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.

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)

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.

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…

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.

Morality I

You said

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

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.