is subjective.
Subjective does not have to mean ill-defined, un-defined, or "whatever the Hell I want it to mean". For some reason this is often how people look at the notion of subjectivity in science. It is wrong and incoherent. Subjectivity enters scienctific research in a number of ways, always has. It doesn't invalidate the results, but it certainly can influence them and should be acknowledged, not denied.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 29 November 2005
Steviepinhead · 29 November 2005
ben · 29 November 2005
ben · 29 November 2005
John Lyon · 29 November 2005
I'd be interested in you naming one that does "originate from a supernatural being." You can't; all you can do is point to words from the mouths and pens of human beings---words which you have chosen to believe are 1) universal, 2) good, and 3) "originate from a supernatural being." Whatever you cite, other people choose to believe otherwise. So there goes your "good" and your "universal." And your "supernatural being" is just you talking.
Rev. Dr. Lenny Frank already answered the question (thanks). The point was not whether I can or can't name a supernatural being or a universal good. The point was simply that any other "good" is subjective, as acknowledged by the Rev Dr. This means, of course, that no one should complain about the "I can do whatever I think is right" culture (short of murder, perhaps, although even preservation of life is not a universal good), as no higher moral authority exists. End of point -- thanks for playing.
Steve · 29 November 2005
Rev. Dr. Lenny Flank,
I'd suggest that Comment #60344 treads perilously close to the notion that science is objective and not subjective. Along with MartinM's posts gave me the impression that there were at least two views here: one that there is the subjective and science doesn't deal with that, and that all things can eventually be made objective. Neither position appeals to me (and based on your comments I'd hazard it doesn't appeal to you either).
Anton Mates · 30 November 2005
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Don't really see why even a supernatural being could make good objective. If an omnipotent, omniscient god which created and maintains the universe decreed that torture is a good thing, it doesn't mean torture is good---it just means that the god's a jerk.
Agree that supernatural is necessary, but not sufficient. However, if you're speaking of a creator, that entity by definition creates all objective (permanent, absolute) values, or at least has the sole power to do so (and may chose not to, which leaves us with no objective good).
k.e. · 30 November 2005
So John again proves he does not see the teachings of Jesus were valid so he can have an excuse to redeem himself just before death
a sort of pascals wager.
What of the here and now John? If you *do* require that all that is good is some supernatural idea - the teachings of Jesus/The Buddha or equally right living and thinking person your Pastor perhaps (because an idea is what it is no matter what) then fine, it just means that you have to live with the consequences now as does everybody else. If you want to save up all your sinning or gooding until the end for a final count then that is fine as well. Caesar's Justice is decided on Earth in a secular court Gods justice is between you and your conscience, heaven and hell are states of mind in the here and now.
Renier · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
Steve · 30 November 2005
Dr. Rev. Flank,
Sure science is a method...in part. It is also the people who do it as well. The end result is not objective. So I agree with a large part of what you have written (i.e. the method of science is objective), but not all of it.
The problem is that since scienTISTS hold differing world views, philosophies, etc. that this will impact their results. Ideally what sets science apart from so many other subjects is that the data is supposed to eventually outweigh the subjective elements and move us closer to understanding.
Or to put it more simply, you really can't have science without the scientists and hence the subjectivity that that latter carry with them.
Steve · 30 November 2005
Let me amend, "The end result is not objective." To read as, "The end result is not entirely objective."
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Posted by k.e. on November 30, 2005 02:46 AM (e) (s)
What of the here and now John? If you *do* require that all that is good is some supernatural idea - the teachings of Jesus/The Buddha or equally right living and thinking person your Pastor perhaps (because an idea is what it is no matter what) then fine, it just means that you have to live with the consequences now as does everybody else.
I am speaking of the here and now and I do not require that good is a supernatural idea. I am saying that a truly objective good can only originate from a supernatural being. Any other type is a social convention, which may have very practical outcomes, but remains subjective according to the time and place of your life.
Posted by Renier on November 30, 2005 04:11 AM (e) (s)
John Lyon wrote :
Agree that supernatural is necessary
For what? I do not agree. I cannot think of one thing where it is necessary. In fact, I do not think that there is such a thing. One thing is for sure. Atheists are just as "moral" or just as "amoral" (that right?) as anyone else. In fact, a stance could be taken to say that they are more moral, because they are not forced to comply with some doctrine on morality, their morality is thus a morality that comes from themselves. Nothing supernatural about it.
This is not my point. Atheists can certainly follow morality in accordance with the conventions of the day, but this "good" remains subjective. Whether you believe in supernatural beings is irrelevant. It simply means you believe there is no objective (absolute, unchanging) good, unless you can think of one. Here's one that comes close: loving your children. But even for this, the Spartans (in according with their belief system) would leave "puny" children outside the city gates to die of exposure.
Jim Harrison · 30 November 2005
Talking grandly about "the Good" as if it were a thing is pretty peculiar when you think about it. Presumably what we're talking about is not investigating the nature of some sort of Neo-Platonic hypostasis but looking for an answer to the homely question, "What should I do?" How anything can be said to be good that isn't connected to the doings of people or perhaps animals is quite a stretch. The good is no more cosmic than gender: it's a eukaryotic thing. A local issue.
I'm puzzled why people think that it's impossible to have a rational standard of right and wrong without bringing supernatural agency into the question. It seems to me that there are cogent reasons for the ordinary rules of morality and, if there weren't, the endorsement of an imaginary sky father wouldn't help matters. After all, as Plato pointed out in his brief dialogue the Eurthyphro, God presumably recommends various rules because they are right, they aren't right becaue God recommends 'em.
By the way, it is a sophism to claim that the good is objectionably subjective because it has something to do with subjects. When used as a term of abuse, "subjective" means arbitrary, not merely pertaining to subjects. Kant, for example, held that the basic principles of ethics are rooted in the nature of the rational will and are in that sense subjective; but nobody's ethics was ever more rigorous, universal, and absolute than his.
cameron · 30 November 2005
I HAVE TO WRITE AN ESSAY OVER THIS FOR A FINAL IN TWO HOURS AND IT HAS TO BE 3.5 PAGES. I ONLY HAVE A TIME PERIOD OF ONE HOUR AND FIFTEEN MINS. CAN THIS BE DONE??
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
How anything can be said to be good that isn't connected to the doings of people or perhaps animals is quite a stretch. The good is no more cosmic than gender: it's a eukaryotic thing. A local issue.
I'm puzzled why people think that it's impossible to have a rational standard of right and wrong without bringing supernatural agency into the question.
We apparently have no disagreement, as I'm perfectly comfortable discussing issues of morality without bringing in supernatural beings. In fact, I gave examples (the useful, the beautiful, racial purity [rarely, thankfully], preserving life [usually], loving your children [other than in Sparta], etc). You are simply confirming your belief that all issues of right and wrong are social conventions, which I allowed for.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 30 November 2005
Mr. Lyon:
I mean no offense, but whenever I hear someone saying that "a supernatural being" is required in order for morality to be absolute, I usually ask "which supernatural being?"
Since there are a lot of supernatural candidates out there, and they allegedly insist on different "absolutes", aren't believers, by the very fact of believing in this rather than that supernatural being, also choosing which "absolute" morality to believe?
In other words, why is one "absolute" any better than any other "absolute", let alone better than any "relative" morality?
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Since there are a lot of supernatural candidates out there, and they allegedly insist on different "absolutes", aren't believers, by the very fact of believing in this rather than that supernatural being, also choosing which "absolute" morality to believe?
No. Merely believing does not make something true. My proposition is not intended to address which good is true, but simply that there can be no absolute good without some supernatural being "saying so." If one believes there is no such thing as a supernatural being (and thus no possibility of a conscious creator), then for him morality is simply a matter of "choosing," as you say.
ben · 30 November 2005
Each person chooses which (if any) supernatural being(s) to believe in, and chooses what it is they believe the supernatural being(s) tell them they must do. So how is the morality that is based on supernatural beings more objective at the end of the day? Unless you're just interested in playing semantic games, it isn't.
Jim Harrison · 30 November 2005
Morality is not just a matter of social convention. Driving on the right is a social convention. Not murdering people is a moral imperative. There are lots of reasons to favor the sanctity of human life, but the fact that everybody says it's a good idea has got to be the least persuasive one.
Consider this: were you to contrive a new set of social arrangements from scratch, you'd surely rule out random homicide for obvious and cogent reasons. As they say, it isn't rocket science.
What bothers me about the notion that morality is created by the fiat of some supernatural agency is that when the faithful lose their faith, they're liable to think it's OK to murder me in my bed. But thinking that right and wrong is just a matter of public opinion is problematic for the same reason. It encourages people to think that when they get alienated from their family, it's time to shoot up some high school in Colorado.
AC · 30 November 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 30 November 2005
AC · 30 November 2005
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
There's nothing "wrong" with good being subjective, if that is reality. Many responses, however, are so preoccupied with denying even the theoretical existence of a supernatural being that a discussion can't be had. This is if-then logic; not the pushing of a particular belief.
Preservation of life is pretty good "good," in the same way that it is for animals (the bottom level of the hierarchy of needs). More is needed, however, to deal with issues of abortion, for example, as "something" is dying at the hand of man. This is the morality of I was here first or I have more power, like the the reborn conservationist that has already built his beach house. Granted, man has generally agreed on what is good (meaning practical) for a particular culture, but it is still subjective.
ben · 30 November 2005
As to the supposed necessity of a supernatural being as a basis for "objective" morality, it occurs to me that one could undoubtedly generate a long list of moral principles (it is morally wrong to kill another person who has not wronged you or another person, or threatened to do so; one is morally responsible to provide food, shelter and emotional support for one's children, etc.) that would be strongly agreed upon by far more people in the world than believe in any one supernatural being. A strong majority of people would also certainly tell you that people who hold significantly different beliefs from theirs about which (if any) superstitious beings actually exist are unambiguously wrong.
I'm at a loss as to how one comes to a conclusion that the belief in a particular (or any) supernatural being is necessary to give objectivity to moral principles, when more people can agree on many particular principles than could ever agree on the supposed supernatural origin and force of the moral imperatives themselves.
The religious want us all to believe that without religion to provide morality we'd all just be killing each other in the streets. Meanwhile the reality is that the vast majority of us know viscerally that murder is wrong, even as the religious kill each other in the streets over the particulars of their religious beliefs. Go figure.
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
By choosing which set of beliefs one adopts, a believer also chooses which "absolute" morality to adopt. In other words, "absolute" morality depends on one's choice as much as "relative" morality, regardless of whether believers acknowledge this or not.
You're mixing up finding absolute truth with the nature of absolute truth. I'm only dealing with its nature. As I said earlier, only a supernatural being that is also a creator can be the creator of absolute values. Therefore there can be only one absolute truth (if there is one at all). Finding it (if it exists) is an entirely different matter.
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Ben said:
the vast majority of us know viscerally that murder is wrong
Now you're getting somewhere. Where did that visceral knowledge come from? Did we evolve it? Or do you really mean that its "practical"?
Jim Harrison · 30 November 2005
People who deny the possibility of thinking rationally about morality often make their case by pointing to difficult cases, and there certainly are times when it is difficult to decide what's the right thing to do. However:
1. There are easy as well as difficult cases. Just as the existence of euglenas doesn't make it impossible to distinguish owls from oak trees, the occurence of moral perplexity does not imply we can't make nonarbitrary judgements in other cases. Mostly we know what we ought to do.
2. Although people disagree about what to do in hard cases, they seem to agree more often which cases are hard. We are more likely to disagree about how rules apply or conflict than to disagree about the rules themselves.
ben · 30 November 2005
I'd say it's part of us--yes, evolution (at least that's part of it). As social animals we know that while at any moment we could bash the other person over the head and take what they have, that action would doom us as an individual in the end. We would lose social acceptance and access to a whole range of resources from food to security to sexual activity. But at the same time, within the security of a given affinity group, where we are guaranteed access to these things, we can be led to overcome this inhibition and choose to act together to destroy others as long as we believe it is in the interests of our group. It takes a lot to overcome the inhibition, but it happens every day.
A single primate out on the plains is helpless; it will likely live as long as it takes for a large predator to locate it. Only in a group will it likely survive long, and it doesn't need a god to tell it that acting in a socially acceptable way is necessary to remain a part of the group. The individual has chances every day to simply kill or attack another member of the group and take their food or status, but it doesn't, because (to put it simplistically) instinctive inhibitions--visceral moral principles--against that behavior have been selected for. The individuals who didn't have that instinct in the past got kicked out of the group--and soon after got kicked out of the gene pool.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 30 November 2005
Mr. Lyon:
From the theoretical standpoint, you forget that you're dealing with a hypothetical (i.e. if an absolute morality exists, then...). It all depends on whether such a beast really exists, and no amount of hypotheticals can turn wishful thinking into reality.
From the practical standpoint, an "absolute" morality that depends on choosing the "right" belief is anything but.
Are you more satisfied with this splitting of the problem?
Now, would you be so kind as to show me whether this "absolute" morality you speak of indeed exists, so we can eventually turn your hypothetical into some kind of actual remark about the way things are?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
Anton Mates · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on November 30, 2005 07:10 PM (e) (s)
Um, before you can argue about its nature, first you have to establish that it EXISTS.
No, I don't think I do. My argument is theoretical and by its "nature," I am only referring to my question of whether or not there can be man-made absolute truths (I say no). It is OK to say, "IF there is absolute truth, it could only originate from a supernatural being, as no man-made truths can qualify."
And no, I'm not going to take on the question of how one would find such truth, if it exists. I had a hard enough time keeping this rather minor (and generally accepted) point on track.
John Lyon · 30 November 2005
Posted by Anton Mates on November 30, 2005 07:32 PM (e) (s)
I agree that no other being would have the power to create such values---I just don't see why a creator of the material universe would either. If a value is objective/permanent/absolute, how could anyone create it? Rather analogously, if the creator of heaven and earth decreed that two plus two equalled five, would that make it true? Wouldn't it just mean that, in spite of His vast power and knowledge, He was wrong about that one?
Your argument assumes that a creator is something like a king who makes decrees to rule his people. I don't think that would be the nature of such a being. All thoughts and expressions of such a being would of necessity be true, as that being is the source of all things. That doesn't mean the entity couldn't choose not to create an absolute good (by sort of "firing up" the universe and then just letting it go, which some people believe), but it would be impossible for that entity to be "wrong" about anything.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 30 November 2005
Stephen Elliott · 30 November 2005
Stephen Elliott · 30 November 2005
Oh btw, for some reason I can't get on to the "Heresy" thread...Keeps giving an explorer error and closing it down. Anybody have any idea why? More to the point, does anybody have a solution idea?
Anton Mates · 30 November 2005
Anton Mates · 30 November 2005
Stephen Elliott · 30 November 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 30 November 2005
Mr. Lyon,
at this point I'm not entirely sure of understanding what you mean by "absolute morality".
If by "absolute" you mean a morality that holds for every time, every place and every person, then I'm afraid your question is doomed from the get go, because we already have a pretty solid set of data points, and people have adopted morality systems where killing fellow human beings was OK, taking other people's possessions was OK, forcing unwanted male attentions upon females was OK, and so on and so forth; and their opposite. And these morality systems were, ALL of them, sanctioned by one or more deities.
So, I suppose you mean something else. Care to explain?
Anton Mates · 30 November 2005
Renier · 1 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 1 December 2005
Rev. Dr.,
I studiously avoided making *that* point because the "God of the Old Testament", also known as YHWH, is but one of thousands of deities we dreamed up in our delusional quest for an external source of morality.
But of course the general rule also applies to this one-element subset.
:-)
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 1 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 1 December 2005
qetzal · 1 December 2005
I think what John Lyon is saying is something like this.
A being that created the universe could choose to incorporate absolute morality as a fundamental part of the universe. This wouldn't be something like the being saying "I expect you to do this, and not that." This would be a fundamental, inherent part of the universe, like gravity.
If you have a glass of water, and you turn it upside down, the water pours out. Not because some deity says it should; because gravity says it must. It's due to a fundamental aspect of the universe.
I'm not too sure how to apply that to morality, but I'll take a stab at it. Suppose the universe was created by something like the God of the bible. Suppose that we do have souls, and that heaven and hell really exist (whatever that means). Mr. Lyon might argue that God could have created the universe such that, if you commit certain acts during your life (unjustified murder, perhaps), your soul automatically goes to hell when you die. Not because God individually decides to send it there at the time you die, but because it's built into the universe. You commit murder (you turn the glass upside down), your soul goes to hell (the water pours out).
I'm guessing that Mr. Lyon's concept of "absolute morality" is something similar. (Comments, Mr. Lyon?)
I'm not sure Mr. Lyon's claiming that such absolute morality actually exists. I think he's only claiming that if there is such a thing as absolute morality, it would have to be something fundamental to the universe.
My question for Mr. Lyon is, so what? Are you only trying to understand whether morality could ever be absolute and objective, or is this leading to some larger point?
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 1 December 2005
The problem is always the same: are divine instructions "good" because a deity gave them, or does a deity give us those instructions because they are "good"?
For me, morality is a process, a constant weighing of pros and cons, mostly - but not exclusively - consequence-oriented, of any action (or lack thereof) I may take in response to constantly-fluctuating circumstances.
That's why I've asked Mr. Lyon to explain what he means by "absolute morality".
k.e. · 1 December 2005
John a suggestion have a listen to these MP3'3
It might set your mind at ease
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/zimmer_on_evolu.html#comment-60905
AC · 1 December 2005
Jim Harrison · 1 December 2005
I presume that grownups can find moral decisions difficult without automatically falling back on God to ease their anxieties. In any case, belief in God doesn't resolve all moral dilemmas, even for the orthodox. Doesn't anybody read Pascal or Kierkegaard or Chesterton or Garry Wills around here?
JONBOY · 1 December 2005
The bible never has been a fountain from which morality flows,it permeates corruption,degeneracy and profanity.Apologist are careful to divert children from the"bad" scriptures on Sunday bible class.
THE GOOD BOOK,-one of the most remarkable euphemisms ever coined
John Lyon · 1 December 2005
Posted by Anton Mates on November 30, 2005 09:12 PM (e) (s)
I don't think that would be the nature of such a being. All thoughts and expressions of such a being would of necessity be true, as that being is the source of all things.
Why? A being could create the material universe and its laws without also defining logical and moral truths. There may be religions that hold that the divine creator did define such truths, but that's above and beyond the "mere" claim that a supernatural being made the universe. (As well as being incoherent, to my mind---I don't understand what it would mean for a being, any being, to be able to enforce the truth of a proposition.)
I agree a being "could" create the material universe without also defining moral truths, but any such truths would be man-made and thus subjective (not absolute or permanent). I don't think you're right about not also having to create logical truths, as this would call into question the validity of the scientific method for investigating the material universe. (Sorry about delayed response - I was on a business trip today.)
John Lyon · 1 December 2005
Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on November 30, 2005 09:37 PM (e) (s)
If by "absolute" you mean a morality that holds for every time, every place and every person, then I'm afraid your question is doomed from the get go, because we already have a pretty solid set of data points, and people have adopted morality systems where killing fellow human beings was OK, taking other people's possessions was OK, forcing unwanted male attentions upon females was OK, and so on and so forth; and their opposite. And these morality systems were, ALL of them, sanctioned by one or more deities. So, I suppose you mean something else. Care to explain?
Yes, I mean an absolute "good" that is permanent and unchanging. While any man-made system can claim to be sanctioned by a deity, of necessity, at most only one of those systems would be valid. False dieties (claimed creators) don't count. Its also equally possible that none of the "systems" are absolute, as man has not properly learned or implemented the absolute good (assuming it has been revealed to him).
To try to make this not quite so abstract, let me throw out an example of what such a truth might be: "It is always "good" (for all cultures, peoples and times) to love your neighbor as yourself." Of course, Ayn Rand would have trouble with even that one, but if you knew that that was an absolute, universal truth given to you by the creator of the universe, you would alter your behavior accordingly. This would give you a surety in tough moral calls, which always present themselves. In the tough calls, you know which competing "good" wins out and you go with it. Any man-made system wouldn't give this same surety.
John Lyon · 1 December 2005
Posted by qetzal on December 1, 2005 11:08 AM (e) (s)
I think what John Lyon is saying is something like this.
A being that created the universe could choose to incorporate absolute morality as a fundamental part of the universe. This wouldn't be something like the being saying "I expect you to do this, and not that." This would be a fundamental, inherent part of the universe, like gravity.
.....
I'm guessing that Mr. Lyon's concept of "absolute morality" is something similar. (Comments, Mr. Lyon?)
......
My question for Mr. Lyon is, so what? Are you only trying to understand whether morality could ever be absolute and objective, or is this leading to some larger point?
qetzal-
That was very well put. On the plane today, I was also wondering how to express my (larger) point.
This topic started with the discussion about scientists and whether they should make "value" statements. I initially asserted that absolute good can only originate from a supernatural being (which sort of discounts the importance of the question of whether scientists should offer value statements, as all such statements are subjective anyway, so why not?) If you accept this, however, I think it sort of draws a line in the sand.
I hope I get this right, but science deals with what can be tested and proven, relying on our mind, our 5 senses, and the laws of the physical world. Science can't officially endorse the existence of a god, because it can't test it or prove it. (Actually, science should offer no opinion, but many do.) If a day comes when science proves that things beyond our 5 senses exist, and are maybe even testable, wouldn't that be an opening of the floodgate for considering the possibility of all other "supernatural" beings and/or truths? For example, what if any one of the following were proven to exist: ghosts, spirits, ESP, time travel, reincarnation, physical miracles, good luck (as a force, not as randomness), etc. Would not science then have to acknowledge that the realm within which it operates is not 100% of reality. Am I wrong here?
k.e. · 1 December 2005
AC
nice one "deu sex machina" God is a Motorbike !
Motorbikes for the postmodern world, silk purses out of sows ears.
I remember that temple with GREAT fondness.
I had a girlfriend who came with me to buy a new MONSTER haaaarrrrrrrggghhhhh arrrrrgh.
When we left the shop which had posters of topless girls all over it, she said with a glint in her eye "Does this mean I have to take my top off when we ride around" hahahhahahahha
k.e. · 2 December 2005
John
Whatever you think the god (a factual god) you are talking about is a personal projection that can only be tied to the group you are in and the "Great Leader" of the group gets to say what the social implications are unless of course you want to project "The malevolent one true god" yourself.
You had better sharpen your sword if you want that position.
The warrior tribe religion that came off the plains from hunting and the group psyche is molded around the concept of the we and the other as an inside the walls of that reality "heaven" and the rest can go to hell hastened along if need be. Have a listen to Campbell.
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by k.e. on December 2, 2005 12:01 AM (e) (s)
John
Whatever you think the god (a factual god) you are talking about is a personal projection that can only be tied to the group you are in and the "Great Leader" of the group gets to say what the social implications are unless of course you want to project "The malevolent one true god" yourself. You had better sharpen your sword if you want that position.
Never made that statement, so no need to sharpen the sword, but yes, an absolute good could only come from a creator, of which there can be only one. My "projection" has nothing to do with it.
Anton Mates · 2 December 2005
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by Anton Mates on December 2, 2005 12:37 AM (e) (s)
But I'm not suggesting that absolute logical or moral truths would be made by man, simply that they wouldn't be made by God. If absolute, they must exist prior to all beings, divine or non-divine, rather than being made by any of them. That's what Plato espoused---Good, then God or gods, then everything else---and while I'm not sure I believe in either sort of truth (certainly not the latter), it's the only way for me to make sense of the concept. How could "(A->B)->(~B->~A)" be absolutely true, if its truth is conditional on God's making it so?
So there is a "quality" (good) that existed prior to the creator? Interesting. I have no way of knowing about that (obviously), but I think from man's field of vision, it would look the same. I agree, though, that such a good would also be absolute. I don't agree, however, that this must be so, as a divine being that is also the creator is pretty unique (!) and would, at a minimum, be the only entity with the point of view that could reveal such truths to man, if it chose to do so. If you're saying that the creator would not understand this pre-existing good, then I guess we have no absolute good that can be known.
k.e. · 2 December 2005
John
I can tell you are not interested in challenging yourself to even try to understand the view from outside the walls of your psyche ....that can lead to problems.
For that reason the European early Christians, that is the Romans and Greeks decided when they did the "Deal...to sell their souls to the Obscurationists", to keep the Greco/Roman courts.
They were "Republicans" in the truest sense. They were not going to have "The one True Word of God TM" as interpreted by one of his self appointed disciples who, as with all politicians are either megalomaniacs or blissfully innocent bureaucrats deciding the working of their polis by magic desires.
That is how politics in certain Totalitarian regimes is done now.
Is that what you want ?
Renier · 2 December 2005
Surely "absolute good" would not just apply to man, but to all living things and even the deity. Some animals eat their young, and as for loving you neighbour... nuff zed. Is there any samples then that would hold true for all parties involved? Let's then say a sample of an "absolute good" is "not kill for the fun of it", and I know cats love to do just that, but from a human perspective, would it still apply to the person with his brain chemistry mixed up?
k.e. · 2 December 2005
John
Just read your last post.
The danger in factualising 'god' and then having it shifted beyond reach by science, is a sense of nihilism. In eastern religion this is not a problem because god is not factualized. These 2 outlooks are totally cultural constructs as a result of the history of those ancient societies best understood by looking at the history with unblinkered vision the same way a scientist looks at nature for revelation without magic, the revelations of history are best understood without magic. For science their is no "god" behind the curtain just an unknown and in Eastern religion 'god' is not obscured behind a curtain and what is found in nature has a logical spiritual explanation as does Christianity from a gnostic point of view at least, the theistic versions use a mild to extreme tautology to explain Theism.
k.e. · 2 December 2005
Clarification:
science=(consensual reality)
science friendly theistic versions of Christianity =(consensual spirituality)
Edin Najetovic · 2 December 2005
John,
Other people have noted this, but I'll reiterate it. Without a good mirror in human society or a way to discern this, the only good an 'absolute good' will do is beyond the physical world, in the supernatural. In other words, for all intents and purposes, it does not exist. Of course, you can argue its existence, but you could also argue the existence of the 'absolute sheep' being held by 'God'. After all, all the sheep we see are different, so -like good- it must be descended from a 'real sheep' so that we can recognise all these different sheep as sheep. Absolute good and absolute sheep may seem different to you, while they really aren't. Both are the higher 'ideas' of which the lower representations are just a mirror image, and poor one at that. And I prefer the absolute sheep because you could at least make kebab out of that ;)
This is what Plato says, and is interesting perhaps, but highly irrelevant. Given the contradictions in morality in societies everywhere there is no way to indirectly discern 'true' morality, in fact it may not even be represented among humans (!), so why bother? Nice hobby, but theorising about this will not change anything: Occam's Razor strikes again...
As you said, miracles would perhaps shed some light on the creator's intentions, but still, miracles contradict. And for every miracle there is a nut who says he is abducted by UFO's. So again, even with 'revelation': so what? Enquiring into the supernatural is, by definition, a highly pointless enterprise and will not become more profitable in the future I'm sure.
-Edin Najetovic
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
k.e. · 2 December 2005
John
One thing about a, I won't say "supernatural" but it would *seem* supernatural being, is what ancient and modern humans all have in common and that is the abhorrence of killing any living thing.
Now the further the average person gets away from nature there is a disconnect with our real if you like "animal nature".
I spent my early childhood on very remote farm on the edge of an ancient forest near the ocean, with no TV, hours away from any modern industrialization and as near a garden of Eden as you could get. An environment where hunting for food and yes fun was a normal part of life.
Killing a living creature is deeply unsettling when it first happens, an ancient spiritual rite in fact. Now this is one of mans primitive instincts and ancient myth ameliorated that survival instinct to allow the psyche to function. Most modern people for the last few thousand years do not get that experience and that spiritual experience is lost. The NA Indians had all sorts of myths, one comes to mind about the chiefs daughter marrying the leader of the buffalo herd and entering into a pact and the dire consequences if that pact was broken, to allow the survival of both the buffalo herd and the tribe. The tribe's psyche depended a mythical psyche healing story to allow for long term cohabitation . Now that need has not changed, mans relationship with nature whether it be as nomadic hunting tribes or in competing cities in ancient civilizations to modern times the myth/religion or philosophy evolves to manage the psyche to allow for long term peace and success within that environment.
A problem comes about if the Myth is miss used or twisted for political reasons as in the case of the DI.
In the east the Buddhists have a one guiding rule on life and mans relationship with it ...don't kill any sentient being. Again it is a cultural construct to protect the psyche. In Thailand only the Buddhist monks follow that practice religiously the local society eats meat ...that is against the teachings of their dogma. So how do they do it. The abattoirs are manned by Christians and once the animal is dead ...well it's dead lets not waste it.
Same with fishing ...if a fish happens to get caught in a net then ...well it was the fishes bad luck! So yes there is a guiding force and if one is lucky enough to renew that direct link with nature it is very easy to understand, it is our very need to survive and remain sane. It is clear to me, there is much modern madness created by unnatural pressures on the psyche the latest of which is postmodernism and the resultant nihilism, but back through the recent history of man since the industrial revolution the brain and the person as a machine is a common motif and that is what we are seeing with the madness of the DI and ID 'god' as a material object, they are going bananas literally.
Stephen Elliott · 2 December 2005
Stephen Elliott · 2 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
k.e. · 2 December 2005
Steve that did cross my mind and it may be anthropomorphizing, keep in mind I don't think like that now although I certainly would not indulge in killing animals for the sake of it, of course plenty do, it is afterall in mans nature. To the overall group on the stepps a person like that would be given a sharp whack by the sharman, a bit like an early Monty Python movie I suspect.
With bigger animals there is a closer relationship, they have identifiable families ,life cycles and you depend on them, if you wipe them out you just starve so I would see that as validating the survival of the psyche imperative. The ancient myths confirm this and I don't eat spiders, the Buddhists obviously carry it too far from my perspective but it still is part of the same "animal" us. Its probably too late for you to try it yourself but I would challenge any 'normal' city person to say shoot his dinner and if its is no biggy to you that could mean you are a cold blooded ant murderer in which case you will just have to take my word for it :)
Stephen Elliott · 2 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
The answer is: Internet Explorer.
The solution is: change browser. :-D
k.e. · 2 December 2005
Just recalled a funny story.
Have you seen the AD FAB episode where Edwina and Patsy go to the "country" to go on a shoot and the squirming they went thru to justify to theme selves their "greeny" credentials ? After the first shot and the whiff of gunpowder they couldn't get enough and kept going for hours into the night. Plus the date rape drug they gave to the pheasant. Hilarious.
AC · 2 December 2005
James Taylor · 2 December 2005
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 2, 2005 08:31 AM (e) (s)
False dieties (claimed creators) don't count.
How do you separate the false ones from the real one. Or do you just want everyone to accept your subjective decision about that.
No, no, no. You may think I'm a nut, but I'm actually interested in truth. I'm not a salesman.
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on December 2, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s)
but yes, an absolute good could only come from a creator
You keep repeating this, but you keep failing to tell us WHY. Why can't "absolute good" exist independently of a creator, any more than "absolute up and down" can. Or do you also think there was no "up" or "down" until God created it?
Per my later discussion regarding Plato, it can (I stand corrected). Interestingly, in investigating this thought further, I find that in the Bible, love and glory were specifically mentioned by Jesus as existing prior to creation (in John). Personally, however, I think "up" and "down" are aspects of a physical creation.
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on December 2, 2005 10:28 AM (e) (s)
As to my personal preference, I find morally certain people to be literally terrifying; in the name of moral certitude, the most horrible crimes have been perpetrated.
People who blow up clinics where abortions are performed feel "morally certain"; people who attempted to wipe out specific ethnic groups felt "morally certain"; people who brought down the Twin Towers felt "morally certain.
Doubt has never prompted murder, genocide, or massacres. Certitude has.
I agree with you, and I'll admit that while I do believe in God, I do have trouble with saying that the Bible is 100% the divinely inspired word of God, let alone individual's interpretation of the Bible. If humans are involved, there is just see too much room for error. Further, I think that the "absolute good" that God chooses to reveal to us might simply be an aspect of such a quality that man can comprehend. For example, I think its unlikely that there is an absolute quality in the universe of "you should honor your parents," but from God's perspective and knowledge, this is a rule he has given us for our purposes. Such a rule itself is not an absolute good, but it has practical authority given where it came from (if you believe that).
People that blow up clinics are dead wrong, and my church teaches that the role of religions are to express their opinions, but never to directly intercede in such as way. Of course, the Crusades happened, I know. At the same time, this is an issue of truth. The fact that humans have made many mistakes in the name of god does not, of necessity, mean there is no god. I don't think its fair to throw up your hands and say all religions are evil, but religions are indeed a man-made institition, separate from the truth that only a god can fully know (if one exists).
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by k.e. on December 2, 2005 10:28 AM (e) (s)
I spent my early childhood on very remote farm on the edge of an ancient forest near the ocean, with no TV, hours away from any modern industrialization and as near a garden of Eden as you could get. An environment where hunting for food and yes fun was a normal part of life.
This explains why you are so well read.
Killing a living creature is deeply unsettling when it first happens, an ancient spiritual rite in fact. Now this is one of mans primitive instincts and ancient myth ameliorated that survival instinct to allow the psyche to function. Most modern people for the last few thousand years do not get that experience and that spiritual experience is lost.
I have thought about this also. Its interesting that part of the Bible's creation story seems to confirm that man has had a "disconnect" from nature, and given "dominion" over it. I don't understand why this is so, and is seemingly a unique aspect of the Judeo-Christian religion (I would much prefer that we give thanks to animals we kill). There was a medievil belief that there was another man prior to the current Adam and Eve man. Maybe the prior man lived more in harmony with nature and the new creation acknowledges a different relationship?. I don't know, but there is something going on there.
geogeek · 2 December 2005
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by AC on December 2, 2005 12:30 PM (e) (s)
Would conscious beings be created and "good" imprinted on their minds, like hardcoding Asimov's Laws into a robot?
Some say that man has been imprinted with an awareness of the eternal in his mind, which makes him search for gods and truth instinctively. So yes, maybe we just "know" some things are right or wrong. The question is where did this instinct come from? Is it a survival of the fittest evolved trait, or an inherent part of what we are? I have also mused on the thought that the fact that humans have children and are forced to raise them is nature's way of forcing humans to change their point of view from pure selfishness to one of love and looking out for the other person. Is this nature's clever way of teaching us morality? In the book, White Fang, Jack London says that after a year or so, the mother wolf forgets her (now older) children. Maybe with humans and our larger minds, the lesson sticks.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
Mr. Lyon:
I am not discussing whether one or more gods exist; I am questioning your line of reasoning about "absolute morality".
What is morality?
I contend that it is the process we follow in order to decide how we should interact with our fellow human beings.
As such, it is intrinsically 1) situation-dependent and 2) society-dependent. A man alone on a desert island has precious little need for any kind of morality.
Even more: I see morality as simply the internalization of a behavioral code that has very sensible reasons for its "commandments" (pun, but no offence, intended).
Why do most of us think that murder is a bad, bad idea? Because someone "up there" decreed so? Maybe; but far more likely because each of us values his/her own life, and collectively forbidding murder is a way for safeguarding that life.
But morality, being a process, is not a matter of black and white, of do's and dont's; rather, it is a continuum of choice, with some options more clearly right and other more clearly wrong, and most somewhere in between.
No shortcuts, I'm afraid. For instance, is abortion a bad thing? Most people will agree that it is. Is forbidding abortion good? Hard data say that no, it is not good at all; prohibition actually increases the number of abortions and the danger to women undergoing it. How can both an act and the prohibition of the same act be bad? They can't, in the B&W world of moral certitude. Yet they are. And this, I underscore, is simply one example.
I don't see any "absolute" morality.
geogeek · 2 December 2005
BTW, my previous comment is not intended to address the _source_ of the sensation that killing/harming things is bad. Did some deity or collect of deities hardwire us for it? Is it evolutionarily useful? Societally trained? Otherwise altogether? The existence of general sensations of unethical vs. ethical behaviors does not require godstuff.
One more factoid about non-harming (ahimsa) and burning ants: children who harm mammals, even at a young age, and show an intent to hurt, rather than just ignorance about how the family cat doesn't want to be upside-down, are at significantly higher risk that other children of showing later diagnosable destructive-type mental illnesses.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0902/is_3_32/ai_n6076681
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on December 2, 2005 01:54 PM (e) (s)
How can both an act and the prohibition of the same act be bad? They can't, in the B&W world of moral certitude. Yet they are. And this, I underscore, is simply one example.
I agree that man is separated from (cannot directly observe) the absolute good, and moral "systems" are subjective. As stated above, however, there seems to be some sense of the moral inside man (and as you suggest).
I'm always intrigued by how the Bible's creation story, written by these obscure people out in the middle of the desert, seems to so fundamentally understand certain basic human conditions and quandaries such as this. It seems that the real moral dilemmas for man (such as abortion or the use of nuclear bombs) come from the capabilities made possible by man's intellect and skill with technology. Is this "punishment" for eating from the tree of truth and knowledge? I'm not saying the literal story is true, but it metaphorically expresses our condition so well. Will our "smartness" ultimately be then end of us? I don't know, but maybe.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
Mr. Lyon,
it certainly looks like the opposite is true, to me. The lack of recognition of nuanced moral dilemmas is not a bonus, it's a drawback!
The metaphor of the Tree is certainly "true", because ignorance is bliss; but I prefer to try and avoid being ignorantly blissful, or blissfully ignorant. If curiosity is a sin, count me as damned.
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
Posted by Aureola Nominee, FCD on December 2, 2005 02:37 PM (e) (s)
it certainly looks like the opposite is true, to me. The lack of recognition of nuanced moral dilemmas is not a bonus, it's a drawback!
I agree man's mind is a wonderful thing, but I keep wondering what it looks like from an "objective" point of view. Sort of like how parents can get all worked up over a high school football game, and a casual observer walking by thinks they're all nuts.
Jim Harrison · 2 December 2005
Real-world moral disputes usually involve disagreements about the application of principles, not the principles themselves. The abortion debate, for example, isn't about whether it's OK to kill a person but about who counts as a person. Even the Nazis accepted the golden rule. They just decided that the "others" in "do unto others" didn't include Jews and other non-humans--at his trial in Israel, Eichmann claimed he always followed the Categorical Imperative.
The good news is that there is a lot more consensus on ethics than one might suppose from a superficial understanding of human cultural diversity. The bad news is that this consensus doesn't settle the hard cases.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
Well, Mr. Lyon, what if there's no "objective" point of view?
What if, like with frames of reference, we can at best "convert" one system into another, but never establish one as "objective"?
I hope this makes sense to you, even though you have chosen to live as if an "objective" up-and-down system existed.
(And by the way, I'm pretty sure that if a praying mantis were to assess our obsession with murder, for instance, it would probably find it mildly amusing and more than a little quirky...)
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
Mr. Harrison:
but morality is a matter of application! Even the "golden rule" is a practical guideline for how one should apply one's principles...
By the way, are you aware that even Christians follow two different versions of that rule? In Italian, the rule reads like this: "Do not do unto others what you would not have others do unto you".
This is, IMHO, a much better rule than the other version, as it would prevent aggressive "witnessing", for instance.
geogeek · 2 December 2005
Jim Harrison · 2 December 2005
The golden rule and similar formulations all involve the recognition of the claim that other people have on us simply because they are persons--I prefer the Kantian version myself. However you express this principle, it has to be applied in particular cases and the application is the hard part. In particular, you have to decide who counts as a person. Hence one encounters guys like the very influential right-wing political philosopher Carl Schmitt who claim that "not every one with a human face is a human being" and vegetarians who think that eating steaks is cannibalism.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 2 December 2005
Mr. Harrison:
exactly, I concur completely. Enunciating high-sounding principles is easy; applying them is what makes or breaks one's morality (or lack thereof).
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
John Lyon · 2 December 2005
My question is a simple one ------------------- if a supernatural creator were to declare that "kill all your neighbors" is an Absolute Moral Good, would you then go ahead and carry out that Absolute Moral Good, and encourage others to do so? If so, why? If not, why not?
I don't think the question has meaning, because an act so blatently wrong (assuming our moral sense is at least right on this point) could not come from a supernatural creator as an Absolute Moral Good. Such a being doesn't play jokes (except Monty Python's version). The creator's good and its physical creation would have to be in harmony. Things aren't random, there is causality and logic. A "good" from the creator cannot be a "bad."
On your second question, I admitted earlier that the creation of absolute good was not a necessity with the creation of the physical world, and we can have no direct knowledge of it. However, I do believe it exists because 1) I believe in a creator and 2) I believe that the creation has qualities associated with it that are beyond mere physical laws and properties. I think these qualities are manifested in man's inborn moral sense that quides in him creating (imperfectly) his moral systems, regardless of what religion or other customs exist in that culture, and to seek truth and even god.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 December 2005
John Lyon · 3 December 2005
Lenny-
Hang on there, young Jedi --------- aren't YOU the one who just filled up endless paragraphs telling us that we piddley little humans CANNOT decide what is "right" or "wrong" and that we need a Sky Daddy to tell us that?
No, I most assuredly did not say that. On the contrary, I said many times there are many man-made moral systems, and that man has in inborn moral sense. My only qualification was that I said such systems are subjective and changeable according to the time and place of your life. Any of this ring a bell?
Further down your list of comments, I've also said I'm not interesting in discussing with you how you find false ones from real ones. So you can, uh, just keep on waiting, OK? I also said I don't think the Bible is 100% the divinely-inspired word of God - humans have had too much of a hand in that. So your Bible quotes are, uh, off-point, OK?
Enough repeating - you're now wasting my time. See ya.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
That's precisely why the question of the existence of "absolute morality" CANNOT be separated from the question of the determination of what this alleged "absolute morality" entails, Mr. Lyon's opinions notwithstanding.
The existence of an unknowable "absolute morality" is indistinguishable from its non-existence, from the very practical standpoint of using it to govern our behaviour. And that's the whole point of morality, isn't it?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 December 2005
Jim Harrison · 3 December 2005
Most of the arguments on this thread are based on the superficial notion, beloved of Freshmen world-wide, that the only alternatives are morality as divine fiat or morality as social convention. As most often formulated, both branches of this false dichotomy imply that right and wrong are utterly arbitrary, a peculiar conclusion since there are obviously excellent reasons for moral principles. When you're dealing with five-year olds, you may indeed be stuck with "Don't do that!" but adults can sometimes be persuaded by arguments, many of which go beyond appeals to the prejudices of the tribe. Familiar examples: What would happen if everybody did that? What does it say about you to act that way?
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
Mr. Harrison:
Your "familiar examples" look to me as classic cases of social convention (I don't think I need to remind you that every one of us is always a part of several social circles, with different, and at times conflicting, conventions). If you think otherwise, I'd very much like to understand why.
Jim Harrison · 3 December 2005
Have you bothered to think through what you mean by the expression "social convention?" If you mean that ethics is largely about social relationships or that we learn how to behave through a process of socialization, you won't find many people who'll disagree. Saying that morality is merely a matter of social convention, however, implies that the rules are only justifiable by appeal to custom and that, so I claim, is simply false. It's like deciding that the Pythagorean theorem is a matter of professorial convention because virtually everybody learned about the relationship between the sides of a right triangle at school and most of 'em took the teacher's word for it.
By the way, claiming that one can cogently argue about right and wrong doesn't imply the much more radical claim that all moral arguments can be decisively decided--being moral is harder than geometry!
John Lyon · 3 December 2005
Lenny - There are two types of "good" being discussed here, and a good in man's implementation of a moral system is not an absolute good. Your sound-bite quoting missed these distinctions:
Yes, I mean an absolute "good" that is permanent and unchanging. While any man-made system can claim to be sanctioned by a deity, of necessity, at most only one of those systems would be valid. False dieties (claimed creators) don't count. Its also equally possible that none of the "systems" are absolute, as man has not properly learned or implemented the absolute good (assuming it has been revealed to him).
I agree with you, and I'll admit that while I do believe in God, I do have trouble with saying that the Bible is 100% the divinely inspired word of God, let alone individual's interpretation of the Bible. If humans are involved, there is just see too much room for error. Further, I think that the "absolute good" that God chooses to reveal to us might simply be an aspect of such a quality that man can comprehend. For example, I think its unlikely that there is an absolute quality in the universe of "you should honor your parents," but from God's perspective and knowledge, this is a rule he has given us for our purposes. Such a rule itself is not an absolute good, but it has practical authority given where it came from (if you believe that).
So your Bible quotes are, uh, off-point, OK?
Au contraire, my friend, they are PRECISELY to the point. After all, YOU are the one who just got finished telling us that "A non-subjective good can only be the result of a supernatural being 'saying so.' Everything else is a convention defined by man." Well, here is an example of a supernatural being 'saying so'.
Well, no its not. If you're going to quote me, and only me, I said I have trouble saying the Bible is 100% divinely inspired word of God. Therefore this is not a "saying so." I also said any aspect of the absolute good revealed to us is likely a practical feature of it for the purposes of man, not an awareness of the entire concept (which only God can fully know). I also said that man still has to implement a system based on any such revealed truths, and such attempts would likely be flawed.
Honestly, it seems to me you're trying to fit me into a preconceived box and are only selectively listening. I'm off to the USC-UCLA game - I really think we're done.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
Jim Harrison · 3 December 2005
People in fact argue about what's the right thing to do. You can claim, I guess, that all these arguments are ineffectual; but in my experience they are not. Compare the adult behavior of people who are raised in households in which rules were imposed by violence with those raised in households where parents took the time to explain the reasons behind the rules.
The point of the analogy between math and morality is not that ethics is an axiomatic system but that the way an individual learns something and the basis for its validity are quite distinct. It may well be that most people most of the time hold particular moral rules because they were trained to do so, but that fact is irrelevant to deciding whether they should hold the rules. Most people never understand what proofs are about either, but that has nothing to do with the validity of proofs.
John Lyon · 3 December 2005
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I heard you before ---- only God gives Absolute Goods.
No, only God KNOWS absolute good. He doesn't give it, because man does not have the field of vision to comprehend an absolute good. Absolute good is an unchanging aspect of reality that existed prior to creation. We can't know it directly.
So I'm asking if, when God ordered his followers to commit genocide, that was an Absolute Good.
You haven't established that God did so, and no, per above.
If not, why not, and how do you then tell which of God's statements are Absolute Good and which aren't. And what happened to all your talk about permanent unchanging moral good from the creator?
See above.
Make up your friggin mind, John.
Real classy.
Is it, or is it not, morally right to commit genocide if God the Creator tells you to do it.
I already answered this, which is what set you off. Meaningless question - find the quote. Note that this time the question is "morally right"; above it was "absolute good." Two different questions, although you treat them as interchangeable. Perhaps you're having trouble with this, because you're being loose with terminology. Try thinking about my responses and adjusting your question(s) accordingly.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
Mr. Harrison:
am I right in understanding that, in your opinion, if something (say, morality) is a social convention, then it must not have any reason for being adopted?
I'm puzzled: this would be a very naive jump to conclusions.
Jim Harrison · 3 December 2005
Maybe I'm being fussy, but the expression "social convention" seems mighty ambiguous to me. I understand why driving on the right can be said to be a social convention but something like the prohibition on homicide isn't very much like that. I mean we might as well drive on the left like they do in England, but presumably frowining on bloody murder isn't like opting for VCRs over beta max.
Or maybe the problem is about whether we're talking about causes or reasons. I'm simply saying that there are often cogent reasons behind moral rules. In some cases the reasons may also be the cause or one of the causes of their general currency in a given culture, but how rules come to be adopted is a logically distinct question from how they can be rightly justified. My mother taught me not to lie, for example, but I would never claim that it's wrong to lie because my mother told me it was wrong.
RupertG · 3 December 2005
And then there's the small issue of evil - which was either created by the absolutely moral creator or it wasn't. Famously, either option raises non-trivial problems for even advanced apologists and the issue has consumed mega-years of theological braintime to no good effect. The only solution exposes the tension that lies at the heart of fundamentalism, a worldview that generally abjures mysticism, which is that some things cannot be known yet one must accept that they are absolutely decided - and by humans yet, despite the constant warnings in the literature that humans are grotesquely fallible in such matters.
Perhaps it is the continual failure of fundamentalist thought to arrive at a solid conclusion to these and other basic issues that fires at least some of fundamentalism's instinctive fear of evolutionary theory - which makes the ideas of good and evil once again amenable to logical enquiry. That goes some way to explain the popular knee-jerk reaction that such enquiry will lead to grotesque immorality and a relativistic stew in which all goodness will be cooked out of the human race. It doesn't take much to find plenty of practical consequences for such a worldview, especially when it comes to the snakepit of sexuality. People are dying because of it today, and in large numbers.
Any moral code that proposes such consequences as part of the plans of an omniscient, omnipotent creator for their most-loved creations is going to be heavily conflicted. It is not going to welcome enquiry that not only refuses to take its dogma on face value, but has interesting things to say about how that dogma evolves and why it might actually be immoral. Evolutionary thought, inasmuch as it looks at the survival of social animals among limited resources, most certainly qualifies.
R
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 December 2005
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
Mr. Harrison:
First, we do lie. A lot. The social prohibition against lying is not absolute at all; it is very much a matter of degree, not of "either/or". Second, we do kill our fellow human beings. Oh, sure, in socially approved ways (e.g., in war; and for countries where it is legal, via death penalty); but once again, it is a matter of degrees, not of absolute prohibition.
Of course we have reasons for adopting those social conventions; but social conventions they remain. Some of them obtain our near-universal consensus; some less so. But none are "sculpted in stone".
Jim Harrison · 3 December 2005
For me the issue has nothing to do with a purported absolute morality--I doubt if human beings have reliable access to cosmic truth and, anyhow. I'm simply pointing out that one can argue rationally about moral issues, a rather more modest assertion.
You keep using the phrase "social convention" as if you had a serious point to make. Beats me what it can be. If you're just selling a pop version of cultural relativism, all I can say is have a nice day.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 3 December 2005
AC · 5 December 2005
John Lyon · 5 December 2005
Nature really hates it when people anthropomorphize her.
But seriously, this doesn't help. Humans are not forced to raise their children. They are strongly compelled by instinct because our young are not self-sufficient at birth. I don't think this quality of human offspring is due to conscious meddling by a deity.
If caring for one's young does force one to shift from selfishness to caring for another person, it can be as narrow as simply looking out for one more person: the child. It need not (and frequently doesn't) lead to any pseudo-Christian panphilia.
Hello!!! I said "nature's way" (not a diety or a pseudo-Christian whatever) and is "forced" really that different from "strongly compelled"? Strikes me as an example of a scientist-type (no idea if you are) assuming a greater insight into what nature "likes" and shaking their finger accordingly. Hey, we're finally back on topic and you're not supposed to do that! (Just joshin' you - no offense.)
k.e. · 6 December 2005
John
I think it would be worth your while to have a listen
to the free mp3's on the download section at www.jcf.org
they explain how self/worldviews have evolved from pre-Christian times in both the East and the West with a trip through Western liturature and science. There is a rich source of information in the form of actual *history* that may help you formulate your own world view.
And it *is* your worldview ......to understand *why* you need to take a step or just *be comfortable* which is OK......just don't expect all to listen to you or take *your* views that seriously.
I promise you will be able to give Lenny a run for this money then_;0
What you are asking is for *you* to find out.... I suggest you get on with it.
John Lyon · 7 December 2005
ke-
Places like this are very odd. Elsewhere, I was recently involved in a discussion about how having skill in social situations contributed to man's evolution, and I made a (snide) comment that Paris Hilton must be the epitome of our development. I thought this was rather funny, but a grumpy guy responded that I should "learn first; then talk." In pressing him, I find that not only does he know absolutely nothing about the topic himself, but that my common-sense observations (not just this one) were actually mirrored by some scientist commentators. So talk about hot air, but a typical attitude toward people "like me." Maybe that's your point - why bother?
Give Lenny a run for his money? I think you're kidding, but no run is required. I do try to respond to all questions out of politeness, but Lenny's were all about going for a cheap win, not about sharing knowledge or possibilities. Conversations like this always seem to erode into my being asked to defend things I didn't say, simply because these little "gotchas" are **presumed** to be part of my worldview. Whether they are or not, is it really a "win" to try to point out that God told the Israelites to kill an enemy? Well, a much easier to find quote would be the flood story, which is about God killing EVERYTHING ON EARTH!! So no, its not a "win" -- its simply off-point.
I'll take a look at the site. Thanks.