Good stuff! You have very clearly explained your position. Well done! Here are my thoughts…
You said:
“I think it (Pascals Wager) more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?”
Absolutely. I would tend to agree with you.
You said…
"I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am."
Here are a few thoughts in response:
I guess my first response is that Christianity is not pragmatic. I think I would do a disservice to the truth of God by trying to make it so, and so would anyone else. If someone were to do so then they would probably strip Christianity of its truth in order to do so. So my first hope is that no one ever tries to convince you that from a pragmatic standpoint Christianity is a “more accurate conception of reality”.
Secondly, my hope is that you never accept Christianity as true for pragmatic reasons. Now I know that this might at first sound bizarre to you, but it is true. To me this appears to be a simple choice between two authorities in the thought world. There are only two. One is rationalism, the other is revelation. Rationalism is trusting in unaided human reason for the standard of knowledge. As I read your words I thought them to be an almost perfect functional definition for rationalism. Herein lays the rub. I would not want you to accept or believe in Christ because your rationalistic mindset has told you that it is true. This is simply because you would still have the same authority, which is your unaided human reason, and at any time when something else appears more true then you might change. So, though I believe Christianity to be the only accurate conception of reality, I would hope you never believe it because it is. No, I believe in the end that this is truly a question of authority, and as much as I like to debate with you, it comes down to whether we trust in our own reason or in revelation. What is my ultimate authority and what is yours. Does any of this make sense?
You said…
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way.
I guess the problem here is that it sounds like you believe that God cannot use His creation to answer prayer. I believe that God uses creation and human will and “scientific means” in order to answer prayer. In other words, he uses what he created to do what he wants to do. I really don’t see a problem with that and can’t find fault in Him using what is His to bring about His will. It sounds as if this is unacceptable to you, but that God must answer prayer or move in a way that you cannot explain in another manner. That doesn’t bother me at all, but I do think our two ideas show forth our pre-scientific worldviews that color our views of reality.
You said...
If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe
I would think that you would be able to point to the historical events of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus as consistent evidence that God loves you, but that is obviously because I do. I guess it all goes back to that authority in the realm of thought thing again huh?
Anyway, I am off for another week of fun in Edwards! Have a great week!
Jason
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Sunday, October 26, 2008
My answers and other general philosophical meanderings
Your words:
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
My response:
I don't really think most believers think Pascal's wager is a good proof of the existence of their god, or that they treat it as good evidence of their belief. I think it more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?
Some more of your words:
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
My Response:
I've figured out that there is a whole lot out there that I don't really comprehend all that well at all. To put it in more precise terms, My modes of perception and integrating data place hard limits on my ability to accept input and integrate that input in a way that accurately models reality. I like certain models and dislike others. A few things that I've figured out, about myself at least:
1) I don't like changing my model of reality.
2) I don't like it when my model of reality proves to be inconsistent with how I perceive reality. To put that in more concrete terms, if I've decided in my head that "X is true", and things happen that make it pretty dang obvious that "X really isn't all that true at all", I find it extremely upsetting.
I may be weird or crazy, but I can't live with that inconsistency when I see it. It weighs on me. Part of who and what I am is that I work at that point to figure out a way to either revise my mental model, or what pieces need throwing away, or if I need to throw it away entirely.
I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am.
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way. If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe.
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
My response:
I don't really think most believers think Pascal's wager is a good proof of the existence of their god, or that they treat it as good evidence of their belief. I think it more or less comes across, at least to me, as an expression of the perceived futility of non-belief. Does that make sense?
Some more of your words:
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
My Response:
I've figured out that there is a whole lot out there that I don't really comprehend all that well at all. To put it in more precise terms, My modes of perception and integrating data place hard limits on my ability to accept input and integrate that input in a way that accurately models reality. I like certain models and dislike others. A few things that I've figured out, about myself at least:
1) I don't like changing my model of reality.
2) I don't like it when my model of reality proves to be inconsistent with how I perceive reality. To put that in more concrete terms, if I've decided in my head that "X is true", and things happen that make it pretty dang obvious that "X really isn't all that true at all", I find it extremely upsetting.
I may be weird or crazy, but I can't live with that inconsistency when I see it. It weighs on me. Part of who and what I am is that I work at that point to figure out a way to either revise my mental model, or what pieces need throwing away, or if I need to throw it away entirely.
I'm a pragmatist, Jason, mostly because my lack of pragmatism has been violated more than once. I accept what works, and reject those things that I see as not working, mostly just simply because I don't know how to do otherwise. Here is an example of my pragmatism: If someone were in a fairly pragmatic way able to show me that christianity provides a more accurate conception of reality than anything else, I'd accept it as true. Here is another weird result of my pragmatic idea. If someone's christianity leads them to make choices in how they interact with their environment that helps them and those they love flourish in that environment, it doesn't matter if the christianity(or any other religion or worldview or personal philosophical construct) is correct or not. It may even be a character flaw on my part that I can't be like that(flourish as a christian while knowing that christianity isn't real, simply because it'd be a good way to cope with a very christianized environment), but I don't know how to be other than what I am.
So if you tell me that prayer works, I want to see it work in a way that is clearly, obviously the result of prayer, and not the side effect of some other process. Sorry, but at this point I don't think that you or anyone else can do that in any meaningful way. If you say that your god is real, and that it/he loves me, I'm fine with that, but I want to see consistent evidence of that, that I can point to, and see as working in a consistent manner. Hasn't happened so far, hehe.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Pascals Wager
Yes! Once again you and I agree! I too think Pascals Wager is flawed because it is a purely pragmatic argument. Now, I don't suppose we agree on why it is flawed, but at least we both think it is flawed. All of what you said about reasons for it being flawed I do agree with. I would put it a little differently from a Christian point of view but I think it is almost the same.
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
I guess, trying to flesh out my thoughts here, I saw in your original post what I believed to be a "pragmatic" approach to all of life. I could be wrong but that is how it appeared to me. In simpler terms it sounded like you were saying, "Hey, if it works for you then believe it!" That is why it conjured up in my mind Pascals Wager. Now I personally think pragmatism is wrong, so I would never use such an argument, but I thought it drew good application to what it sounded like you were saying. To me, trying to think from the pragmatic ways of things, Pascals Wager does appear to be the most pragmatic approach to life.
Anyway, on to something that I suppose is more relevant to both of us. It goes back to what I originally asked and a statement you made in your latest blog.
"The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have."
So is our view of nature purely pragmatic also? How do we really know if any of this stuff actually exists. How do we know if our conception of nature is real or imagined, or is all that matters is that my conception works for me? In other words, how you understand nature is simply a metaphysical concept in your mind. Are you saying that it really doesn't matter whether that concept reflects what is real or not, so long as it "works for me"?
Friday, October 24, 2008
The Better Response
You said
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
I'm not at all offended, friend. From a survivability standard, I think Islam makes more sense for you than christianity. So if you are going to use that as your standard, I think you should immediately convert to Islam.
Think of it like you do insurance. I could go out and buy fire insurance on my house. That would only be a wise purchase for me if I knew that my house was going to burn down in a fire, though. If I somehow had foreknowledge that there would be no disaster, or that my house was going to be in a flood, fire insurance would be kinda silly, wouldn't it?
You propose the christian god as a form of insurance against the fires of Hell(or at least Pascal did). But what if the christian version isn't at all what I need to worry about? What If I meet Allah after I die, or Kali, or Chthulu? What if I met a god that doesn't match any description either of us knows about that values adherence to the truth as one understands it over people seeking fire insurance, and I insured my eternity in the fires of his/her hell by doing the very thing you are encouraging me to do? There are other potential disasters I can fret over as a homeowner if i am wont to do that; buying insurance against fire gives me no protection against all the other things that might go wrong.
The insurance policy that you are suggesting that I buy doesn't cover all the possible eventualities, much less the primary one that the evidence of nature supports, that we just simply exist and should make the best of what we have. Even if I was swayed by fire insurance arguments, how confident are you that your god would really be all that pleased with someone that really wasn't there because he believed in him or loved in him so much as the person simply wanted fire insurance protection?
Anyway, that is the best analogy I can think of off the top of my head to explain why I think of Pascal's wager as being flawed.
This probably counts as a better answer to your post than the one I made previously. I just thought we had already covered this ground at some point in past discussions and was trying to be cute in my response. Sometimes my attempts at humor fail to be funny.
Do well, Jason.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
About Hell
Please do not think I was in any way threatening you at all. That was by no means the intent or purpose. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believe me, I would not threaten you at all.
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
All I was trying to do was give us further thought on the idea of survivability. I think what you said about Pacsls Wager fitting into other religions adds to that. Though most religions don't talk about hell, the application for us is the same. If we are working off of a "survivability" standard, then which religion or belief system makes the most sense to trust in for the long run?
Anyway, please do not think I was trying to threaten you. If that is the way it came off then I apologize.
SDG, Jason
What the Hell?
You said
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Don't be shy, Jason. If you're going to threaten me with Hell, use the real word. Threatening me with hell only works if I actually believe in it. I don't. If you believe that christianity is true, and that non-believers like me are just denying the reality of what they really truly know is real, then arguments such as pascals wager must seem extremely good, and very persuasive. I imagine that if that were my position, it might see like a good argument to me, too. But pascals wager could be applied from the perspective of most of the worlds religions and seem persuasive from that internal perspective. After all "Should a man err in supposing Islam to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, buy how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false." is just as valid, or substitute any religion that threatens some form of suffering. If an argument is just as valid from multiple opposing viewpoints, the argument fails to convince.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
What if...
Thanks for your thought. Here is my thought in response. If the God of the Bible is real then anyones unbelief or lack of trust in Him culminates in... well, you know. So though a Buddhist might "live longer" because he made healthy decisions, yet still he will regret it for all of eternity. So how is it beneficial for him or how does this increase his survival? I think it has the opposite effect.
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
So I guess I would personally fall back, at least on a survivability aspect, on the words of Pascal. "Should a man be in err in supposing Christianity to be true, he could not be a loser by mistake, but how irreperable is his damage and how dangerous is his end should he err in supposing it to be false."
Sunday, October 5, 2008
How do people believe what they believe?
This is intended to be kinds sorta an independant post. It will, to some extent, maybe address some of the things that you have been saying from my perspective.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
People formulate their beliefs based on their past experiences. It's a sort of strange loop that is very pro survival. I have an experience, and respond in a particular way, and that stimulus and response is either successful on my part or not, or may have varying degrees of success. I formulate a particular viewpoint, or belief, to use the term of our discussion, about the situation, and use that mental notion to influence my decisions in future actions. Here's where it gets weird for me. That belief doesn't necessarily have to be an accurate or inaccurate reflection of reality to be useful in helping me as an organism formulate a response that is pro-survival. A viking warrior might be utterly convinced that the lightning strike was caused by Thor striking his hammer in the heavens. It doesn't matter that that belief relates to reality or not if it helps him stay in a safe spot during a lightning storm.
The problem comes when our choices for explanations of natural events or occurrences lead us to make wrong or incorrect decisions. In the case of the viking warrior in my example, if his belief leads him to go stand on a large deposit of iron during a lightning storm, his belief will not help him survive any. But usually, it isn't such a stark message of failure. Usually is more of something like "I thought such-and-such, and it didn't work so well. I wonder what went wrong." and we update and revise.
I'm happy for you to believe in the god of the bible if it leads you to correct action in some fashion or other, regardless of whether or not there is any reality in that god. What is correct action? Simply put, in the sense I'm using it here, I mean actions that cause you and/or those in your environment to flourish and prosper. And if believing in the god of the bible does that for you, it is a good thing, regardless of whether or not that god is real.
That's all i have to say for now, friend. sorry it took so long for me to say anything.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
New Thoughts
So I have recently been doing more work on an article on Christian Mathematics. The other day a co-worker approached me (at break time) and asked what I was working on. When I told him he responded first with a puzzled look, and then had a thought come to him. "Oh, I see!" he said, "You are trying to prove that God exists by math and science!" I responded, "Actually, no. Its 180 degrees the other way. I am justifying the existence of math and science by God." I then proceeded to explain to him why mathematics and science are reliable guides to truth.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
This raises a good new question for our discussions. We have talked about "evidential inquiry", about science, about numerous other ideas. Yet all of these concepts rely upon basic axioms, axioms like the uniformity of nature, the reliability of the sense perceptions, the accurate correspondence of the mind of man to his senses, of the senses of man to nature, the rationality of man in making logical connections, etc etc.
My question is this: How does our worldview account for these axioms? How does our worlview account for science? How does it account for math? How does it account for logic and rationality? In other words, how do we account for counting? How do we justify justifying? How do we validate the idea that evidential inquiry is a valid inquiry into truth? These questions I raise for both of us. I guess it goes back to a previous blog where I said, "The question is not does science account for creation/evolution, but how does creation/evolution account for science?" (I think thats what I asked anyway).
Well, this should spark some good new discussion. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Evidence part tres
“What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence.” – The assumption is pre-evidential, it is a belief that, by definition, the evidence relies upon. I think we can again go to what I was saying before that evidence is itself not sufficient. Evidence is subject to the interpreter, some to a greater degree and some to a lesser. Let us leave some extreme examples and come to more relevant ones. Either there is a supernatural God that sustains nature or there is not.
Let me put this into another frame of reference for the sake of our conversation. I, Jason, firmly hold that every single fact of this universe declares the glory of God. Whether it be the mountains we look upon when we walk out the door, the peanuts that I am eating as I type this blog, or a baby being born (and everything in between), it all points directly to the Creator. You would say (correct me if I am wrong) that we can only look at it from a purely physical perspective and not draw any conclusions or ideas that extend beyond the physical data. You are more than entitled to do so, but can you see how such a belief, such a worldview, determines once again how you look at the evidence? If the glory of God is in all of it, then you are refusing to see it no matter how clear it is. And vice versa. These are our interpretive frameworks which we cannot escape, and they color everything that we see.
“The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.” – I think your words are profound here, for even these scientists are taking ‘a metaphysical approach’. Their approach is as deeply entrenched in a metaphysical belief as the Christian, Buddhist or Naturalist. You see, they still have a metaphysical belief in ideas like “existence” and the limits and boundaries of what lies within existence. These are all their framework, their metaphysic. So I think the way you put it is great, for it demonstrates that no matter what approach anyone has, it is still a metaphysical approach, a philosophy of science, a metaphysical belief that they cannot escape from.
Let me finish with a statement…
If I am correct in asserting that God exists and all of nature was created by Him and for Him, then all of nature finds its true meaning and understanding only in light of this basic fundamental fact. Therefore, anyone who does not begin with this assumption will automatically misunderstand all of the facts of nature. They might have a basic understanding of the way in which things operate and yet they will still not fully or rightly understand the data because the data finds its meaning in the One Who created it for a purpose. So if they do not look at nature under this presupposition (they nature exists by God and for God) then they cannot rightly understand it.
Then a question…
Was the previous statement logically consistent, and if so then does this further establish the idea that data is subject to the interpreter and never, in and of itself, sufficient for true knowledge?
Let me put this into another frame of reference for the sake of our conversation. I, Jason, firmly hold that every single fact of this universe declares the glory of God. Whether it be the mountains we look upon when we walk out the door, the peanuts that I am eating as I type this blog, or a baby being born (and everything in between), it all points directly to the Creator. You would say (correct me if I am wrong) that we can only look at it from a purely physical perspective and not draw any conclusions or ideas that extend beyond the physical data. You are more than entitled to do so, but can you see how such a belief, such a worldview, determines once again how you look at the evidence? If the glory of God is in all of it, then you are refusing to see it no matter how clear it is. And vice versa. These are our interpretive frameworks which we cannot escape, and they color everything that we see.
“The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.” – I think your words are profound here, for even these scientists are taking ‘a metaphysical approach’. Their approach is as deeply entrenched in a metaphysical belief as the Christian, Buddhist or Naturalist. You see, they still have a metaphysical belief in ideas like “existence” and the limits and boundaries of what lies within existence. These are all their framework, their metaphysic. So I think the way you put it is great, for it demonstrates that no matter what approach anyone has, it is still a metaphysical approach, a philosophy of science, a metaphysical belief that they cannot escape from.
Let me finish with a statement…
If I am correct in asserting that God exists and all of nature was created by Him and for Him, then all of nature finds its true meaning and understanding only in light of this basic fundamental fact. Therefore, anyone who does not begin with this assumption will automatically misunderstand all of the facts of nature. They might have a basic understanding of the way in which things operate and yet they will still not fully or rightly understand the data because the data finds its meaning in the One Who created it for a purpose. So if they do not look at nature under this presupposition (they nature exists by God and for God) then they cannot rightly understand it.
Then a question…
Was the previous statement logically consistent, and if so then does this further establish the idea that data is subject to the interpreter and never, in and of itself, sufficient for true knowledge?
Absolute and Invariant?
Sorry this has been so long in responding. I have been transferred to Vail where I have no computer. (Do you know of any good cheap laptops you might be able to get your hands on???) This plus a flooded basement last week. To top it all off our internet stopped working. I finally got that figured out yesterday. So we are back up and running.
There is much to respond to. I will begin with our discussion on morality…
“You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is… So you are subjectively following some things and not other things. You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish…You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.”
You are right in saying that I do choose to follow it or not, and that is my choice. You are also correct in saying that if I accept some ideas and reject others that those choices are subjective. But I am not saying that what I have chosen is the absolute standard. I am saying that there is an absolute invariant moral standard by which we will both be judged, not based on whether I accept it or not. My acceptance of it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists and is real. Neither does my choice to follow it or my knowledge of it. It is simply because it is. I do not change it or alter it. It is not subject to me or to you. I have no influence on it. I do not determine any aspect of it. It is already determined and is beyond any influence. It is absolute and invariant because it comes from the absolute invariant nature of the eternal God.
You said, “It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.”
I do agree that this will be a much shorter discussion because we are looking for logical consistency in my view, and it is logically consistent to say that if there is an absolute eternal unchanging God that there is an absolute unchanging moral code that flows from His nature. This is really all I am saying. It might even be self-evident.
Hopefully this clarifies things a little. Let me know.
There is much to respond to. I will begin with our discussion on morality…
“You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is… So you are subjectively following some things and not other things. You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish…You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.”
You are right in saying that I do choose to follow it or not, and that is my choice. You are also correct in saying that if I accept some ideas and reject others that those choices are subjective. But I am not saying that what I have chosen is the absolute standard. I am saying that there is an absolute invariant moral standard by which we will both be judged, not based on whether I accept it or not. My acceptance of it has nothing to do with whether or not it exists and is real. Neither does my choice to follow it or my knowledge of it. It is simply because it is. I do not change it or alter it. It is not subject to me or to you. I have no influence on it. I do not determine any aspect of it. It is already determined and is beyond any influence. It is absolute and invariant because it comes from the absolute invariant nature of the eternal God.
You said, “It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.”
I do agree that this will be a much shorter discussion because we are looking for logical consistency in my view, and it is logically consistent to say that if there is an absolute eternal unchanging God that there is an absolute unchanging moral code that flows from His nature. This is really all I am saying. It might even be self-evident.
Hopefully this clarifies things a little. Let me know.
Friday, September 19, 2008
Jason's Morality 2
You said,
Anyway, I"m enjoying this discussion. I'm sorry that it has so much been in fits and spurts from my perspective.
I wish you well, friend.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???Ok. But it seems to me that we will then shortly be at an impasse. It may be my miscomprehension, but I don't see how you can justify a moral code that is absolute, universal and unchanging outside of using scripture to validate it. That's fine, but I don't accept the validity of scripture.
Anyway, I"m enjoying this discussion. I'm sorry that it has so much been in fits and spurts from my perspective.
I wish you well, friend.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Jason's Morality
You said:
That'd be fine.
But I don't see how it's a defensible position. You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is. All of this is decisions based on your judgements of right and wrong. In fact, you're determining which pieces and parts of the bible you follow. There are pieces you obey and pieces you don't. In being selective, you are making a judgement or decision on how you will abide by what you read in the bible. So you are subjectively following some things and not other things.
You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish; again, all personal choice. You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.
I see nothing wrong with that, mind you. I'm not criticizing you in having what seems to me to be a subjective application of what you call an objective standard. I'm just not seeing the 'objective' part of it.
So this would probably be a good place to continue discussions.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
That'd be fine.
But I don't see how it's a defensible position. You say you aren't the one that determines right and wrong. That doesn't make sense. You are the one that makes a decision to apply a specific moral standard or reject that moral standard. You've decide that there are absolute morals based on what you've read in the bible, and you've made judgements as to what that moral standard is, and you've decided to follow what you think that is. All of this is decisions based on your judgements of right and wrong. In fact, you're determining which pieces and parts of the bible you follow. There are pieces you obey and pieces you don't. In being selective, you are making a judgement or decision on how you will abide by what you read in the bible. So you are subjectively following some things and not other things.
You say there is an absolute, invariant objective standard, but I see no evidence of such. I see your subjective choices in how you follow the dictates of the bible. You've chosen specific doctrines to believe in and denominational ties to establish; again, all personal choice. You determine in your own heart what specific standards you follow and which ones you reject. Again totally subjective. Calling it an objective standard doesn't mean much to me when in my estimation every aspect of it is subjective.
I see nothing wrong with that, mind you. I'm not criticizing you in having what seems to me to be a subjective application of what you call an objective standard. I'm just not seeing the 'objective' part of it.
So this would probably be a good place to continue discussions.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Response to "Evidence and Truth, Part Deux
What if we make pre-evidential assumptions because of our specific worldview that are shown to be invalid by the evidence. Lets say that we have a pre-evidential assumption that the god Atlas holds the world up on his shoulders, and the earth that he is holding up is a flat round table.
Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.
Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??
But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.
To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.
Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.
I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.
Lots of things can happen here we can see things that seem to confirm to us that this is so. We see pieces of evidence that seem to us to support this perspective or viewpoint, that seem to validate our pre-evidential assumptions. It typically doesn't seem to occur to people that it seems to validate our beliefs(which is what pre-evidential assumptions really are) because we naturally assume those beliefs are correct, that in fact the seeming correlation may be purely, utterly incidental. This tendency can be referred to as confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the natural tendency to interpret new information in the terms of prior existing beliefs, whether or not they fit.
Sometimes, though, we run into events or evidence that is contradictory to our prior existing beliefs. What do we do when that happens? Religion and faith demands that we force it into the mold, that we come up with a way to interpret the evidence to make it fit the prior existing beliefs regardless. Since those beliefs are unchallengeable, it must be the evidence that needs re-interpreting, right??
But it gets even more complicated than that, of course. Sometimes, different people have different dogmatic belief structures that contradict each other, so you can't just say we need to interpret things in light of Christianity, or Buddhism, or Naturalism for example. The metaphysical approach that some scientists try to take is to throw that out. The idea is not to interpret things in light of one specific belief structure or another so much as to try to figure out what 'is', what exists and establish a belief structure based on this foundation of existence, or 'is-ness', if you will.
To say this differently, I don't want to interpret things in the light of naturalism because that's what I believe or know so much as I want to do that if and only if naturalism is the stance that best matches the evidence. In other words, figuring out ways to change the worldview in light of the evidence rather than interpreting the evidence in context of worldview.
Ever wonder why it's important to scientists for multiple researchers to come up with the same results in independant labs and with independant configurations? It's because of this type of thing. We tend to make the evidence conform to our preconceived notions rather than adjust our notions to match the evidence. If I see what the evidence says and 5 others see it and come to the same conclusions, I have a stronger reason to believe it. But what if #6 comes along and interprets everything differently, because he has different basic beliefs? And what if he can explain what the first 5 said and did in light of his new theory? Then it becomes the responsibility of the first 5 to amend their understand, and even to adjust their preconceptions, if you will, to match the evidence. That is the way science ought to work and it is the way it often does.
I have more to say and no time right now, hehe. And I've gone on long enough for this post, for now. I don't have to say it all at once. I'll answer your other post later.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Back to Morality
Okay, so it’s been a while since we hit on morality. Partly because of the problem we had over my poor use of words in the Evidence discussion. I certainly didn’t want to let our morality discussion go without a few last comments by both of us.
Though you and I sound very different in what we have been saying, I think we are really saying the same thing in the end. Here is what I am saying about non-theistic morality. I am saying that I believe that non-theistic morality is relative to the individual, and that there is no basis for any absolute right and wrong in a non-theistic system. In other words “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” This can, of course, extend to a societal level, when enough people with the same preferences make those preferences into moral laws, but those laws change as the society changes, and so are just as subjective and preferential as individual mores.
That is what I have been trying to establish in our discussions. I believe this is what you appear to be saying also, as your words describe, “Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decisions based on what they are taught in their society… But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on separate life experiences… So I see no justification other than proof texting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. (emphasis mine)”
So it appears as if you and I are saying the same thing in reference to non-theistic ideas of morality. At least this is my take. It just sounds as if we are saying the same things using different arguments.
A few other comments:
I understand why you think god is immoral. So, no, it doesn’t offend me. I realize that you are making a judgment from your own personal standards and are not going beyond your personal preferences or thinking in making such an assertion. I would venture to say that you are not making a statement of propositional truth when you say that god is immoral. I think you are simply saying that you don’t care for those morals and so personally deem them to be immoral.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
Anyway, I am glad that we agree, at least somewhat, on the non-theistic idea of morality.
Blessings Friend!
Though you and I sound very different in what we have been saying, I think we are really saying the same thing in the end. Here is what I am saying about non-theistic morality. I am saying that I believe that non-theistic morality is relative to the individual, and that there is no basis for any absolute right and wrong in a non-theistic system. In other words “every man does what is right in his own eyes.” This can, of course, extend to a societal level, when enough people with the same preferences make those preferences into moral laws, but those laws change as the society changes, and so are just as subjective and preferential as individual mores.
That is what I have been trying to establish in our discussions. I believe this is what you appear to be saying also, as your words describe, “Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decisions based on what they are taught in their society… But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on separate life experiences… So I see no justification other than proof texting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. (emphasis mine)”
So it appears as if you and I are saying the same thing in reference to non-theistic ideas of morality. At least this is my take. It just sounds as if we are saying the same things using different arguments.
A few other comments:
I understand why you think god is immoral. So, no, it doesn’t offend me. I realize that you are making a judgment from your own personal standards and are not going beyond your personal preferences or thinking in making such an assertion. I would venture to say that you are not making a statement of propositional truth when you say that god is immoral. I think you are simply saying that you don’t care for those morals and so personally deem them to be immoral.
I, of course, differ, because I do not believe that morality is preferential (whether societally or individually), but absolute and invariant. While I don’t think you would ever try to say that I need to follow your moral code (because it is your own), I on the other hand make the rather audacious claim that since the moral code I look to is absolute, universal and unchanging that everyone will ultimately be judged by this code. I do believe that there is a right and wrong that extends beyond man and even society. And I believe that I am not the one who determines what is right and wrong but that this moral code transcends all of reality and was around before man was around. I believe that it comes from an eternal, absolute, unchanging God. Of course, you know that I believe all of this, so I don’t suppose I am writing any of this other than for the other readers of this blog. Maybe our next step in this discussion on morality is for me to defend why I believe that there is morality that extends beyond man’s preferences. What think you???
Anyway, I am glad that we agree, at least somewhat, on the non-theistic idea of morality.
Blessings Friend!
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Evidence and Truth part Deux
Okay, so this one is going to be really long. So I apologize ahead of time for the length of what I am about to write.
What I hope to do is cover all of your responses in this blog, though not necessarily in order. I hope do to it through the expansion and clarification of the idea that “Evidential Inquiry is not sufficient in ascertaining truth.” So here goes.
I said, “...our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs." To which you responded, “No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.”
Let me expand a little on this point, for I agree with what you said here but do not think it is in conflict with my original point.
Let me begin by saying that I could have said the first sentence much better. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs are based upon our interpretations of the evidence, which cannot be separated from the evidence itself. Even you said, “I’ve changed my beliefs based on the evidence I’ve seen.” You saw the evidence; it was taken in through your senses and then processed by your mind. This is what I would call interpretation: the processing of your sensory data intake into a systematized idea. I would further say that it is our metaphysical framework that is responsible for how the sensory input is processed and understood. It is how we think.
Here is an illustration I thought of that was appropriate to what we are talking about:
When we build a building there is the basic structure of the building with the foundation and the outer walls and support beams. Now within the walls and foundation of the building they build different rooms of different sizes for different purposes, and all of those little rooms can be torn out or changed. We often see this, when a contractor comes in and alters the floor plan. This I liken to what we are talking about. The structure is our metaphysical framework. Within the structure there is much room for change, and the change can occur for any number of reasons, evidence being one of the primary reasons. Yet all of the changes occur within the structure. The structure itself is rarely, if ever, altered. So just as the structure determines the parameters of the changes within the building so the metaphysical framework determines the parameters of the change of beliefs.
So let’s say that I have believed that the speed of light is consistent throughout the universe, and yet scientists come back and say, “We now have evidence that the speed of light is affected by gravity and is different at different parts of the universe.” Well, that data is taken in by my metaphysical framework. I automatically see it in a certain way, I automatically interpret it according to my metaphysic, and I don’t do it consciously. Its not like I am saying, “Now how does this relate to my metaphysic?” No, my metaphysic is how I look at everything, it is how I understand and organize this new data. In other words, it is how I think. So I begin to think about this data and then change my belief about the constancy of the speed of light given the new evidence. Well, the way I think and process things has not changed. Just a small bit of what I think about something within the framework has changed. So, yes, you are correct in saying that we change ideas based upon evidence. And I believe what I am saying is also true. That being: my framework has not changed but my framework has interpreted the data I was given and decided the parameters of what I change and what I don’t.
Now there is a lot more to be said here, so let’s look at it in correlation to your illustration. Is the earth flat or round? In writing this I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Now, here are people who have seen, and even address, all of the evidence that you and I have seen. And yet they still don’t believe as you and I do. They think the earth is flat. Now I imagine you and I would say, “and they do so contrary to the evidence.” But they wouldn’t say that. In fact, they would say that you and I believe the earth to be round “contrary to the evidence.” So what gives? Again, we all have the same evidence. My contention would be that these flat-earthers are distorting the evidence by their pre-evidential beliefs. In other words, their beliefs that they hold going into the evidential inquiry has tainted the outcome of their inquiry. Would you agree? Well, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. I believe evidential inquiry to be subject to the pre-evidential beliefs that we hold while doing that inquiry.
Now the good news is that you and I, and most of humanity, hold many pre-evidential ideas in common. Hence why we can agree that the earth is round, that copper expands when heated and that 2+2=4. Its not that we do not have an interpretive framework, it’s that our interpretive frameworks are in unison or on common ground at this point. The data is still being interpreted by the data intaker (is that a word???), it is still being placed in his or her mental framework, yet the Christian and naturalist can agree upon their conclusions because this section of their frameworks are designed in a similar fashion and work on common assumptions.
But this is only around the ideas that we have in common, for what this has to do with the overall meaning of the universe, the reason why the earth is spherical, and all of the metaphysical ideas that accompany the sphericality (is that a word?) of the earth we diverge upon, yet they are all a part or a different dimension of the truth of the sphericality (if its not a word, I get credit for the new word!!!) of the earth.
This is where I believe that we can vividly see how evidential inquiry begins to fail. It is here, when our pre-evidential beliefs begin to diverge that more than evidential inquiry is needed. The further our beliefs separate the more divergent our interpretations of evidence become. This becomes more obvious the more interpretation that is required. Since evolution and creationism are historical theories, our interpretive structure becomes far more subjective. We still have in common when looking at a fossil that it is a fossil. Yep, we are both looking at something dead, something that was fossilized, something that (for arguments sake) is a bone. This we can agree upon because this is where our beliefs are still on common ground. Yet further interpretation of the fossil begins to bring in our assumptions. This is where our glasses change things. This is where our interpretations become divergent. The evolutionist says its millions of years old, the creationist thousands. The evolutionist says, “half-man, half-ape”, the creationist says, “fully ape”. And so now we have at least two interpretations of the same fossil. We accept one and reject the other based upon what? It’s still a fossil, yet we find one of the interpretations more consistent than the others because of the way we think. In other words, because of our metaphysical framework (our beliefs).
I guess to sum all of this up I would simply ask this question (because you know I love asking questions!!!):
If evidential inquiry is sufficient in acquiring truth then why are there multiple and often antithetical interpretations and conclusions based upon the same evidence?
P.S. - I think I get credit for at least two new words in the English vocabulary! I don’t know if either of them is as cool as BLARG though!!!!
What I hope to do is cover all of your responses in this blog, though not necessarily in order. I hope do to it through the expansion and clarification of the idea that “Evidential Inquiry is not sufficient in ascertaining truth.” So here goes.
I said, “...our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs." To which you responded, “No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.”
Let me expand a little on this point, for I agree with what you said here but do not think it is in conflict with my original point.
Let me begin by saying that I could have said the first sentence much better. The point I was trying to make is that our beliefs are based upon our interpretations of the evidence, which cannot be separated from the evidence itself. Even you said, “I’ve changed my beliefs based on the evidence I’ve seen.” You saw the evidence; it was taken in through your senses and then processed by your mind. This is what I would call interpretation: the processing of your sensory data intake into a systematized idea. I would further say that it is our metaphysical framework that is responsible for how the sensory input is processed and understood. It is how we think.
Here is an illustration I thought of that was appropriate to what we are talking about:
When we build a building there is the basic structure of the building with the foundation and the outer walls and support beams. Now within the walls and foundation of the building they build different rooms of different sizes for different purposes, and all of those little rooms can be torn out or changed. We often see this, when a contractor comes in and alters the floor plan. This I liken to what we are talking about. The structure is our metaphysical framework. Within the structure there is much room for change, and the change can occur for any number of reasons, evidence being one of the primary reasons. Yet all of the changes occur within the structure. The structure itself is rarely, if ever, altered. So just as the structure determines the parameters of the changes within the building so the metaphysical framework determines the parameters of the change of beliefs.
So let’s say that I have believed that the speed of light is consistent throughout the universe, and yet scientists come back and say, “We now have evidence that the speed of light is affected by gravity and is different at different parts of the universe.” Well, that data is taken in by my metaphysical framework. I automatically see it in a certain way, I automatically interpret it according to my metaphysic, and I don’t do it consciously. Its not like I am saying, “Now how does this relate to my metaphysic?” No, my metaphysic is how I look at everything, it is how I understand and organize this new data. In other words, it is how I think. So I begin to think about this data and then change my belief about the constancy of the speed of light given the new evidence. Well, the way I think and process things has not changed. Just a small bit of what I think about something within the framework has changed. So, yes, you are correct in saying that we change ideas based upon evidence. And I believe what I am saying is also true. That being: my framework has not changed but my framework has interpreted the data I was given and decided the parameters of what I change and what I don’t.
Now there is a lot more to be said here, so let’s look at it in correlation to your illustration. Is the earth flat or round? In writing this I decided to visit the website of the Flat Earth Society. Now, here are people who have seen, and even address, all of the evidence that you and I have seen. And yet they still don’t believe as you and I do. They think the earth is flat. Now I imagine you and I would say, “and they do so contrary to the evidence.” But they wouldn’t say that. In fact, they would say that you and I believe the earth to be round “contrary to the evidence.” So what gives? Again, we all have the same evidence. My contention would be that these flat-earthers are distorting the evidence by their pre-evidential beliefs. In other words, their beliefs that they hold going into the evidential inquiry has tainted the outcome of their inquiry. Would you agree? Well, this is exactly the point I am trying to make. I believe evidential inquiry to be subject to the pre-evidential beliefs that we hold while doing that inquiry.
Now the good news is that you and I, and most of humanity, hold many pre-evidential ideas in common. Hence why we can agree that the earth is round, that copper expands when heated and that 2+2=4. Its not that we do not have an interpretive framework, it’s that our interpretive frameworks are in unison or on common ground at this point. The data is still being interpreted by the data intaker (is that a word???), it is still being placed in his or her mental framework, yet the Christian and naturalist can agree upon their conclusions because this section of their frameworks are designed in a similar fashion and work on common assumptions.
But this is only around the ideas that we have in common, for what this has to do with the overall meaning of the universe, the reason why the earth is spherical, and all of the metaphysical ideas that accompany the sphericality (is that a word?) of the earth we diverge upon, yet they are all a part or a different dimension of the truth of the sphericality (if its not a word, I get credit for the new word!!!) of the earth.
This is where I believe that we can vividly see how evidential inquiry begins to fail. It is here, when our pre-evidential beliefs begin to diverge that more than evidential inquiry is needed. The further our beliefs separate the more divergent our interpretations of evidence become. This becomes more obvious the more interpretation that is required. Since evolution and creationism are historical theories, our interpretive structure becomes far more subjective. We still have in common when looking at a fossil that it is a fossil. Yep, we are both looking at something dead, something that was fossilized, something that (for arguments sake) is a bone. This we can agree upon because this is where our beliefs are still on common ground. Yet further interpretation of the fossil begins to bring in our assumptions. This is where our glasses change things. This is where our interpretations become divergent. The evolutionist says its millions of years old, the creationist thousands. The evolutionist says, “half-man, half-ape”, the creationist says, “fully ape”. And so now we have at least two interpretations of the same fossil. We accept one and reject the other based upon what? It’s still a fossil, yet we find one of the interpretations more consistent than the others because of the way we think. In other words, because of our metaphysical framework (our beliefs).
I guess to sum all of this up I would simply ask this question (because you know I love asking questions!!!):
If evidential inquiry is sufficient in acquiring truth then why are there multiple and often antithetical interpretations and conclusions based upon the same evidence?
P.S. - I think I get credit for at least two new words in the English vocabulary! I don’t know if either of them is as cool as BLARG though!!!!
Friday, August 29, 2008
Good Point
Thanks for explaining. Phrases like "we need to realize" are just the way I think and write, but I now see how they can be offensive and so I will certainly write in a different manner. Thanks for pointing it out. I think we can continue without a problem.
Blessings friend.
Blessings friend.
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Maybe an explanation will help...
Do you understand what bothered me? I'll try to explain. It's something that kinda matters to me.
"We both need to realize...."
Was that just some idiomatic expression? Because it sure didn't come across that way to me. We don't both need to realize anything. You have certain opinions, but just because you draw a particular conclusion as a result of our discussions doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree or even understand it. It doesn't necessarily even mean that it is logical or self-evident or correct! Not only is this not an apt way of saying things, but statements like that impose your frame of reference on me, and it simply can't fit.
To reverse it as an example, I'm happy for you to realize or understand something, but it's not true that we both need to agree, just because I think it's correct. I simply refuse to impose my viewpoint on you. If you comprehend it, wonderful. But I will not under any circumstance impose it on you or try to define you by my viewpoint. That type of imposition is what bothers me.
It doesn't bother me that you see me as a man of faith. It seems crucial to your mindset. I wouldn't try to deny you that. But it bothers me for you to try to in some manner impose that on me or back me into a box or logical corner where you feel like I have to admit it. There is nothing to admit. It is simply not the case.
Does this make sense at all? Is it something that we can work with? I'm not about making stupid rules, like "we can't say this" or "we can only say that". I'm mostly just asking you to help me figure out ways that we can communicate that don't try to trap or box the other person in, that actually allow for the other persons perspective to potentially be true. I'm working at doing that, and am asking for it to run both ways. If you don't feel that it is feasible, no problem at all, but I will probably want to end the conversation on this blog, at least for the time being. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a stab at continuing.
And just so you know, our friendship isn't even remotely at risk here, at least from my perspective; I think it's safe to assume from your response here that the same is true of you.
I wish you well, Jason.
"We both need to realize...."
Was that just some idiomatic expression? Because it sure didn't come across that way to me. We don't both need to realize anything. You have certain opinions, but just because you draw a particular conclusion as a result of our discussions doesn't necessarily mean that I will agree or even understand it. It doesn't necessarily even mean that it is logical or self-evident or correct! Not only is this not an apt way of saying things, but statements like that impose your frame of reference on me, and it simply can't fit.
To reverse it as an example, I'm happy for you to realize or understand something, but it's not true that we both need to agree, just because I think it's correct. I simply refuse to impose my viewpoint on you. If you comprehend it, wonderful. But I will not under any circumstance impose it on you or try to define you by my viewpoint. That type of imposition is what bothers me.
It doesn't bother me that you see me as a man of faith. It seems crucial to your mindset. I wouldn't try to deny you that. But it bothers me for you to try to in some manner impose that on me or back me into a box or logical corner where you feel like I have to admit it. There is nothing to admit. It is simply not the case.
Does this make sense at all? Is it something that we can work with? I'm not about making stupid rules, like "we can't say this" or "we can only say that". I'm mostly just asking you to help me figure out ways that we can communicate that don't try to trap or box the other person in, that actually allow for the other persons perspective to potentially be true. I'm working at doing that, and am asking for it to run both ways. If you don't feel that it is feasible, no problem at all, but I will probably want to end the conversation on this blog, at least for the time being. Otherwise, I'm willing to take a stab at continuing.
And just so you know, our friendship isn't even remotely at risk here, at least from my perspective; I think it's safe to assume from your response here that the same is true of you.
I wish you well, Jason.
An Apology
First let me say that I apologize. I should not have attempted to label you as a man of "faith". My intent was not to offend you, yet I fear that is what I have done. I am deeply sorry.
I am unsure as to whether to continue in this vein of conversation for fear of further offense. Though I would like to continue to converse on the first four points of discussion about the validity of evidence, the fact that we disagree about it, and as you said we cannot seperate ourselves from our beliefs, I do not want to step on your toes again. Our friendship is more valuable to me than this blog.
I will leave the ball in your court. Let me know, and until then I will work on responses to both of our discussions but not post until I hear back from you.
Again, I apologize for the offense.
I am unsure as to whether to continue in this vein of conversation for fear of further offense. Though I would like to continue to converse on the first four points of discussion about the validity of evidence, the fact that we disagree about it, and as you said we cannot seperate ourselves from our beliefs, I do not want to step on your toes again. Our friendship is more valuable to me than this blog.
I will leave the ball in your court. Let me know, and until then I will work on responses to both of our discussions but not post until I hear back from you.
Again, I apologize for the offense.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Response on Evidence
You said "1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs."
No. I utterly reject this. I've changed my beliefs based on the evidence I've seen, and this has happened repeatedly.
You said "2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.".
Do you believe the earth is flat, or do you believe the earth is round? Please substantiate your answer without using evidence.
You said "3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false." Only partially true. Sometimes evidence is sufficient to falsify a belief. It is rarely sufficient to, by itself establish the truth of something. As evidence increases over time concerning a specific belief or viewpoint, it tends to validate, but never absolutely, utterly establishes something as unfalsifiable.
You said "4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong." Maybe, maybe not. It often happens that people reach the right conclusion for the wrong reasons. My interpretation of data may be correct even when as you put it my "metaphysic" is wrong. same can apply to both of us.
You said "5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct."
No. I reject this. You like saying this, and have tried to impose it upon me repeatedly. Does that somehow make it right? It wasn't right the first time you said it, and it hasn't been right any of the subsequent times you've said it.
I believe(for lack of a better word, even though i suspect you use the word "believe" differently than I do) that using faith as a basis for a worldview is a failure at a very basic level.
If something is obviously false, faith says "believe it anyway". Faith is the province of christians and psychics and ufo-ologists and new-agers. Why do many scientists spurn faith as a source of knowledge or inspiration? Because it doesn't work. I'm a big fan of what works. Faith doesn't.
It seems to me that it is the "Christian" thing to tell others what they have to believe. For me, when people try to impose their will on me like that, it ends the conversation. Was that your intent? I don't think so, so I'll give this another chance.
Peace Out.
Is "Evidence" the Test of Truth?
So how fun has this been up to this point. Thanks again for doing this. I am thoroughly enjoying our interactions.
To continue on our creation-evolution talk…
You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”
It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.
For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.
So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”
All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.
You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:
1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs.
2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.
3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.
4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.
5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct.
You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.
I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.
To continue on our creation-evolution talk…
You said, “I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?...If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?”
It seems that you believe that evidential inquiry is a valid standard of verification for the truth or falsity of a claim. Yet how do we know that it is? To me it appears as if it is not, because evolutionists and creationists both use evidential inquiry and yet come to totally different conclusions.
For example, you say “If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth.” There is evidence, and I know that you have read much of it. It's just that you reject it. The same for the old earth model and for evolution. They all have “evidence” supporting their theories. Each of these positions not only has data, but they have the SAME data, each interpreted in different ways. Each has a full body of evidences, but what you and I must realize is that the evidence is a subjective interpretation of the objective data. You accept one interpretation and reject the others, based upon your belief.
So in one sense we can both say we have evidence that proves our theories, and both of us would be correct in saying this, from our point of view. It’s just that the interpretation of that evidence is subjective, it has been subjected to our predisposition and therefore could easily be the wrong interpretation. In other words, our rose-colored glasses are coloring the data. The question we must ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe the one interpretation and not the others? Why do I accept one’s presentation of the data and their interpretations of it and not the others?”
All of this is to say that you and I have a pre-evidential, pre-scientific belief system (metaphysic) that determines the nature of evidence and how we look at data. It is not based upon any data or observation but is essential to looking at all data and doing observation. In this we must both realize that if our interpretive framework is wrong then our understanding of the data must be wrong. In other words, ones interpretation of the data is only as valid as the metaphysical framework he is interpreting from. This is self-evident.
You asked, “What are you saying?” What I am saying is this:
1)We both need to realize that our beliefs are not based upon “evidence”. Rather, our interpretations of the evidence are based upon our beliefs.
2)“Evidence” is not self-attesting or self-defining, but rather it is subject to the one defining it. So, yes, I am saying that evidential inquiry is not enough in coming to any truth.
3)Therefore, “evidence” is not sufficient in establishing whether something metaphysical (our beliefs) is true or false.
4)We must both understand that if our metaphysic is wrong then our interpretation of data is proportionally wrong.
5)You and I are both, therefore, men of faith. We place our faith in our interpretation of data without the certainty of knowing if our interpretations are correct.
You ask “how then do we proceed?” I suggest we proceed by 1) First discussing the five points above and coming to a consensus on them and then 2) examining the validity of our pre-scientific metaphysics in light of logic and rationality.
I hope this was not too long. I look forward to hearing from you and will be soon to respond to our morality discussion.
Later Buddy.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Response to Amazing Grace and Morality
You said "Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace." Nope, never saw it. I think I remember hearing you describe it, though. From your descriptions, I think what Wilberforce did to get slavery abolished in England is admirable. And moral.
I don't know, since I'm not familiar with the history, but I would guess that the British slave owners of the day were not aware of the deplorable conditions in which the slaves were shipped from their home locations to Britain. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that descriptions of those deplorable conditions helped sway people into outlawing slavery. It was a degradation of the human condition, and once people understood that, the continuing existence of slavery over a fairly short period of time became intolerable. It certainly had nothing to do with any biblical standard.
I would judge any society that enslaves human beings as being an immoral society. I include in that pre-Wilberforce English society, The deep south prior to the civil war, the north before it was outlawed in the north, The african cultures that sold and still sell other africans into slavery, The Romans that took slaves, and yes even the Hebrews that took slaves. And yes, I'd even judge the bible as being immoral for not just justifying, but even going so far as codifying slavery. Deuteronomy 21:10 sure doesn't give the captive woman any choice on whether or not she wants to be the 'wife' of her captor, now does it? Sure sounds like sexual slavery to me, and it is immoral.
But people in biblical times didn't deem it as such. It fit within that societies mores to take a beautiful captive woman as your sexual slave, as long as you treated her decently. If an American soldier in Iraq quoted that scripture, and used it as a pretext to make a beautiful Iraqi woman as his wife whether or not she wanted it, the entire world would be justified in calling it immoral. So, ya, I judge the Brits that took slaves as immoral, just as I judge the bible as promoting immorality for the same reason.
Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decision based on what they are taught in their society. Wilberforce made a different moral decision than much of the rest of his society did; sometimes our moral choices are opposite of the society in which we live. But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on seperate life experiences.
Hitler deemed it right to exterminate the Jews. It isn't somehow right by any stretch of the imagination just because some Nazi's considered it right in their frame of reference. And in the same way, the bible's version of god is immoral in commanding the Jews to exterminate races of people in the land of Canaan just so that the Israelites could possess the land. I don't deny that such a moral judgement on my part is the result of my cultural perspective; I have never claimed anything else. But I couldn't possibly see it otherwise. Doesn't matter to me that the bible justifies the extermination and calls it good and puts flowery language on it. It is still wrong.
So I see no justification other than prooftexting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. There are morals because they work. Some moral systems work better then others. Those that don't work fall by the wayside and don't get used over time. societal evolution, if you will.
You said "My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you."
I don't separate my beliefs from me easily. My beliefs are a part of me; how am I not supposed to take it personally? I suspect that it makes you at least a little bit irritated or uncomfortable to see me call your bible and your god immoral, especially since you know that I truly believe it. Unfortunately, that is the risk both of us take in having these discussions. I'm thick skinned enough that I can take it up to a point. I'm far less bothered by the questions coming from the perspective of informal debate than I would be if I thought you were just doing it just to try to get my goat.
If I've gone too far, I apologize. I genuinely don't know how to express my feelings/rational/logic on this issue without saying some of the things that I've said, however.
Peace, Friend.
I don't know, since I'm not familiar with the history, but I would guess that the British slave owners of the day were not aware of the deplorable conditions in which the slaves were shipped from their home locations to Britain. I'm just guessing, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that descriptions of those deplorable conditions helped sway people into outlawing slavery. It was a degradation of the human condition, and once people understood that, the continuing existence of slavery over a fairly short period of time became intolerable. It certainly had nothing to do with any biblical standard.
I would judge any society that enslaves human beings as being an immoral society. I include in that pre-Wilberforce English society, The deep south prior to the civil war, the north before it was outlawed in the north, The african cultures that sold and still sell other africans into slavery, The Romans that took slaves, and yes even the Hebrews that took slaves. And yes, I'd even judge the bible as being immoral for not just justifying, but even going so far as codifying slavery. Deuteronomy 21:10 sure doesn't give the captive woman any choice on whether or not she wants to be the 'wife' of her captor, now does it? Sure sounds like sexual slavery to me, and it is immoral.
But people in biblical times didn't deem it as such. It fit within that societies mores to take a beautiful captive woman as your sexual slave, as long as you treated her decently. If an American soldier in Iraq quoted that scripture, and used it as a pretext to make a beautiful Iraqi woman as his wife whether or not she wanted it, the entire world would be justified in calling it immoral. So, ya, I judge the Brits that took slaves as immoral, just as I judge the bible as promoting immorality for the same reason.
Societies evolve and change. Individuals in those societies make moral decision based on what they are taught in their society. Wilberforce made a different moral decision than much of the rest of his society did; sometimes our moral choices are opposite of the society in which we live. But they are always in the context of our society. And we judge others as good or bad based on that context. I judge the bible as immoral based on my societal context; you judge it as moral. We judge it differently based on not only our societal context but on our personal moral decisions based on seperate life experiences.
Hitler deemed it right to exterminate the Jews. It isn't somehow right by any stretch of the imagination just because some Nazi's considered it right in their frame of reference. And in the same way, the bible's version of god is immoral in commanding the Jews to exterminate races of people in the land of Canaan just so that the Israelites could possess the land. I don't deny that such a moral judgement on my part is the result of my cultural perspective; I have never claimed anything else. But I couldn't possibly see it otherwise. Doesn't matter to me that the bible justifies the extermination and calls it good and puts flowery language on it. It is still wrong.
So I see no justification other than prooftexting holy books for saying there is or ever has been any absolute moral standard. There are morals because they work. Some moral systems work better then others. Those that don't work fall by the wayside and don't get used over time. societal evolution, if you will.
You said "My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you."
I don't separate my beliefs from me easily. My beliefs are a part of me; how am I not supposed to take it personally? I suspect that it makes you at least a little bit irritated or uncomfortable to see me call your bible and your god immoral, especially since you know that I truly believe it. Unfortunately, that is the risk both of us take in having these discussions. I'm thick skinned enough that I can take it up to a point. I'm far less bothered by the questions coming from the perspective of informal debate than I would be if I thought you were just doing it just to try to get my goat.
If I've gone too far, I apologize. I genuinely don't know how to express my feelings/rational/logic on this issue without saying some of the things that I've said, however.
Peace, Friend.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Amazing Grace and Morality
Hey there,
As to the response to Morality III, here are my thoughts.
You said, "A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society... We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice."
Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace. It is the story of William Wilberforce, the English politician that was primarily responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in England. When he came into office the slave trade was legal and accepted by almost the entire country. All of parliament barring a very few exceptions were in favor of it. Now if you are familiar with the story you know what was happening to those slaves being brought into the West Indies. They were kidnapped from their homes, chained hand, foot and neck and put into compartments 2’ by 4’ on the ships, where those compartments would quickly fill with their own excrement during the several week trip across the ocean. About two thirds of them would die during the trip over due to the conditions. The others would be branded and used by the English as slaves.
So, since the context of the society was favorable to this, does that mean that such actions were moral? Further, since Wilberforce was against this, and the society was in favor of it, was Wilberforce then immoral? Since he stood against the culturally accepted practice does that make him the evil one?
A few more questions: When did Wilberforce’s immorality turn into morality and vice versa for those that were participating in the slave trade? Was it one day moral and the next immoral? And how do we know when it changed? Further, I am sure that the African countries from which the people were being stolen were against this activity. They would have considered it immoral. So their society says it’s immoral while the British society says it’s moral. Who then is right? Or is there a right? When two different societies have opposite moral standards, is there any precedent for determining which society is moral? And if there is, who sets that precedent?
These are my questions. Again, I fully believe that you are a moral man (and a great friend). I know that you would not say that the activities of the slave trade are moral, but my problem isn’t with you. My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you.
As to the response to Morality III, here are my thoughts.
You said, "A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society... We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice."
Perhaps you are familiar with the recent movie Amazing Grace. It is the story of William Wilberforce, the English politician that was primarily responsible for the abolition of the slave trade in England. When he came into office the slave trade was legal and accepted by almost the entire country. All of parliament barring a very few exceptions were in favor of it. Now if you are familiar with the story you know what was happening to those slaves being brought into the West Indies. They were kidnapped from their homes, chained hand, foot and neck and put into compartments 2’ by 4’ on the ships, where those compartments would quickly fill with their own excrement during the several week trip across the ocean. About two thirds of them would die during the trip over due to the conditions. The others would be branded and used by the English as slaves.
So, since the context of the society was favorable to this, does that mean that such actions were moral? Further, since Wilberforce was against this, and the society was in favor of it, was Wilberforce then immoral? Since he stood against the culturally accepted practice does that make him the evil one?
A few more questions: When did Wilberforce’s immorality turn into morality and vice versa for those that were participating in the slave trade? Was it one day moral and the next immoral? And how do we know when it changed? Further, I am sure that the African countries from which the people were being stolen were against this activity. They would have considered it immoral. So their society says it’s immoral while the British society says it’s moral. Who then is right? Or is there a right? When two different societies have opposite moral standards, is there any precedent for determining which society is moral? And if there is, who sets that precedent?
These are my questions. Again, I fully believe that you are a moral man (and a great friend). I know that you would not say that the activities of the slave trade are moral, but my problem isn’t with you. My questions are in reference to a non-theistic system of belief, so I hope you are not taking them personally.
Anyway, that is all for now. I look forward to hearing from you.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Answers to Creation and Evolution 1
I take it from your response that you aren't satisfied with the facility of using evidence to establish whether or not something is true or false. If I can't use evidence to establish the truth or falsehood of claims, how am I supposed to determine if they are believable or not?
Yes, I agree that I might interpret evidence differently than you. You would throw out evidential inquiry, in favor of what? If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?
If you reject the validity of evidential inquiry based on the concept that differing worldview cause 2 different people to draw different conclusions from the same evidence, then I don't really know how to proceed. I don't reject it. I depend on it.
If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth. If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that a much older earth than that was created by a god(Old Earth Creationism), and in doing so invalidated evolutionary theory, I'd not hesitate to accept it. I am not aware of any such evidence. But I'm aware of evidence that supports a universe very old, and that supports the idea that a planet came about in the course of its development that we call Earth, and that live slowly developed and evolved on that planet over a vast scale of time.
But your blog entry seemed to argue that the evidence doesn't matter, so I guess we'll just have to hold our different opinions on that until or unless one of us sees reason to change, and I'm fine with that.
Yes, I agree that I might interpret evidence differently than you. You would throw out evidential inquiry, in favor of what? If you reject evidential inquiry as to the truth or falsehood of a claim, what if any basis is there to verify the truth or falsehood of anything?
If you reject the validity of evidential inquiry based on the concept that differing worldview cause 2 different people to draw different conclusions from the same evidence, then I don't really know how to proceed. I don't reject it. I depend on it.
If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that the earth is only 9,000 years old(Young Earth Creationism), and in doing so it invalidated an evolutionary theory, I'd be happy to accept that as the truth. If there were evidence that supported a hypothesis that a much older earth than that was created by a god(Old Earth Creationism), and in doing so invalidated evolutionary theory, I'd not hesitate to accept it. I am not aware of any such evidence. But I'm aware of evidence that supports a universe very old, and that supports the idea that a planet came about in the course of its development that we call Earth, and that live slowly developed and evolved on that planet over a vast scale of time.
But your blog entry seemed to argue that the evidence doesn't matter, so I guess we'll just have to hold our different opinions on that until or unless one of us sees reason to change, and I'm fine with that.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Answer to Morality III
Sorry it took me so long to respond. Guests from out of town slowed me down, hehe.
You said,
Not quite. A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society. In our society, cannibalism is judged as immoral; but in some tribes eating the organs of an enemy you slew in battle was seen as a sign of respect and treated as a courtesy. You would only eat the organs of enemies that died with honor, and that fought well. We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice. Would I eat an honored enemy? No, but I am judging the act from the framework of my societal context. Same applies concerning slavery.
Not much else to comment on here, so I'll leave it at that.
You said,
Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?
Not quite. A man's actions are judged moral or immoral in the context of his society. In our society, cannibalism is judged as immoral; but in some tribes eating the organs of an enemy you slew in battle was seen as a sign of respect and treated as a courtesy. You would only eat the organs of enemies that died with honor, and that fought well. We consider slavery wrong in the context of our society, but in the context of the society of the Deep South in the mid 1800's, a slave owner could have exposed a black slave to horrors by just releasing them. In the context of that society, slavery was a moral choice. Would I eat an honored enemy? No, but I am judging the act from the framework of my societal context. Same applies concerning slavery.
Not much else to comment on here, so I'll leave it at that.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Creation and Evolution 1
There is such a variety of fun ways to continue this dialogue on creationism and evolution that I am unsure in which way to proceed.
Well, here is a quote to begin with.
“Creationism is based on mountains of evidence. Evolution has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”
Okay, so you didn’t say this, but I am. And I believe this as fully and strongly as you do the statement, “Evolutionary Theory is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”
Now both of us are looking at the same evidence. It is the same set of fossils setting on the table, the same scientific laws, the same data. And yet there appears to be another metaphysical elephant in the room, one which determines how we interpret that data. You see, no piece of data can ever be understood outside of one’s metaphysical bias. It is his metaphysic that informs how he looks at and understands the data in front of him.
So I, because I have a Christian metaphysic, interpret the data one way, you, because of your preexisting metaphysic interpret the same data completely differently. Hence how we can come to two entirely antithetical ideas looking at the same things.
All of this is to say a couple of things.
1) No one ever views a piece of data neutrally. It is impossible, because for him to interpret it he must use his metaphysical presuppositions to do that interpreting.
2) Just as my creed (Christian metaphysic) caused me to view the evidence one way, so you must understand that it is your creed (metaphysical naturalism) that causes you to view the data the way you do.
3) This is, of course, not limited to you and I but everyone in the whole world. Every evolutionary biologist has a creed (metaphysic) that determines how he interprets evidence. He presupposes certain things that then determine how he sees what he sees. The same way with creationists.
4) All scientific work is subject to the scientific philosophy that undergirds it. That scientific philosophy is, in part, the metaphysic of which I speak. Both of us appear to be consistent with our metaphysic in interpreting the existing data as we have, but are in need of understanding that the way we even view science the way we do is because we are already biased in our philosophical understanding of what it entails. (That was a mouthful).
And so once again we are in need of discussing our metaphysical beliefs and whether or not they are consistent and valid, before we even go to the evidence, because in the end all the interpretation of every piece of data is only as good and valid as the metaphysic which gives rise to it.
A few other noteworthy points need to be made here.
The “Uniformitarianism” of which we have spoken is one of those metaphysical concepts. The reason you don’t read about it in evolutionary authors is because it is assumed by them. But it is rather easy to prove that they hold these beliefs.
With the scientific method we have observed change within nature. This change has always been minor and we have never ever observed, or even come close to observing, one kind changing into another. With this I know you will agree. And so evolutionary biologists say, “Well this must have occurred just like this throughout all of history”, and then they combine the observed data with the assumption to make theories about the past. Uniformitarianism is simply the assumption stated above, the belief that the way nature behaves now is the same way that it has always behaved. Yet this, of course, cannot even be remotely proven for we cannot test the past but only the present and we have no record of scientific experiments done even 5,000 years ago. Every evolutionist believes it implicitly because his beliefs dictate that this is the way things must be. He was not there 5,000 years ago nor 500,000,000 years ago (if there was such a time). Therefore he must make assumptions about how nature behaved at those times. (hence his uniformitarianism) It is his creed. Whether we want to call it religion or non-religion, the fact remains that it is an unverifiable metaphysical assumption that underlies how someone understands and interprets their present experiences.
One more comment. You said, “Creationism is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science.” Two thoughts here.
1)Evolution is also based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by its adherents (as I already covered above with the metaphysical assumptions). There is a degree of challenging ideas in evolution, but those go on within the given metaphysical construct. The same is true of creationism by the way. Though creationists hold the same metaphysical constructs there is a wide variation of how of creation and the flood.
2)As to the “such dogma has no place in science”, I still am trying to figure out how a non-theist can account for any of the numerous presuppositions (axioms) that underlie science and are necessary for any science to be done. If you would like me to list some of these axioms then I will do so.
Anyway, that is plenty of fodder for you to play with for now. I hope you had a great weekend and look forward to your responses.
Addendum:
As I have had a little more time to process and think on this I had a few more thoughts. (These are just enhancements to the two points directly above.)
1)We know that Science or the Scientific method is based upon the principle of falsifiability. If we cannot falsify a theory or hypothesis then it is not scientific. Therefore, as you stated, creationism “has no place in science” since one cannot falsify that a supernatural Creator created the universe. Well, then we must also say that evolution has no place in science, because it is not falsifiable either. When I posit something in the remote past, whether it be an event of purely natural processes or an event done by supernatural processes, it is still an event of the remote past and not repeatable or falsifiable. So just as creationism “has no place in science”, so evolution has no place in science.
2)Having said this I am going to turn the tables a bit. I think the real question here is not “Can science account for my theory”, but “Can my theory account for science?”. You see, though neither can be tested or falsified by science, the truth of the matter is that only one of them can explain why science is even possible. Evolution, if it were possibly true, cannot explain any axiom basic to science. If evolution were true then science would no longer be objective but would become a purely subjective discipline. On the other hand, creationism not only led to modern day science but is basic to any scientific endeavor. It alone gives rise to a solid basis (those axioms of which I speak) upon which science can be done.
Well, here is a quote to begin with.
“Creationism is based on mountains of evidence. Evolution has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”
Okay, so you didn’t say this, but I am. And I believe this as fully and strongly as you do the statement, “Evolutionary Theory is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different.”
Now both of us are looking at the same evidence. It is the same set of fossils setting on the table, the same scientific laws, the same data. And yet there appears to be another metaphysical elephant in the room, one which determines how we interpret that data. You see, no piece of data can ever be understood outside of one’s metaphysical bias. It is his metaphysic that informs how he looks at and understands the data in front of him.
So I, because I have a Christian metaphysic, interpret the data one way, you, because of your preexisting metaphysic interpret the same data completely differently. Hence how we can come to two entirely antithetical ideas looking at the same things.
All of this is to say a couple of things.
1) No one ever views a piece of data neutrally. It is impossible, because for him to interpret it he must use his metaphysical presuppositions to do that interpreting.
2) Just as my creed (Christian metaphysic) caused me to view the evidence one way, so you must understand that it is your creed (metaphysical naturalism) that causes you to view the data the way you do.
3) This is, of course, not limited to you and I but everyone in the whole world. Every evolutionary biologist has a creed (metaphysic) that determines how he interprets evidence. He presupposes certain things that then determine how he sees what he sees. The same way with creationists.
4) All scientific work is subject to the scientific philosophy that undergirds it. That scientific philosophy is, in part, the metaphysic of which I speak. Both of us appear to be consistent with our metaphysic in interpreting the existing data as we have, but are in need of understanding that the way we even view science the way we do is because we are already biased in our philosophical understanding of what it entails. (That was a mouthful).
And so once again we are in need of discussing our metaphysical beliefs and whether or not they are consistent and valid, before we even go to the evidence, because in the end all the interpretation of every piece of data is only as good and valid as the metaphysic which gives rise to it.
A few other noteworthy points need to be made here.
The “Uniformitarianism” of which we have spoken is one of those metaphysical concepts. The reason you don’t read about it in evolutionary authors is because it is assumed by them. But it is rather easy to prove that they hold these beliefs.
With the scientific method we have observed change within nature. This change has always been minor and we have never ever observed, or even come close to observing, one kind changing into another. With this I know you will agree. And so evolutionary biologists say, “Well this must have occurred just like this throughout all of history”, and then they combine the observed data with the assumption to make theories about the past. Uniformitarianism is simply the assumption stated above, the belief that the way nature behaves now is the same way that it has always behaved. Yet this, of course, cannot even be remotely proven for we cannot test the past but only the present and we have no record of scientific experiments done even 5,000 years ago. Every evolutionist believes it implicitly because his beliefs dictate that this is the way things must be. He was not there 5,000 years ago nor 500,000,000 years ago (if there was such a time). Therefore he must make assumptions about how nature behaved at those times. (hence his uniformitarianism) It is his creed. Whether we want to call it religion or non-religion, the fact remains that it is an unverifiable metaphysical assumption that underlies how someone understands and interprets their present experiences.
One more comment. You said, “Creationism is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science.” Two thoughts here.
1)Evolution is also based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by its adherents (as I already covered above with the metaphysical assumptions). There is a degree of challenging ideas in evolution, but those go on within the given metaphysical construct. The same is true of creationism by the way. Though creationists hold the same metaphysical constructs there is a wide variation of how of creation and the flood.
2)As to the “such dogma has no place in science”, I still am trying to figure out how a non-theist can account for any of the numerous presuppositions (axioms) that underlie science and are necessary for any science to be done. If you would like me to list some of these axioms then I will do so.
Anyway, that is plenty of fodder for you to play with for now. I hope you had a great weekend and look forward to your responses.
Addendum:
As I have had a little more time to process and think on this I had a few more thoughts. (These are just enhancements to the two points directly above.)
1)We know that Science or the Scientific method is based upon the principle of falsifiability. If we cannot falsify a theory or hypothesis then it is not scientific. Therefore, as you stated, creationism “has no place in science” since one cannot falsify that a supernatural Creator created the universe. Well, then we must also say that evolution has no place in science, because it is not falsifiable either. When I posit something in the remote past, whether it be an event of purely natural processes or an event done by supernatural processes, it is still an event of the remote past and not repeatable or falsifiable. So just as creationism “has no place in science”, so evolution has no place in science.
2)Having said this I am going to turn the tables a bit. I think the real question here is not “Can science account for my theory”, but “Can my theory account for science?”. You see, though neither can be tested or falsified by science, the truth of the matter is that only one of them can explain why science is even possible. Evolution, if it were possibly true, cannot explain any axiom basic to science. If evolution were true then science would no longer be objective but would become a purely subjective discipline. On the other hand, creationism not only led to modern day science but is basic to any scientific endeavor. It alone gives rise to a solid basis (those axioms of which I speak) upon which science can be done.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Morality III
Thanks for your responses. They were very illuminating in helping me understand where you are coming from. There are a few things I wanted to discuss specifically about what you said as well as perhaps clarify, and also I wanted to clarify a few of my questions that you say you didn’t understand for I think they are still important to our discussion.
Previously you said, “My current feelings on the issue is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy”.
This is where the questions arose from. It sounds as if you are saying that morals arose naturally, like hair. They are a natural part of a human being, like hair. So it appears as if an individual has no choice in the formation of any morals, but what he values is merely a product of time plus chance plus nature. Therefore, we do not make “moral” choices, but act out our natural course, simply manifesting what nature has programmed in us. In other words, we can say that morality is merely “nature taking its course”, like hair growth. You cannot decide where your hair grows, it just does. And so you do not decide what your morals are, they just are. Hence Questions 2 and 4. Morality, in the non-theistic view, is just nature taking its course. So how then does one discern between what is moral, amoral and immoral when all of them are simply descriptions of nature taking its course? It would be like saying that hair growth on one part of your body is immoral and growth on another is moral. No, they are just nature happening. There is no value judgment to any of them at all.
“The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.”
“Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do.”
“The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.”
Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?
“No religion provides such a standard (including Christianity)”.
This was your answer given in response to the question of whether or not you believe there to be any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong. Yet the Bible does make this claim, and it does so in absolute and unchanging terms. Now I by no means think that most, if any Christians, live by this standard, but that does not change the fact that the authoritative source of a religion makes the claim that there are absolute invariant standards laid out by an absolute unchanging God. But I don’t suppose our talking about non-theistic explanations for morality have anything to do with this, so I will leave it there. I just couldn’t let it go without commenting on it.
Anyway, I have once again written far too long of a blog, so I hope I have not bored you. Have a great weekend my friend.
Previously you said, “My current feelings on the issue is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy”.
This is where the questions arose from. It sounds as if you are saying that morals arose naturally, like hair. They are a natural part of a human being, like hair. So it appears as if an individual has no choice in the formation of any morals, but what he values is merely a product of time plus chance plus nature. Therefore, we do not make “moral” choices, but act out our natural course, simply manifesting what nature has programmed in us. In other words, we can say that morality is merely “nature taking its course”, like hair growth. You cannot decide where your hair grows, it just does. And so you do not decide what your morals are, they just are. Hence Questions 2 and 4. Morality, in the non-theistic view, is just nature taking its course. So how then does one discern between what is moral, amoral and immoral when all of them are simply descriptions of nature taking its course? It would be like saying that hair growth on one part of your body is immoral and growth on another is moral. No, they are just nature happening. There is no value judgment to any of them at all.
“The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.”
“Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do.”
“The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.”
Given these responses to the questions I would think it fair to say that you do not believe there to be any universal standard of right and wrong (as relates to actions), but that everything is relative to the individual. According to his nature and past experiences he determines for himself what is right and what is wrong and acts accordingly. So for some it is altruism, others masochism, for some it is loving his neighbors, for others it is eating them. Each man does what is right in his own eyes and there is no universal standard that his actions can be judged by. Is this, in essence, what you are saying?
“No religion provides such a standard (including Christianity)”.
This was your answer given in response to the question of whether or not you believe there to be any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong. Yet the Bible does make this claim, and it does so in absolute and unchanging terms. Now I by no means think that most, if any Christians, live by this standard, but that does not change the fact that the authoritative source of a religion makes the claim that there are absolute invariant standards laid out by an absolute unchanging God. But I don’t suppose our talking about non-theistic explanations for morality have anything to do with this, so I will leave it there. I just couldn’t let it go without commenting on it.
Anyway, I have once again written far too long of a blog, so I hope I have not bored you. Have a great weekend my friend.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Response to "More on Religion pt3"
You say "So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?"
Another point: My illustration about evil doesn't illustrate in any way shape or form that creationism is not religious because of it's association with a religious paradigm. You are conflating differing types of associations. Creationism is part of a religious paradigm because it is necessarily dependent on a creator. Evolution has no such dependency relationship with a religious paradigm. Some religious are evil but not necessarily dependent on evil. Some relgions embrace evolution, but don't necessarily have a dependency relationship. But creationism requires a creator, so it is necessarily religious, and no non-religious worldviews have creators.
You said (long quote, sorry)
You said "So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)?"
We're probably getting closer to a better definition, but that is still unsatisfactory. I believe in justice, for example, and justice is non-physical, but that belief in justice is not religious. If by 'non-physical' you mean supernatural, then probably yes.
Anyway, that is my answers for now.
Another point: My illustration about evil doesn't illustrate in any way shape or form that creationism is not religious because of it's association with a religious paradigm. You are conflating differing types of associations. Creationism is part of a religious paradigm because it is necessarily dependent on a creator. Evolution has no such dependency relationship with a religious paradigm. Some religious are evil but not necessarily dependent on evil. Some relgions embrace evolution, but don't necessarily have a dependency relationship. But creationism requires a creator, so it is necessarily religious, and no non-religious worldviews have creators.
You said (long quote, sorry)
I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?No, not poor communication, fundamental disagreement on a wide variety of points. "Descent with modification" is a definition used by evolutionary biologists. It is a definition that Berkeley's site on evolution uses, for example. I don't think there is an ideology of uniformitarianism outside of some creationist books and websites. Evolutionary Theory (I'm using the word "theory" in the same sense as I would if I said Theory of Gravity, by the way) is based on mountains of evidence. Creationism has no basis other than the belief structure of which it is a part. The evidential basis on the one side and the utter lack of evidence on the other side make them different. There is no creed in evolutionary theory. You'll see very sharp disagreements on a regular basis amongst evolutionary biologists. The common agreements are based on extensive evidence(not uniformitarianism, whatever that is) and the disagreements are associated with those hypothesis that don't have strong evidential support. It is the way science works. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on dogmatic assertions that are considered unchallengeable by the adherents of the specific faith that it is a part of. Such dogma has no place in science; there is no central authority anywhere that dictates any supposed "uniformitarianism" that I'm aware of; scientists would rightfully reject if even if it did exist.
You said "So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)?"
We're probably getting closer to a better definition, but that is still unsatisfactory. I believe in justice, for example, and justice is non-physical, but that belief in justice is not religious. If by 'non-physical' you mean supernatural, then probably yes.
Anyway, that is my answers for now.
Response to "Morality II"
You said "Hip, Hip, Hooray!"
I'm less sure than you are that we reached consensus, but I'm happy to celebrate, hehe.
Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?
A1: You ask this as if it's possible for "right and wrong" to be independent of what they are referring to. I don't understand that.
Whether or not something is right or wrong is a moral judgement that one makes using ones beliefs as a basis for that decision. Moral judgment is dependent on what is being judged. The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.
Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?
A2: The question doesn't make any sense to me, so I'll just talk a bit, and maybe answer in the process :). Moral judgements are "should's" and "shouldn'ts". Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do. It might be purely pragmatic: "I shouldn't steal because I might get caught and go to jail." is an example of that. It can be altruistic: "I shouldn't steal because it deprives the other person of needed sustenance, and if we all stole we all would suffer". It might be a belief based on a belief system: "I shouldn't steal because the 10 commandments prohibit it" or "I shouldn't steal because humanism teaches that theft is wrong". But all those are rules of thumb based on our belief structures. I don't even see how natural or not connects. Sorry if I'm being dense.
Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?
A3: I dont' think so, but I can't say with 100% certainty :). No religion provides such a standard(including Christianity), and neither do any secular belief systems that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean such a standard doesn't exist, but there isn't any evidence that it exists. I don't even see how it could, since you can't seperate a judgement of right or wrong from the person doing the judging and what it is they are passing judgement on. I think for that reason its pretty much a flawed question.
Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?
A4: Sorry, the question doesn't make any sense to me. So let me ask a somewhat related question: How do you know how long an inch is? For lots of things, a guesstimate of "O, about this much(as i spread my fingers to an inches width) is good enough. But for some things I need more accurate measurements. So I use a ruler. Here's the weird part, though. There are rulers all over the place with inches on them, and I can use most any of them to find what an inch is. I don't need (to use your words) an absolute invariant standard for how much an inch is. I just find a ruler and it's good enough.
I(and you) make moral decisions in the same way. The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.
Is divorce wrong? Nope, at least judging by the actions of most Americans, Christian or not. Is lying wrong? Same answer. Is polygamy wrong? Yes, judging by most Americans, Christian or not, even though it's right judging by the bible. Is slavery wrong? Yes, by the same standard, even though the bible says it's right. Christians form their belief systems as a result of their life experiences just like everyone else does, and use those beliefs as a basis for judgement calls just like everyone else does, regardless of anything in the bible or claims about some deity.
So I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as an absolute utter invariant standard of right and wrong, but there is no evidence for such a thing or reason to believe such a thing exists(at least that I'm aware of).
My answers are probably unsatisfying; I hope at least they are at least mildly entertaining.
Cheers, friend.
I'm less sure than you are that we reached consensus, but I'm happy to celebrate, hehe.
Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?
A1: You ask this as if it's possible for "right and wrong" to be independent of what they are referring to. I don't understand that.
Whether or not something is right or wrong is a moral judgement that one makes using ones beliefs as a basis for that decision. Moral judgment is dependent on what is being judged. The person making that moral judgment makes it dependent on the basis of their past experiences. You can't separate the moral judgement from the person; neither can you seperate it from the circumstances in which they find themselves making the judgement.
Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?
A2: The question doesn't make any sense to me, so I'll just talk a bit, and maybe answer in the process :). Moral judgements are "should's" and "shouldn'ts". Based on our beliefs, formed by our past experiences, we make general rules of thumb about what we should do and shouldn't do. It might be purely pragmatic: "I shouldn't steal because I might get caught and go to jail." is an example of that. It can be altruistic: "I shouldn't steal because it deprives the other person of needed sustenance, and if we all stole we all would suffer". It might be a belief based on a belief system: "I shouldn't steal because the 10 commandments prohibit it" or "I shouldn't steal because humanism teaches that theft is wrong". But all those are rules of thumb based on our belief structures. I don't even see how natural or not connects. Sorry if I'm being dense.
Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?
A3: I dont' think so, but I can't say with 100% certainty :). No religion provides such a standard(including Christianity), and neither do any secular belief systems that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean such a standard doesn't exist, but there isn't any evidence that it exists. I don't even see how it could, since you can't seperate a judgement of right or wrong from the person doing the judging and what it is they are passing judgement on. I think for that reason its pretty much a flawed question.
Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?
A4: Sorry, the question doesn't make any sense to me. So let me ask a somewhat related question: How do you know how long an inch is? For lots of things, a guesstimate of "O, about this much(as i spread my fingers to an inches width) is good enough. But for some things I need more accurate measurements. So I use a ruler. Here's the weird part, though. There are rulers all over the place with inches on them, and I can use most any of them to find what an inch is. I don't need (to use your words) an absolute invariant standard for how much an inch is. I just find a ruler and it's good enough.
I(and you) make moral decisions in the same way. The beliefs that we have formed as a result of the experiences we've had in our life provide us with the ruler that we use to make moral judgements. Just like you don't need to find some absolute invariant standard to define an inch, you don't need some absolute invariant standard to define right and wrong.
Is divorce wrong? Nope, at least judging by the actions of most Americans, Christian or not. Is lying wrong? Same answer. Is polygamy wrong? Yes, judging by most Americans, Christian or not, even though it's right judging by the bible. Is slavery wrong? Yes, by the same standard, even though the bible says it's right. Christians form their belief systems as a result of their life experiences just like everyone else does, and use those beliefs as a basis for judgement calls just like everyone else does, regardless of anything in the bible or claims about some deity.
So I can't say with 100% certainty that there is no such thing as an absolute utter invariant standard of right and wrong, but there is no evidence for such a thing or reason to believe such a thing exists(at least that I'm aware of).
My answers are probably unsatisfying; I hope at least they are at least mildly entertaining.
Cheers, friend.
More on Religion pt3
“You say "Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious?" Well, I think that we could both find religions that have the attribute of being evil, so does this logic imply that all religion is evil?”
Well, I am glad we both saw the leap in logic there. And that was precisely my point, in response to your previous statement, “Scientologists and Muslims and Christians are all creationists (at least I think so) but the religions tied to their disparate creation stories are different. I would say, generally, that creationism is an attribute of some religions, but it is not in and of itself religion.” So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?
Further, you said, “Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious".
I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?
I tend to think your answer would be contained in the statement, “If you believe in a creator you are religious and believe in a religion.” So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)? Which brings this very long and intricate discussion back to the original question about the definiton of religion. Whew! My head now hurts, how about you?
Looking forward to your counter-point of my counter-point of your counter-point of my…
Well, I am glad we both saw the leap in logic there. And that was precisely my point, in response to your previous statement, “Scientologists and Muslims and Christians are all creationists (at least I think so) but the religions tied to their disparate creation stories are different. I would say, generally, that creationism is an attribute of some religions, but it is not in and of itself religion.” So if both evolution and creationism are parts of religious paradigms, but are not religious because of those associations, as your statement about evil so clearly illustrates, why then do you consider creationism religious?
Further, you said, “Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious".
I am guilty of poor communication on this one. I assumed that as we spoke of “evolution” that we were talking about the ideology of the descent of life and various species, not of the adaptation that we currently observe in creation. And though adaptation is still founded and dependent upon worldviews, it is the extrapolation of this idea combined with the ideology of uniformitarianism to account for origins that I was addressing. As to this belief of evolution I think you and I would both agree that it, like creationism, is based upon an unprovable set of assumptions about the origin and early progression of the physical universe. Since both theories are then based on unprovable (by modern scientific standards) ideologies and both address the origin of the universe why is one religious and the other not?
I tend to think your answer would be contained in the statement, “If you believe in a creator you are religious and believe in a religion.” So is “belief” in something non-physical then the test of religion, rather than “worship” (for worship is nowhere mentioned and yet you still consider creationism to be religious)? Which brings this very long and intricate discussion back to the original question about the definiton of religion. Whew! My head now hurts, how about you?
Looking forward to your counter-point of my counter-point of your counter-point of my…
Morality II
Sorry for being so late in responding. We were on a family camping trip for six days. It was great!
After your latest email we have good news: You and I finally agree on something (as pertains to this blog)! You said, “…I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality.” I said, “…there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism.” Hey, I think we can celebrate this consensus together! On the count of three… Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Given our consensus I will turn more to you beliefs. I guess the best direction is to ask a series of questions in response to your current system of belief about morality.
Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?
Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?
Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?
Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?
I know, these questions tend to blend together and touch upon each other, but hopefully they are distinct enough to be answerable on their own.
I look forward to hearing from you my friend.
After your latest email we have good news: You and I finally agree on something (as pertains to this blog)! You said, “…I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality.” I said, “…there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism.” Hey, I think we can celebrate this consensus together! On the count of three… Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Given our consensus I will turn more to you beliefs. I guess the best direction is to ask a series of questions in response to your current system of belief about morality.
Q1: Is there such a thing as right and wrong or are all actions just natural (like hair)?
Q2: If all actions are merely natural then how can any judgment be rendered since all of them are simply natural?
Q3: Is there then any absolute invariant standard for right and wrong?
Q4: What is the difference between what is moral, immoral and amoral if all actions and attributes of our species are ultimately natural?
I know, these questions tend to blend together and touch upon each other, but hopefully they are distinct enough to be answerable on their own.
I look forward to hearing from you my friend.
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Morality I
You said
I've thought about this a lot over a period of years and still haven't come to any conclusions that I feel confident about. I don't know if I can come to conclusions that I'm confident with even. My current feelings on the issue(that could change as soon as tomorrow, or never, hehe) is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy, and would be whether or not any logic was imputed. I can't imagine any way in which humans could exist as a species without having a moral structure, simply because moral behavior is necessary to survive in a society.
So I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality. But I know that it exists, and I'm confident there are reasons that it exists regardless of any theism or non-theism.
Unless you see my utilitarian argument as logical, hehe.
Anyway, that is all for now. I wish you well, friend.
I think that you are correct in saying this (that Christians assume this), but I am not sure that I make this exact assumption. I think that you are a very moral and upstanding man though you do not believe in God. What I would say is that any non-theistic thought system cannot account for morality. This does not mean that non-theists are not moral, but that there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism. It is kind of like math. Unbelievers use math every day, just as they use morality, but the fact that they use math does not mean that they can account for the ability to use math or account for why math works. I am sure I have made this as clear as mud.
I've thought about this a lot over a period of years and still haven't come to any conclusions that I feel confident about. I don't know if I can come to conclusions that I'm confident with even. My current feelings on the issue(that could change as soon as tomorrow, or never, hehe) is that we are moral creatures simply because being so gives us a survival advantage as a species. I don't think it's any more complicated than that. So saying that it's logical to be moral is probably about as meaningful as saying that it's logical to have hair. Whether or not you could impute a logical reason to have hair doesn't change the fact that I am hairy, and would be whether or not any logic was imputed. I can't imagine any way in which humans could exist as a species without having a moral structure, simply because moral behavior is necessary to survive in a society.
So I'm pretty confident that I can't prove the logic of morality. But I know that it exists, and I'm confident there are reasons that it exists regardless of any theism or non-theism.
Unless you see my utilitarian argument as logical, hehe.
Anyway, that is all for now. I wish you well, friend.
Response to "More on Religion".
You said
You say "Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious?" Well, I think that we could both find religions that have the attribute of being evil, so does this logic imply that all religion is evil? Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious". If you choose to define your terms that loosely, fine I guess, but they lose meaning and significance. You say "But I think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism". Naw. You'd say that, and have many times. Saying it doesn't make it either real or applicable, though. I even think your worldview demands this sentiment of you. That doesn't make it real, though.
I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.Naw. Creationism is a model of origins that is dependant on a creator. If you believe in creationism, you believe in a creator. If you believe in a creator you are religious and believe in a religion. Simple as that.
You say "Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious?" Well, I think that we could both find religions that have the attribute of being evil, so does this logic imply that all religion is evil? Evolution is not even remotely religious; it is a description of modification through descent that occurs in many natural systems. Saying "Evolution is religious" is roughly equivalent to making statements like "The sunshine is religious". If you choose to define your terms that loosely, fine I guess, but they lose meaning and significance. You say "But I think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism". Naw. You'd say that, and have many times. Saying it doesn't make it either real or applicable, though. I even think your worldview demands this sentiment of you. That doesn't make it real, though.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
The Three-legged Elephant
Okay, so our elephant is not so normal. I guess he had a birth defect and was only born with three legs, but these are the only legs he has to stand on!
(For new readers, We have often heard the comment "There is an elephant in the room". This is an idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to overlook. The elephant in our room is a metaphor for "worldview". As discussed two blogs ago, many of the problems we have and will continue to encounter in this dialogue are due to the fact that we have two very different worldviews, mine metaphysical Christianity, his metaphysical naturalism.)
As I was saying, I find three basic components to a worldview, three foundational or fundamental concepts basic to every worldview, which the rest of ones worldview stands on, hence the three-legged elephant. These are metaphysics (the study of the ultimate nature of reality), epistemology (the study of the nature and limits of human knowledge), and ethics or morality (the study of right and wrong attitudes, judgements and actions). These three legs determine how we understand and interpret every human experience.
Therefore, I thought it was great for us to be discussing "non-theistic morality" since this is one of the legs of our elephant. The more we address the elephant in the roon the better chance we have of understanding one another and learning from each other.
You said, "It is a common mistake for a christian to assume that if someone doesn't believe in a god that they have no basis for being moral." I think that you are correct in saying this (that Christians assume this), but I am not sure that I make this exact assumption. I think that you are a very moral and upstanding man though you do not believe in God. What I would say is that any non-theistic thought system cannot account for morality. This does not mean that non-theists are not moral, but that there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism. It is kind of like math. Unbelievers use math every day, just as they use morality, but the fact that they use math does not mean that they can account for the ability to use math or account for why math works. I am sure I have made this as clear as mud.
Anyway, that being said, I don't actually want you to respond to this, I just wanted you to know where I stood. I do, however, await your first installment of why you believe that non-theists have a basis for being moral. Knowing you it ought to be great!
Have a great day my friend.
(For new readers, We have often heard the comment "There is an elephant in the room". This is an idiom for an obvious truth that is being ignored or goes unaddressed. It is based on the idea that an elephant in a small room would be impossible to overlook. The elephant in our room is a metaphor for "worldview". As discussed two blogs ago, many of the problems we have and will continue to encounter in this dialogue are due to the fact that we have two very different worldviews, mine metaphysical Christianity, his metaphysical naturalism.)
As I was saying, I find three basic components to a worldview, three foundational or fundamental concepts basic to every worldview, which the rest of ones worldview stands on, hence the three-legged elephant. These are metaphysics (the study of the ultimate nature of reality), epistemology (the study of the nature and limits of human knowledge), and ethics or morality (the study of right and wrong attitudes, judgements and actions). These three legs determine how we understand and interpret every human experience.
Therefore, I thought it was great for us to be discussing "non-theistic morality" since this is one of the legs of our elephant. The more we address the elephant in the roon the better chance we have of understanding one another and learning from each other.
You said, "It is a common mistake for a christian to assume that if someone doesn't believe in a god that they have no basis for being moral." I think that you are correct in saying this (that Christians assume this), but I am not sure that I make this exact assumption. I think that you are a very moral and upstanding man though you do not believe in God. What I would say is that any non-theistic thought system cannot account for morality. This does not mean that non-theists are not moral, but that there is ultimately no logical foundation for morality in non-theism. It is kind of like math. Unbelievers use math every day, just as they use morality, but the fact that they use math does not mean that they can account for the ability to use math or account for why math works. I am sure I have made this as clear as mud.
Anyway, that being said, I don't actually want you to respond to this, I just wanted you to know where I stood. I do, however, await your first installment of why you believe that non-theists have a basis for being moral. Knowing you it ought to be great!
Have a great day my friend.
More on Religion
I think it would be great for our next discussion to revolve around the idea of a non-theistic basis for morality. Let's do it!
I do have a few other remarks tied to our previous discussion as well as some preliminary comments for our new, so here goes.
You said, "Creationism is religious in that it is dependent upon religion for its existence." I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.
You also said, “Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice.” I agree with this statement almost completely. Though you and I might differ a little in "the specific type of acting out" I do believe it is a way of "putting a worlrdview into practice".
You said, "I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding."
Amen to that (can I say Amen?). I agree. I have much enjoyed this so far and look forward to our continuing discussions.
To keep this post from getting too long I will end this one now and write another post for my preliminary comments on our new topic of "non-theistic morality".
I do have a few other remarks tied to our previous discussion as well as some preliminary comments for our new, so here goes.
You said, "Creationism is religious in that it is dependent upon religion for its existence." I don't think that it is at all necessarily dependent upon religion. Creationism is simply a model of origins, just like evolution. In fact I like to call evolution "Naturalism's creation story". So creationism is not dependent on a "system of belief that has a form of worship as integral to it". It does appeal to the super-natural for the origin of the natural, but this does not seem to be religious in the sense that I have heard you use the term. Evolution is also an attribute of many religions, so would we then say that evolution is religious? The same is true, of course, of a Christian worldview. Though a super-natural God is integral to its belief it in no way demands a form of worship, though I would agree that the adherents of such a worldview will almost always become religious and worship God as an extension of it. But I again think we could say the same thing about every other worldview, including naturalism.
You also said, “Think of it like this. A worldview is a systematic set of beliefs. Religion is a specific type of acting out of those beliefs. It is one possible way of putting a worldview into practice.” I agree with this statement almost completely. Though you and I might differ a little in "the specific type of acting out" I do believe it is a way of "putting a worlrdview into practice".
You said, "I have a strong preference of using this as an educational opportunity for both of us rather than a debate or a fight, so to speak, and it has worked as that most excellently so far, in my opinion. We have no requirement to come to agreement. It is fine, at least in my opinon, for us both to use this as an opportunity to educate the other and help them come to a greater understanding."
Amen to that (can I say Amen?). I agree. I have much enjoyed this so far and look forward to our continuing discussions.
To keep this post from getting too long I will end this one now and write another post for my preliminary comments on our new topic of "non-theistic morality".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
