*Note: I'm not very happy with the way this post turned out. I reserve the right to make edits later, particularly if it comes out in the comments that I was unclear on something*
Many Christians (and indeed, I myself) are fond of pointing out that Atheists seem to lack any solid metaphysical grounding for the moral intuitions by which they live their lives. Many Christians also take it as a given that Christianity solves this problem. But I'm not so sure.
The typical Christian claim goes something like this: there is an omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-benevolent God. This God is the arbiter of morality- he is both its source and it's ultimate judge. That which we call "good" could more accurately be termed "of the character of God", and that which we call "bad" is actually that which is "separate from God".
But it seems to be the case that morality in this framework is just as arbitrary as in the Atheist's. It arises purely based on the character of God. That is to say, if God's character had been different, morality itself would have been different. But in reality, there seems to me a clear difference between what we call morally good and morally bad behaviors. Morally good things are things that fundamentally benefit people- make them more comfortable, happier, more secure, more free. Things that we call morally bad are things that fundamentally hurt people- cause them discomfort, pain, anguish, uncertainty, and fear. Morality, in practice, is far from arbitrary.
Now the argument can certainly be made that morality is not arbitrary precisely because God's character is not arbitrary- we only consider morality "fixed" because God's character is fixed. But I don't think this solves our problem, if only because we can conceive of a God with a different character than omni-benevolence (certainly the ancient Greeks did). Just because a being is omnipotent, it does not follow that his moral character is omni-benevolent- even if we are somehow justified in making this claim on God's character, we're still constraining God's character to some external stanard of the moral law.
Put it another way- "Omni-benevolent" is a descriptive word that we apply to God after his character is revealed. If omnibenevolent simply meant "whatever God is", we wouldn't need to bother calling God omni-benevolent. Even if we make the claim that omnibenevolence is "part of God's nature", that's no help here. After all, cheerfulness is part of Steve's nature. It may be the case that Steve is perpetually and unchangeably cheerful, but the definition of cheerful does not derive from Steve. We don't look at Bill (also cheerful) and say "you're so Steve". Steve and Bill both share the "Cheerful" trait, and are even defined in relation to that trait, but that trait does not derive its meaning from them. "Cheerful" would still be a thing, even if they didn't happen to be cheerful. Much the same, we may claim God is omni-benevolent, but that is a very different thing than saying omni-benevolence derives its meaning from the character of God. If those two are the same, then talking about an evil (or even just imperfect) God wouldn't just be nonsensical, it would be syntactical jibberish.
Put it yet another way- we like to call God omnipotent. But nobody makes the claim that the definition of power is "whatever it is that God has infinite amounts of". Power is a thing, whether or not there is a God to have it. We can say that God is by his very nature all powerful- and that may well be true- but it does not invalidate the concept of power in a framework that doesn't include God.
I think the Evil God problem illustrates that "God", while perhaps being necessarily "good" by virtue of his omniscient nature (as Leah contends in that link), is still a logically seperable concept from "good" (even if God is necessarily good in Leah's framework, then He is being constrained by good, not the other way around). But I don't think we even need to appeal to that level of argument to get this point across to a Christian audience (since I suspect the evil God idea will strike many as fundamentally absurd). Instead, let's look at the story of Abraham. God directed Abraham to kill his only child in cold blood. This is pretty clearly a morally evil action to take. If you hear a news story about a women who kills her children because she thinks God told her too, you don't think "good for her, believing her faith so strongly", and you don't for a second question whether or not she was actually doing as she was told by God.
When I've disussed this question with Christians, I've never heard any of them say that killing Issaac wouldn't have been wrong because anything God says is by definition right. Instead, they either point to the fact that God didn't actually make Abraham do it, or suggest the possibility of far-reaching consequences we're not capable of grasping (i.e. killing baby Hitler). In either case, we are saying that God simply would not order a senseless killing without some good reason. This is not a claim that God is morality, but rather that God is always right about morality- and since God knows more than us, and because he has the character of omni-benevolence, we are required to trust him completely. We are admitting here that the standard of morality is external to God- some things are right and some things are wrong, and God's character fits entirely into one of those categories. And again, even if his character necessarily fits into one of them, that is God being constrained by morality, not the other way around.
It seems to me that the Christian is on no more solid footing here than the Atheist. Both are appealing to moral standards that have roughly the same metaphysical grounding. But here's the thing- I don't ultimately see this as a problem. It seems pretty straightforward to me, once you've arrived at a position of valuing human life and the human experience, to arrive at a morality that says "people matter, and what's good for people is morally good and what's bad for people is morally bad". The question that Christianity tries to answer (and where Atheism fails for me) is why we should care about morality in the first place? Coming up with morality is pretty easy, except in the most extreme of edge cases; convincing me why I should care about some arbitrary electrical signals passing through a semi-randomly arranged mass of protons and electrons is a much tougher deal.
All the arguments I've read for secular morality (including the one I'm in the middle of from Why I Believed) point to rational self-interest as our reason for being moral. This is where they all lose me. Certainly rational self-interest is a tremendous motivator (the only thing I learned from my college economics class was the following dictum: "Incentives work"), but that's not why I want to be good (or rather, not why I want to want to be good). I want to be good because it's the right thing to do- not because of potential divine judgement, and not because it will benefit me in the end. Certainly my desire- and a reasonable basis for morality- are explicable in the secular vision. They're just totally, completely unsatisfying to me. It seems to be the case that once I recognize that morality is just a hard-wiring of my brain to prefer things beneficial to the group, my optimal strategy is to actively override my moral intuitions. I should be good when it suits me, in case others are watching, but in the case where I'm sure nobody will notice, there's absolutely no motivation for not doing what benefits me the most. I would certainly never donate anonymously, sacrifice myself for another, or anything else that my corrupted-hardware-brain might try to convince me to do out of some misplaced burden of evolutionary psychology. Wanting it to not be true is not an indication of it actually not being true- but man is that a depressing reality
While you were away a read Why I Believed (found it free online, yeah!) and I was really pleased with his tone. Unfortunately I had a hard time identifying with the problems he sees. Evolution, strict literal interpretations of the Bible, everyone else going to hell, the countless different ways of interpreting scripture, and regenerate and unregenerate minds are just not Catholic ideas. Shortly after reading Why I Believed, I started a book called Death and Life by M.C. D’Arcy, a Catholic philosopher of the nineteenth century. I’m not very well read on philosophy and he made some points I never thought about. One statement he makes is “Physical things, physical or chemical, dead or living, mass or energy, cannot possess the status of being false; they either are or they are not. To be in error is the privilege and misfortune of a being which is not altogether material”. If we see animal acts of violence as simply natural, then why do we see human acts as unnatural or immoral. How is it that a natural thing (man) can do an unnatural thing. To me that means there must be part of him that is supernatural. It sounds akin to Lewis's argument "how can a fish know it's wet" but this is the first time I really ever got it. If morality is something that simply comes from within me then why should my sense of morality apply to anyone else? After all, the atoms and chemical reactions in their brains may come to different conclusions than mine and the best we could hope for is a consensus.
ReplyDeleteI have no problem with atheists finding meaning in their life, after all, if we’re here, why not enjoy it and make the most of it. However, I can’t see why atheists would want to have children. To me there are only two things we are guaranteed in life and that is suffering and death. As a Catholic, all suffering, even that of non-human creation, has redemptive quality. But if I am just an animal that is self aware enough to know I’m just here for a few years to have some possible moments of happiness but definitely disease, heartbreak and death, then I’m not sure I could pass that on. Alleviation of future suffering is often given as a reason for abortion and euthanasia. But the truth is, we all suffer, not one of us escapes it, so why should any of us tolerate being here. (My husband vehemently disagrees with me on this so I realize I may be very wrong.) I suppose the idea of transhumanism, by my limited understanding of it, is that we will eliminate physical suffering and death eventually. But this only brings on more problems to me. If we worry about overpopulation as it is, then a future where no one can have children or we have to actively select people to die doesn’t seem much better than the present. I know this isn't addressing anything you said, but it's something I've thought about and wanted to throw out there.
I agree that morality isn’t arbitrary but it isn’t always obvious. If it is, then why does everyone disagree on it so much? Is abortion immoral? Is there such a thing as a just war? Is torture ok to save lives? Is capital punishment ok? Is it immoral to pass a homeless man and not give him something? Is it moral for a man to accumulate more than he could spend in his lifetime and not share it even if he has worked hard and ethically to get it? And I think forgiveness is wonderful and beautiful, but outside of Christianity I would have a hard time understanding why an eye for an eye isn’t better than forgiving once much less 70 X 70 times. I think vengeance is the human gut reaction. I also don’t agree that morality is only based on what makes us happy or free. A man who wants to have an affair may find the restraint of his wedding vows make him less free and less happy. You may argue that doing the moral thing makes his wife happier but why should her happiness overrule his without a higher moral order. Morality is absolute but it seems that we can rationalize anything. Not trying to argue, just giving my two cents.
"While you were away a read Why I Believed (found it free online, yeah!) and I was really pleased with his tone. Unfortunately I had a hard time identifying with the problems he sees"
Delete"Why I Believed" is definitely primarily focused on Evangelical Fundamentalism. That said, I am a bit surprised that you didn't find any sticking points. In particular, Chapters 10-13 (Prophecy, the Resurrection, Biblical Reliability, and Miracles and Answered Prayer) seemed to me to strike at Christianity as a whole, Catholic or otherwise. I'm curious in particular about his claim that Jesus directly prophesied his return within a single generation, and that this is how the early church fathers (in particular Paul) understood it. I realize Catholics don't take the Bible to be strictly infallible, but this seems (to me) like some pretty fundamental doctrine. If the early church (and Jesus himself, as C.S. Lewis contends) was wrong about this, it seems (to me) to go a long way towards invalidating any world view with Jesus at its center- just as Jehovah's Witness being wrong about the second coming largely invalidates it as a viable belief system. As a Catholic, do you reject Daniels' conclusion (that Jesus and Paul thought the second coming/rapture would happen within a generation), or do you reject my conclusion that this is near-fatal to any form of Christianity? Or I suppose alternatively, do you think the Bible is wrong about this point? (Though if the Bible is wrong about something as fundamental as this, it seems (to me) to invalidate the usefulness of the Bible almost entirely)
"If we see animal acts of violence as simply natural, then why do we see human acts as unnatural or immoral"
Evolutionary Psychology has an answer here. Because we are human, we project onto other humans. You may not find E.P.'s answer very compelling (I don't either), but that doesn't exactly make it wrong. I don't want to have to think of human violence as simply the natural outcome of evolutionary pressures- but what if it's true? Even if I find it distasteful, I would prefer to deal with the truth rather than not. So, I find it difficult to reject this idea on the basis of me not liking it (I do think my subjective experience counts as decent empirical evidence that morality is actually a real thing- but how much of that is culturally biased, I don't know)
"I have no problem with atheists finding meaning in their life... However, I can’t see why atheists would want to have children"
I don't think I follow here. If the Atheist can find meaning, it seems like we're admitting "existence is better than non-existence", even for the Atheist (since the Atheist presumably believes death is just ceasing to exist as a consciousness). If existence is better than non-existence, I don't see why an Atheist should be predisposed towards not having kids? (plus, if the Atheists are right, we're literally genetically predisposed to want kids- and that's where many Atheists find their meaning/purpose)
"I suppose the idea of transhumanism, by my limited understanding of it, is that we will eliminate physical suffering and death eventually. But this only brings on more problems to me..."
DeleteI think I agree with you here. Death, sickness, destruction, they're all terrible and depressing things, but it's not clear that a world without them would actually be better. Would a life without suffering even be worth living? It's not clear to me that pleasure is entirely separable from pain. Certainly the fact that indigenous peoples with basically nothing are often happier than us with our first-world-problems seems to suggest that alleviating suffering (hard work, toil, etc.) does not necessarily lead to better lives.
If you would criticize this stance as being counter to my previous statement "Things that we call morally bad are things that fundamentally hurt people- cause them discomfort, pain, anguish, uncertainty, and fear"... then I think you'd be right. My experience tells me that we need a little discomfort, hard work, toil, trouble, and pain, in order to enjoy the good things. It's hard to enjoy being healthy if you've never been sick. But my moral intuitions tell me we shouldn't be purposefully inflicting these things on others (religion seems to have a good answer here: God inflicts the correct amount of discomfort on us for us to be "refined, to grow in maturity and character- much like a parent. The problem is that this doesn't seem to be consistently applied- some people get absolutely screwed over by life (who could have used a break), and some people have life way to easy (who could have used a kick in the pants))
"I agree that morality isn’t arbitrary but it isn’t always obvious. If it is, then why does everyone disagree on it so much?"
That's a fair criticism of my claim that "It seems pretty straightforward to me, once you've arrived at a position of valuing human life and the human experience, to arrive at a morality". However, I would point out that all of the examples you gave are not instances about people disagreeing on fundamental moral premises, but rather on what to do when those fundamental moral premises contradict each other. They're disagreeing on the weighting function, not on the variables they're using in the first place. Which takes precedence when they are in conflict, a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, or the babies right to life (if the baby can even be considered a human capable of having rights)? The right to defend ourselves, or the moral imperative to not harm others? Preserving the lives of many people, or preserving the rights of a few to not be tortured (and preventing the torture of those wrongfully accused)? The value of working hard and "earning your keep", or the value of Charity?
Much more troubling to me are examples of morality (some religious, some secular) that flat out disagree with one of these fundamental premises- any morality that takes women to be inferior or less deserving of rights than men, or allows for or promotes slavery, etc. The fact is, humans have disagreed about fundamental moral premises for a long time. So, while it seems really straightforward to me to arrive at a morality, I have no explanation for why this has not been straightforward to everyone throughout human history. It would be easy to point the finger at religion here, but I don't think it can be said that secular governments have been any better at this than religious ones- it just so happens that most governments in history have been religious, so it's easier to find examples. A much better explanation seems to be the evolutionary psychology one- morality is actually just any locally stable arrangement that is self-replicating. I don't like this explanation at all, but it seems to me like it's the one that best fits the data.
"Morality is absolute but it seems that we can rationalize anything. Not trying to argue, just giving my two cents."
DeleteThat is definitely another possible explanation. However, saying morality is absolute isn't actually helpful if we're capable of rationalizing it to the point that we can't tell the difference. After all, what's the point of morality if we can't access it? Pretty much everyone (and every religion) makes exceptions for the moral culpability of those who literally don't know what they're doing (children, mentally challenged, senile, etc). Even scarier, if I can fool myself about the fundamentals of morality- again, to the point where I don't even recognize that I'm doing it- then it's likely that I'll get into a situation where I'm morally obligated to pursue a course that is morally wrong. Homosexuality is a good example, but we've beat that one to death, so let’s use another- women’s rights. If I am fundamentally convinced that it's a moral imperative that women should not talk outside the home (for whatever reason), then I'm morally obligated, by virtue of my conviction, to pursue laws that limit the freedom and value of women. I guess I'm saying that if our starting premise is that morality is objective, but we can fool ourselves about what actual morality is, then I'm not sure how to claim that my conception of it is any better than anyone else’s. Maybe I'm the one that's wrong about women being equal, instead of the Quiverfull patriarchs being wrong about them being inferior? (not that I'm an expert on Quiverfull beliefs, but hopefully you get my point)
"I also don’t agree that morality is only based on what makes us happy or free."
I think we might be using different terms here. By "free", secularists generally don't mean "free to do whatever you want". They generally mean "free to do whatever you want, all else being equal". Nobody that I know of (other than objectivists and nihilists) argues that you're the only one that matters. That said, I do (whether through cultural bias, access to the moral law, or evolutionary biology) consider personal freedom to be the most important moral imperative.
Interestingly, I think a good case can be made for this from scripture- "everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial". Just because we are free to make choices, does not mean we can't (or shouldn't) submit to God's will. But we have to maintain that personal freedom- if it's not a choice to obey God, then it loses its significance. That's the only cogent argument I've heard for the existence of evil (as necessitated by free will), so it seems like we ought to apply it to the question of whether or not, as a society, to allow for personal freedom.
I also agree that "happiness" is not the single ultimate good, but I suspect for different reasons than you. I would say that "wellbeing" is a much better (if fuzzier) measure. Happiness is fleeting, and present happiness is not indicative of future happiness. If we all lived just for the happiness of the moment, we'd be in big trouble. But if we all lived for happiness- contentment, joy, peace, whatever- in the long term, that seems like a much firmer moral basis. Not the only moral good, but definitely a moral good.
"You may argue that doing the moral thing makes his wife happier but why should her happiness overrule his without a higher moral order."
This is exactly my problem with secular morality. We first need to agree on the premise "people matter, and what's good for people is morally good and what's bad for people is morally bad" (or something like it), but I don't see how we can get there without an appeal to either a) an eternal existence or b) people being more than their physical parts (I don't think I need both, just one- though obviously both works too)
I apologize in advance for all the links provided this go round!!
Delete"I am a bit surprised that you didn't find any sticking points.”
Only one thing did give me pause was why the day of Atonement was set up as a permanent feast that Christians don’t keep. Apparently not too many Christians have been bothered by this because I haven't really been able to find anything on it. I have a feeling I know the answer because we don’t keep most of the OT rituals but I’m going to continue to research this.
“I'm curious in particular about his claim that Jesus directly prophesied his return within a single generation, and that this is how the early church fathers (in particular Paul) understood it. I realize Catholics don't take the Bible to be strictly infallible, but this seems (to me) like some pretty fundamental doctrine.”
Can you clarify what you mean by “Catholics don’t take the Bible as strictly infallible” for me? C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic so I cannot be completely sure he and the Church agreed on this point. Please read the following links for the answers that I find satisfying. If you do not, I will be glad to discuss it further. The second link goes into more detail if you want to skip the first.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/02/did-jesus-say-the-second-coming-would-happen-in-the-apostles-lifetime.html
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/most/getchap.cfm?WorkNum=215&ChapNum=6
“Evolutionary Psychology has an answer here. Because we are human, we project onto other humans.”
So EP would have to hold that morality is not absolute, but merely feelings that have evolved? What does it mean to be human? Do you find humans fundamentally different than primates? Some people don’t, that’s why I ask:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jun/26/humanrights.animalwelfare
What do you think of consciousness? In the book Death and Life, D’Arcy quotes geneticist and evolutionary biologist as well as atheist, J.B.S Haldane, as stating “that mind is not wholly conditioned by matter”. Do you agree with this? And I found it interesting that I was reading a piece by Sam Harris just the other day and found him quoting J.S. Haldane, father of J.B.S. Haldane. Harris does not see the implications of the supernatural but I’m not sure how he can shut the door.
http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/the-mystery-of-consciousness-ii
I willingly admit that my thoughts on atheists having children is not exactly thought through. However, saying existence is better than non-existence therefore I exist, so that’s good, and I’ll make more people to exist solely for the purpose of existing seems like circular logic to me. There must be something about existing that makes it better than not existing and worthwhile to pass on. Some people (not you and I) think suffering is worse than existing. Interestingly I was reading another book discussing world birth rates just yesterday and it seems that most of the world has decided having children isn’t all that necessary after all. Ireland is the first Western European country I see listed in the following index and it’s at 128 out of 221, America is 149th. The total fertility rate of most industrialized nations show a significant decline expected in the near future. Japan could be seeing its population halved with each future generation and most Eurpoean countries are not far behind. Not exactly relevant but interesting I think:
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?v=25
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=31&l=en
“Certainly the fact that indigenous peoples with basically nothing are often happier than us with our first-world-problems seems to suggest that alleviating suffering (hard work, toil, etc.) does not necessarily lead to better lives.”
I fear your days as an atheist may be numbered if you keep saying things like this!
“However, I would point out that all of the examples you gave are not instances about people disagreeing on fundamental moral premises, but rather on what to do when those fundamental moral premises contradict each other.”
DeleteI’m a little confused. Saying moral premises disagree and moral premises contradict seems to me to be the same thing. Since people may be severely hurt or even killed if we are wrong at times, I don’t think they are always trivial disagreements. I think the foundation we build on is very important.
“It would be easy to point the finger at religion here, but I don't think it can be said that secular governments have been any better at this than religious ones- it just so happens that most governments in history have been religious, so it's easier to find examples.”
So interesting. I think it is because of Christianity that we have come to see people as individuals with inalienable rights endowed by God which has revolutionized the way we govern ourselves. Can you give an example of a secular government that has maximized people’s freedom and well being? Even post Christian European countries are not very good examples as if you consider their economic and demographic woes? Here’s a little more Father Barron:
http://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr--Barron-comments-on-Why-It-Matters-That-Our-Dem.aspx
A much better explanation seems to be the evolutionary psychology one- morality is actually just any locally stable arrangement that is self-replicating. I don't like this explanation at all, but it seems to me like it's the one that best fits the data.
That seems to only constrain me morally if other people are involved. If I was stranded on a desert island, would I have any moral constraints? What if I’m on that island with 9 other people, if it’s in my best interest to lie and steal to stay alive, can EP condemn me for it?
That is definitely another possible explanation. However, saying morality is absolute isn't actually helpful if we're capable of rationalizing it to the point that we can't tell the difference. After all, what's the point of morality if we can't access it?
A person has a duty to act morally according to their conscience but they also have a duty to fully and rightfully form their conscience. Ignorance of the laws of driving do not mean that the laws of driving do not exist, it just means a man who is mistaken is more likely to harm himself and others and really needs to take the time to understand them.
“ That said, I do (whether through cultural bias, access to the moral law, or evolutionary biology) consider personal freedom to be the most important moral imperative…so it seems like we ought to apply it to the question of whether or not, as a society, to allow for personal freedom.”
I would say that personal freedom is the foundation of morality. Without it, there is no such thing. But when you say it is the most important moral imperative, I get the feeling that you mean autonomy is the highest good over say loving your neighbor, but that doesn’t seem to be what you are saying elsewhere so I think I misunderstand you. If you are saying we cannot legislate morality then I agree. I think sodomy laws are wrong as would be laws against adultery or to not work on Sunday. But the state has to make laws or we would not live in an ordered society and laws are always in way moral judgments, hopefully ordered towards the good of society.
“This is exactly my problem with secular morality. “
So does this leave you with the question of is morality an illusion or is it real?
I remembered a question I wanted to ask you when I was reading Why I Believed. He states that he prayed to meet his wife and the next day he met the woman who did become his wife. Do you have any instances like that which you look back on and just see coincidences?
Delete"Can you clarify what you mean by “Catholics don’t take the Bible as strictly infallible” for me?"
DeleteMy understanding is that the Catholic position on the Bible is that it was written without intentionally false claims, by Christians who were legitimately trying to record what actually happened. However, these writers were human, and their words and memories were not necessarily without the typical kinds of human errors you would see whenever anyone writes about things that happened many years before. The Bible, therefore, is useful, truthful, and trustworthy, but not necessarily without legitimate accidental errors or confusions. Please correct me if this is not the actual Catholic stance.
"Please read the following links for the answers that I find satisfying. If you do not, I will be glad to discuss it further"
I started writing about this, and it got HUGE. No way I'm fitting this into several 4000 character limit comments- I'm going to do a post about this question instead :)
"So EP would have to hold that morality is not absolute, but merely feelings that have evolved?"
Yep. Or rather, morality is just a word we use to describe a set of ideals that is evolutionarily advantageous for us as social animals to hold (it is not the case that what is advantageous to the individual will always propagate- if their behavior is bad for the group (tribe), then the tribe is likely to die out, along with the offending individual. Evolutionary models can be applied to larger groups as well as individuals, which is why EP has at least some rational basis for saying that our idea of morality is just the most evolutionary stable one- the best balance between self-interest and group-interest that allows both the individual and the group to flourish)
"Do you find humans fundamentally different than primates?"
That is a goooood question. I say here that I do. However, it also seems to be the case that other animals (like the bonobos in the link you provided) basically experience the same feelings, emotions, and consciousness that we do, just on a much lower level. So, what does it mean to be human? It means you have human parents. Beyond that, I'm not really 100% sure.
"What do you think of consciousness?"
Yikes. I think it's way beyond what I or anyone else at this juncture really understands. This is the main reason I'm excited to read "Gödel. Escher. Bach.", as it seems like an attempt to deal with this issue from a cognitive science perspective. Suffice it to say, I think this- the arising of consciousness, love, the need for purpose, etc.- is one of the best arguments for a supernatural reality.
"I fear your days as an atheist may be numbered if you keep saying things like this!"
I sincerely hope so! I honestly would like nothing more than to find a religion to be true (particularly Christianity, because so many of my relationships are built around it). However, I fear that, at the moment, I still see insurmountable problems for every religion I've looked at so far. Short of a pretty direct intervention by God, I'm not sure what, if any, sort of evidence could overcome these problems.
"I’m a little confused. Saying moral premises disagree and moral premises contradict seems to me to be the same thing."
DeleteSorry for the confusion- I see from re-reading it that I used pretty ambiguous language. What I meant is that we all hold to moral premises that, in certain circumstances, contradict other moral premises that we ourselves hold. I believe stealing is wrong, but I also believe letting someone starve to death is wrong. So is it wrong to steal to prevent someone from starving to death? When we run into these conflicts in our moral premises, we all have some sort of weighting function- we decide that it's more wrong to let someone starve to death than it is to steal (or vice versa). This is the part we disagree on- which weighting function to use, not whether or not either of the premises is true. We all agree that stealing is wrong, and we all agree that letting someone starve to death is wrong, we just disagree about which is more wrong.
I do admit that morality in practice is not quite so simple. Sometimes people do have wildly divergent views on basic premises (sexual morality maybe most of all). These disagreements on basic principles are much more troubling to me, and contribute to the fact that Evolutionary Psychology, while something I very much don't want to be the basis of our morality, seems to have some pretty good evidence behind it.
"Can you give an example of a secular government that has maximized people’s freedom and well being?"
How about America? Christians like to call it a Christian nation, but several of our founding fathers were actually Deists (from what I understand, mostly because they had no other explanation for life. In today’s world with good evidence for Evolution, I suspect most of them would be Atheists). It's interesting that Father Barron cites Thomas Jefferson, who was a deist (from Wikipedia, it sounds like he rejected most of Christianity, but held to its moral conclusions). But more to the point, we enshrined separation of Church and State into our constitution. Yes, America has been historically Christian by population, but we have gone to great lengths not to govern like it. Here are some other secular governments
We can argue about the founding of the US all we want, but I think it ultimately depends what you mean by "secular". If you mean a separation of Church and State, then pretty much all modern first-world governments (my understanding is that a lot of countries followed America's lead, but that could well be an America-centric bias in my education). If what you mean is governments where the official "religion" was Atheism (so to speak), then I can't think of any. But I also can't think of any religious governments that have maximized people's freedom and well being (Maybe Israel? I don't know enough about their politics to say for sure. But we can also find examples like Australia or the Netherlands where they are almost exclusively Atheist, and they get along just fine)
"That seems to only constrain me morally if other people are involved. If I was stranded on a desert island, would I have any moral constraints? What if I’m on that island with 9 other people, if it’s in my best interest to lie and steal to stay alive, can EP condemn me for it?"
EP can't condemn you for anything. But under EP's framework, other individuals can (and must) condemn you for behavior that hurts the group. There's really not much sense in talking about what you "should" do under EP ethics, unless you want to talk about what is the most advantageous for you (after taking into account the reaction of other people who are equally self interested). We return to reciprocation-based ethics.
"Ignorance of the laws of driving do not mean that the laws of driving do not exist, it just means a man who is mistaken is more likely to harm himself and others and really needs to take the time to understand them"
DeleteFair enough. But can we blame him for driving on the wrong side of the road if he's wearing a blindfold (and is physically unable to take it off)? Or if he doesn't know he's in England and supposed to drive on the left? Yes, ignorance will still cause him harm, but if he has no way out of his ignorance (or worse, doesn't even know he's ignorant), then even the knowledge that ignorance causes harm isn't very useful.
"If you are saying we cannot legislate morality then I agree"
Yeah, that's exactly what I'm trying to get at :)
“So does this leave you with the question of is morality an illusion or is it real?”
Indeed it does. It also leaves me with the question, if morality is an illusion, would I want to know about it? Or is it better (i.e. does it lead to a more fulfilling life) to be convinced it is real?
So, there are basically 2 events in my life that I would have at one point considered evidence for God (currently, I don't outright reject them as evidence of God, but I definitely reject them as conclusive evidence of God)
DeleteThe first was that I almost drowned when I was one and a half years old. I obviously don't remember it, but the story goes that I was outside with my dad and my brother (almost 3). My dad had his back turned, and I fell into the pool. My brother wasn't able to talk very well yet, but he managed to squeak out something like "Dad. Jake. Pool". My dad gave me CPR, took me to the hospital, etc., and I turned out to be fine. From what I understand, I'm fairly lucky to have lived/not had any brain damage.
The second was meeting the girl I almost married (let's call her P). I was in campus crusade for Christ my freshman year of college, and they were doing their "fall retreat", and trying to get everyone to go. I wasn't really interested. However, through a string of unlikely events, I ended up going. They had a several-week competition amongst the freshman (four pairs, I think) where the prize was a free trip to the retreat. I didn't want to do the competition, but I did only because I was there with a friend who had never been before, and it was a pair competition. We lost the first week. But then one of the other pairs didn't have someone show up the next week, so they asked me to fill in. My team won, which meant I basically had to go. Meanwhile, I had met P at a group outing with some friends, and I was interested in her but pretty socially awkward and not sure what to do about it. They came out with car assignments for the trip, and I was in the same car as P. We got dinner in the dining hall before leaving, and became really good friends by the end of the weekend. This eventually led to dating, and at one point I thought it would lead to marriage (no such luck). I definitely didn't pray for it the night before or anything, but it was a highly improbable series of events that ended up putting me in position to have what was definitely the most important relationship of my life, outside of my family (P has also remained the most consistent Christian influence in my life for the last few years)
I think the big problem I have with attributing these to God is threefold. First, this is a claim that God is directly intervening into our reality. If he's willing and able to do that, then I don't understand why he doesn't show himself more obviously. I'm often told I can't expect a voice from heaven, and my response is usually "why not?". Second, it seems like this means God is willing and able to save babies from drowning and go to great lengths to get people into loving relationships- so how do I account for all the babies that drown and all the people that don't find real love? Saying that I'm particularly privileged or blessed doesn't help- if God is willing and able to save drowning babies, wouldn't he be morally obligated to do it? We humans would certainly be morally obligated to save a drowning baby if we had the option. Maybe not even that God is morally obligated, but rather that it seems to go against the moral character of the God claimed by Christians to stand by and watch a baby drown if he has the power to stop it (and no "free will" injunction to stop him). Third, both of these things are unlikely, but not outside the scope of possibility. It's not like these are billion-to-one odds. Plenty of people have near death experiences, and plenty of people have good stories about how they met their wives/girlfriends. Unless we're saying they're all miracles, I'm not sure how I can conclude that mine were divinely provisioned.
“ The Bible, therefore, is useful, truthful, and trustworthy, but not necessarily without legitimate accidental errors or confusions.”
DeleteGood, I was afraid you meant something different. We do believe it to be inerrant in faith and morals.
“which is why EP has at least some rational basis for saying that our idea of morality is just the most evolutionary stable one- the best balance between self-interest and group-interest that allows both the individual and the group to flourish)”
So if another society is flourishing while practicing things we find immoral (the Romans come to mind), then we would have to conclude that what they are doing isn’t really immoral? If then it isn’t immoral for them, then why would be immoral for us? This fuzzy morality makes my head swim.
Do you believe that an absence of the supernatural would lead to a negation of free will, as all of our actions would be based on chemical reactions that we have no control over? I know you stated an axiom of yours if free will, but I’ve been doing some reading and don’t see how it jives with a purely materialistic view. Another JBS Haldane quote: “It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms.”
"That is a goooood question. I say here that I do."
From that link you said it was the one axiom most likely to disappear from the list. You seem to argue strongly that humans are different but then I don’t understand why you would want to remove it from the list. The difference between humans and animals seems to be the fact that we have free will (we can rationalize our choices) and we have imaginations and creative abilities that are not limited to our material conditioning (a bonobo never painted a vision of heaven, or of even a banana). If we grant that certain animals have “human rights” then we would need to hold them to human duties (such as do not murder or rape) and should put them on trial as necessary.
“This is the part we disagree on- which weighting function to use, not whether or not either of the premises is true. We all agree that stealing is wrong, and we all agree that letting someone starve to death is wrong, we just disagree about which is more wrong.”
Thanks for the clarification! When you say “we all agree”, do you mean we as Americans, or we as humanity in general?
“Evolutionary Psychology, while something I very much don't want to be the basis of our morality, seems to have some pretty good evidence behind it.”
DeleteCan you point me to a good resource on EP. I feel like I’m missing something important here.
“How about America? Christians like to call it a Christian nation, but several of our founding fathers were actually Deists”
I understand, but those Deists did not grow up in a vacuum, they grew up in a very Christian culture:
Paine – Catholic, Jefferson- Episcopalian, Franklin – Puritan, Madison – Episcopalian, Washington - Anglican
If I took the Communist Manifesto, gleaned the bits I liked and threw out the rest and based a new government on it, I think you would still say I was basing my ideas on communist ideas. We can suppose they would be atheists, but let’s work with what we know, they were Deists. Which means they still believed in God. How would the declaration of independence go without that “endowed by their creator” part? That it is self evident that nature created men equal and endowed them with rights? I don't personally see it. I am quite arguably less attractive, less athletic, less intelligent and less industrious than most. When your rights start coming from other human beings, that's when we get in to trouble and I think that is the point Father Barron was making.
“If what you mean is governments where the official "religion" was Atheism (so to speak),”
I wasn't exactly meaning to ask about secular vs non secular. What I meant was give me a government that is not based on Judeo-Christian values or has not inherited those values that has done the most for people's well being.
Australia – Inherited it’s legal system from Britain (Christian)
Netherlands – largely Protestant since the 1560’s
When governments have been run on explicitly godless ideology (communism), we see the worse abuse of mankind in recorded history. I highly recommend reading some of Solzhenitsyn’s works. Here is a quote of his “A great disaster had befallen Russia: Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.”
“But can we blame him for driving on the wrong side of the road if he's wearing a blindfold (and is physically unable to take it off)?”
Well Jesus said “If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains.” Which I take to mean that God will not judge us if we are truly blind to what we are doing. If there is no supernatural order to human life, then perhaps we are all blind and it is truly up to each person to decide what is moral for themselves.
"Indeed it does. It also leaves me with the question, if morality is an illusion, would I want to know about it? Or is it better (i.e. does it lead to a more fulfilling life) to be convinced it is real?"
So far a materialistic view of the world seems to me to lead to murky morality, murky understanding of what being human is, murky understanding of the mind and free will, and a murky understanding of love, not to mention the question of how there is something rather than nothing. Now these things are some of the most fundamental and real aspects of what we think we know but become obscure by the system that tells us all is reason and reasonable. It reminds me of a Chesterton quote (sorry, I know I said I wouldn’t!): “The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid. The determinist makes the theory of causation quite clear, and then finds that he cannot say "if you please" to the housemaid. The Christian permits free will to remain a sacred mystery; but because of this his relations with the housemaid become of a sparkling and crystal clearness.”
I really appreciate you sharing those stories. I have a couple of comments.
Delete“If he's willing and able to do that, then I don't understand why he doesn't show himself more obviously.”
We have discussed previously that perhaps even a miracle may not suffice because it could be explained away. Would a miracle you had to believe in negate free will?
"if God is willing and able to save drowning babies, wouldn't he be morally obligated to do it?"
It would seem then that God would also be obligated to never let anyone suffer or die. But if God’s original plan was that we were made in His image to share in His life giving love, then the ultimate enemy is not death, but sin, which leads to spiritual death and separation from God. I know personally that it is when I suffer that I grow more empathetic, more patient, and more humble. Without loss, it is hard to know gratitude and love. I’m not saying that suffering is easy. In fact I had a miscarriage in December and it was the first time I understood a Catholic prayer that says we mourn and weep in a valley of tears. I would not say I was blessed to have it happen, but I prayed that God would use that as an opportunity to help me be a better person and the last few months have been life changing in ways I never would have expected. I believe that short little life was not in vain. And I believe God can use all of our sufferings for our good whether or not we pray, it is just that prayer helps align us better to seeking God's will and makes it easier for us to grow and change.
“Unless we're saying they're all miracles, I'm not sure how I can conclude that mine were divinely provisioned.”
Can they not all be miracles? We (Catholics) believe that God ordains or permits that things happen to maximize the greatest possible spiritual good for everyone while still allowing for free will.
"So if another society is flourishing while practicing things we find immoral (the Romans come to mind), then we would have to conclude that what they are doing isn’t really immoral?"
DeleteI think the part your missing is that Evolutionary Psychology isn't a worldview any more than Biology is. It's just a field of study. EP doesn't try to tell us why we should or shouldn't do anything- it just tries to tell us why we do or don't do things. "Moral" and "Immoral" aren't words that Evolutionary Psychology cares about- for those, you'll have to look at Utilitarianism, or Virtue Ethics, or Objectivism. The question EP tries to answer is how our behaviors might be shaped by evolutionary pressures. You can find more about evolutionary psychology here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/
"Do you believe that an absence of the supernatural would lead to a negation of free will, as all of our actions would be based on chemical reactions that we have no control over?"
Sure seems like it to me.
"I know you stated an axiom of yours if free will, but I’ve been doing some reading and don’t see how it jives with a purely materialistic view"
Me neither
"You seem to argue strongly that humans are different but then I don’t understand why you would want to remove it from the list"
I don't want to remove it from the list, but the fact that monkeys can be taught to communicate in sign language seems to indicate both a faculty for language and emotion that is much closer to us than we like to think
"When you say “we all agree”, do you mean we as Americans, or we as humanity in general?"
We as Americans generally agree. We as humanity- particularly when viewed over the last few thousand years- don't seem to agree nearly as much.
"We can suppose they would be atheists, but let’s work with what we know, they were Deists. Which means they still believed in God. How would the declaration of independence go without that “endowed by their creator” part?"
Fair enough, their language was generally theistic in nature. But I think the very fact that they explicitly rejected the different forms of Christianity they were raised in makes it impossible for us to attribute their conclusions to a "Christian" morality.
"When your rights start coming from other human beings, that's when we get in to trouble and I think that is the point Father Barron was making."
I think this is the point I'm not sold on. I understand what you're saying, that we can absolutely go through all the different people and probably classify some as "better" than others, according to purely worldly standards. But I don't think it follows that we must set up society and govern as if this is true. If some people truly are better, then the best way to let them exercise that is by leveling the playing field. If we give everyone the same rights and freedoms, the best will naturally rise to the top, so it's actually in the exceptional people's interest to treat everyone equally (this is sort of the fundamental theorem of capitalism). The people who equality is bad for is actually the underachievers. The only way they make it to the top is if the system is rigged. All this governmental approach is saying is that results are a better selector than heritage or position; people should be rewarded because of what they do and who they are, not because of who their parents were or what honorary titles they hold, and they certainly should not be punished for having the bad luck of being born poor (hmmm... seems like we may have digressed into a discussion on politics now? :) )
"When governments have been run on explicitly godless ideology (communism), we see the worse abuse of mankind in recorded history"
DeleteIt seems to me like we see bad things any time a government is run with explicitly religious ideology of any kind, Atheist or otherwise. The Spanish Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials don't seem to me to be superior to Communism (that communism killed more people seems like a product of the technology more than the ideology. )
"So far a materialistic view of the world seems to me to lead to murky morality, murky understanding of what being human is, murky understanding of the mind and free will, and a murky understanding of love, not to mention the question of how there is something rather than nothing."
I think that's a fair summation. What I'm not convinced of is that it's not true. Christianity (or any religion) may put the world in context, as Chesterton claims, but understand that that is exactly what religion was created to do. Even if you think Christianity is true, we must account for the hundreds of religious systems throughout history that have existed with no apparent basis- from the Greek and Roman Gods to Buddhism to Islam, even to the false gods of the Old Testament. They exist specifically because humans wanted to replace all these other mysteries with a single, less assailable mystery. Moreover, there are an infinite number of things you could choose to leave "mysterious" that would elucidate the rest of it. It doesn't seem like a good answer to me to revert to the "All powerful being in the sky" explanation unless there's actually good evidence for a specific version of that God being real, and so far I haven't found what I consider good evidence for that.
"Would a miracle you had to believe in negate free will?"
Good question. Only insomuch as a proof of the Pythagorean theorem negates my freedom to believe something contrary to the Pythagorean theorem. Yes, our free will is constrained by reality (if we're being rational agents), but I don't think that cheapens free will. If God is reality, then it isn't an imposition for him to clearly show himself.
"I know personally that it is when I suffer that I grow more empathetic, more patient, and more humble. Without loss, it is hard to know gratitude and love"
I think I'm generally on board with this sentiment.
"I had a miscarriage in December and it was the first time I understood a Catholic prayer that says we mourn and weep in a valley of tears"
I'm really sorry to hear that. I can't imagine how hard that's must have been (and must still be), and I am truly glad that you have found a way to grow from that experience.
One thing I've found to be true in my life (though it seems a bit trite in light of the weight of your sufferings) is that "nothing is ever as good or as bad as you think". The good times are rarely as good as you think they are, and are much more fragile and easily shattered than we would imagine. But the bad times are not nearly so dark as we suppose, and we can ultimately make it through just about anything (my friends tell me this is a very Christian way of looking at the world).
"Can they not all be miracles? We (Catholics) believe that God ordains or permits that things happen to maximize the greatest possible spiritual good for everyone while still allowing for free will."
DeleteThis was a position brought up to me recently by a friend. It strikes me as a bit off, but I'm not sure why yet. It seems a bit outrageous that this is the best possible world that could possibly be. It seems like all we would need to do is find one person or animal who suffers needlessly in the moment before death (in such a way that is does not and can not affect anyone else), and we've disproven this theory. More to the point, a lot of this world seems really, really horrible, and I'm not sure I buy that this is the best it could possibly be.
“ It's just a field of study”.
DeleteAaaahhh. Yeees, I see now. Thank you.
“(hmmm... seems like we may have digressed into a discussion on politics now? :) )”
Ha! I love talking about politics and religion, the two things my husband dislikes talking about the most, so thanks for letting me get it out of my system. I think we would probably agree on more than we disagree regarding politics. Thanks to Mr. Shea I'm actually considering voting 3rd party for the first time. Miracles do happen.
“It seems to me like we see bad things any time a government is run with explicitly religious ideology of any kind, Atheist or otherwise. “
I’ve finished reading No god but God and found it a very enlightening read. He argues in the last chapter that America is founded on a Protestant moral framework, states “religion is the foundation of America”, and that it is based on pluralism and not secularism which has led to secularization. He kind of summed up exactly what I was thinking.
"(my friends tell me this is a very Christian way of looking at the world.)"
Yes, I would have to agree that you share a lot of Christian sentiments. Please don’t hate me but there is a wonderful book called Left to Tell by Immaculée Ilibagiza that is an autobiographical story of how she survived the Rawandan massacres and it’s a wonderful testament to how even the most insanely awful experiences can be overcome. Ironically, I noticed I was wrong on the Turing test and found it very interesting that people thought you were Catholic on your atheist entry.
"It seems like all we would need to do is find one person or animal who suffers needlessly in the moment before death (in such a way that is does not and cannot affect anyone else), and we've disproven this theory."
Yes, this world is horrible, and we know it’s horrible because we don’t belong here (I think Lewis said something like this). I’m afraid you can’t disprove that theory to a Catholic, we think all suffering is redeeming:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/why-christianity-is-far-more-sensible-than-whatever-youre-doing-right-now.html
I realized my last post mostly negative and simply jumping on atheism without providing much positive for Christianity. I would like to share a video from Father Robert Barron that kind of explains why rational self interest doesn't work.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.wordonfire.org/WOF-TV/Commentaries-New/Fr-Barron-comments-on-What-you-believe-makes-a.aspx
Thanks for sharing that link. I thought it was really well done, and I agreed with a lot of what he said (particularly what he says against reciprocation-based morality). But I did disagree with his statement-
Delete"when we [love], it's only because we've recieved an infusion of Grace, we've recieved a participation in God's own life. Here's the problem: get rid of God or language about God or the doctrines that describe God, in time, that love I've been describing will also be attenuated".
It seems like this argument requires the conclusion that only Catholics can experience love- and this does not seem to be the case. If love is God's entanglement in our lives, then we need an explanation for why non-Christians can experience love (I don't find the "God is reaching out to them" argument very convincing- it would be a much more effective apologetic to give only true followers of God the gift of love)
Likewise, his contention that individual rights arise from Christian theology is suspect to me. I can see how you could reach that conclusion from new testament doctrine, but the old testament is absolutely bursting at the seems with God issuing corporal punishment and not valuing individual human lives. Either the Old Testament is wildly innacurate (to the point where calling it scripture seems ridiculous), or the Christian God is not nearly so concerned with individual freedom/rights/"infinite respect" as Father Barron is arguing.
I'm actually looking forward to exploring the WordOnFire website- I don't have a firm basis in Catholicism's language, so traditional sources (Catechism/Compendium) can be difficult for me to digest.
... I just reread the second to last paragraph of what I said, and perhaps that's a bit harsh. What I meant was that I have trouble reconciling the Old Testament God with the modern ideal we have of individual and personal freedom. This does not mean that there aren't interpretations that do (particularly if you don't take it as literal truth any time the Old Testament authors attribute some act or event to God- e.g. Hardening Pharoah's heart)
DeleteFather Barron is definitely not trying to say that only Catholics can experience love but more that God loves us all into being and makes our own love possible. The Catholic church believes all people are being called into union with God who is love itself. And people, by loving themselves and others, enter into that union with God whether they know it or not. That is why we believe non-Catholics can too participate in the saving grace of Jesus's life, death, and resurrection. I'm not sure I can agree that it would be better that God only gives love to "true followers", God is not just trying to make believers to fill churches but to make each person who they are meant to be.
DeleteI really do hope you get a chance to look at some more of his videos. His "faith seeks understanding" series on youtube is also very good and takes things step by step.
I think that the idea that people are individuals that are ends in themselves and never a means to an end is a specifically Christian idea (you may prove me wrong on that). I will try to find a Catholic Biblical exegesis resource that isn't too technical (most I found are pretty in depth), but it may take me a day or two. I've found that the Bible is certainly one book you can't expect to pick up and understand everything without understanding the culture and the genre it's written in, even the not so controversial aspects.
"I think that the idea that people are individuals that are ends in themselves and never a means to an end is a specifically Christian idea (you may prove me wrong on that) "
DeleteI can certainly find some Old Testament verses that I think run counter to this. But I'll wait to hear your response on the Catholic view of the Bible before I do, since I don't know if those verses would even phase a Catholic?
Sorry for the long response time on this.
ReplyDeleteHere is what the catechism has to say on understanding scripture. I would focus on paragraphs 112-117 that address the different senses of scripture.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PQ.HTM
I don’t always agree with Mark Shea, but I seem to really like a lot of what he has to say. Apparently he has written a book on understanding scripture which I hope to get someday. Here is a short breakdown from his book of the four spiritual senses of scripture.
http://www.mark-shea.com/7.html - allegorical sense
http://www.mark-shea.com/lit6.html - moral sense
http://www.mark-shea.com/lit7.html - anagogical sense
http://www.mark-shea.com/scrip3.html - literal sense
Hope that helps.
Cool, thanks for these links. I'll definitely read through them (but probably not tonight... my brain turns off around midnight)
Delete