Fallen and Flawed

Good post Demian. You are right about the law profession too (or at least what I hear of it in law school), just the other day in class someone matter of factly remarked that morality cannot be relied upon because it depends on the person… this humanist idea of morality is a common notion among law students/professors.

But, it is one thing to say there is objective morality and quite another to live as if it is a fact… this is why I need Christ.

I’ve got a lot of mixed reactions when reading this, it’s hard to know where to begin. Any one of these could easily flesh out into a long discussion.

* Attributing your morals to a god doesn’t make them objective, it makes them external. There’s a huge difference.

* It’s trivial to have objective morals – any written code is objective. The Code of Hammurabi is objective. Why is this a good thing? You could move to any theocracy like Pakistan or Saudi Arabia and see what societies look like that still follow ancient moral codes – it isn’t pretty.

* Is objectivity sufficient? What more should a moral code have before you say it’s “good”, “useful” or valuable?

* Humanism is objective. It starts with a couple fixed principles and derives all values from these. These are unchanging. You may be confusing humanism with atheism or non-Christianity in general.

* Christian morals are demonstrably flexible and changeable. We’ve seen this over the past 2,000 years, over the past 200 years and over the past 20 years. You may claim to have unchanging morals but because the Bible is so ambiguous and contradictory, Christians have been able to adapt their morals (and retroactively find biblical justification) for centuries.

* Humanism do NOT claim that we are “nothing but machines”. Individual humanists may but so what, this is irrelevant to humanism. Individual Christians claim that they can heal leprosy through prayer, doesn’t mean this is a part of Christianity.

* You make a lot of accusations like “A humanist has no real boundary for what he should do.” I have no idea what you’re thinking of here as Humanism is a moral philosophy and so is entirely focused on providing these boundaries. I can’t tell if you maybe misunderstand humanism, have a deep insight that I’m missing or merely think it has failed. Can you elaborate?

Joshua,

I love your observation that humanist moral ideas are common among law students and professors — in my response to Demian yesterday, I compared the consideration of subjective moral ideas to the resolution of a law case: lots of compelling interests and competing sources for decision-making influence our decisions.

I can perceive why subjective morality would appeal to those in law, because law is decided in a way much like I believe subjective morality is interpreted. Very prescient observation.

Demian,

Like Tyro, I see a lot of issues to sort through in this post.

First, I should remind you again that naturalism does not necessarily equal humanism. Naturalism =/= humanism, though the two may converge for many individuals.

Humanistic morality is based on a particular doctrine, that of humanism, which could be considered a subset of moral ideas associated with naturalism. It is not the be-all and end-all of naturalistic morality, though many naturalists subscribe to it. I just wanted to clear that up, because it can be very confusing if we’re not precise.

“Humanists can’t claim objectivity, because you can manufacture all the morals you want, but at the end of the day you have no mechanism to declare why we should choose one over the other.”

Demian, this is such a short claim, yet there is so much to say!

First, I do not claim objectivity. What I am claiming is that there are subjective *reasons* which serve as mechanisms to choose one moral action over another, which change due to time and circumstance.

I also claim that some moral options may consistently include the same benefits over many societies, thus producing the appearance of an objective moral standard.

I do have subjective reasons to compare moral actions, many of which I listed in my lengthy reply to you on God’s Righteousness. Briefly, some of those include things like health, empathy, survival, fairness, and unity. I will expand further if necessary.

“If we are nothing more than naked apes who will decompose in the ground…why not lie, cheat and steal till your heart is content? Why not murder, gang rape and pillage just like apes, sharks and baboons?

Naturally, we won’t slip into that behavior overnight. But over time, yes.”

If we are nothing more than naked apes who will decompose in the ground, why not lie, cheat, and steal until your heart is content?

Maybe you feel empathy for those who have been lied to, cheated on, or stolen from; maybe you feel that cheating is not conducive to society; maybe you are scared of the punishments of the law; maybe you have an intuition that these things are inherently unfair which comes from your family or your society; maybe you decide that because you don’t like it when people do it to you, you won’t do it to other people (Golden Rule).

We’re not just naked apes; we’re naked apes that possess reasons and desires which underpin our morality.

“That’s because a humanist’s moral base is built on what’s appropriate for our culture or situation, which, as we all know, can change.”

And why is this change harmful? Do you honestly feel that what was appropriate for the Puritans is still appropriate today, in all aspects? All morality is built on what’s appropriate for the culture or situation.

But that doesn’t mean subjective morality has to be inconsistent. There could be reasons which are persistent throughout various contexts which make it plausible for the same moral actions to be moral or immoral consistently, giving the appearance of objectivity.

But when morality does change, I assert that it can be beneficial. Is it bad that we emancipated the slaves? Is it bad that we gave women the right to vote? Is it bad that we outlaw child abuse? Surely the Puritans would have frowned upon what would have been to them, horrible deteriorations in the fabric of society.

“The Puritans departed England to reject religious oppression and bring to America core objective moral standards. And as any one who is breathing can attest…we’ve shed much of their vision on family, sex, possessions and government.

Why is that? The lawless, content-less creed of humanism is prevailing.”

And thank goodness it is prevailing! Who knows what the Puritans would have done to me for leaving Christianity? Does anyone remember the reaction to Roger Williams’ difference of opinion? You should be thankful that we have progressed beyond a time when even minor religious differences were grounds for eviction from the state. Oh, and today Roger Williams is a hero – and he should be.

“See, any true materialist would say that we are nothing more than chemicals firing. And if that’s the case, then my parents love for me is really not “love” any more than two dragonflies “making love” or a soda machine “obeying” me cause I put money in the slot.”

If you want one good reason why I post on this website, it’s paragraphs like this.

As I said, we are chemicals firing…with a higher consciousness and the associated reasons and desires which constitute a basis for morality. I cannot repeat this often enough.

Even if there is a God, you are *still* only chemicals firing – there would just be someone who is responsible for making that happen.

Your parents’ love is still love even if it is “only” chemicals in their brains. Even if fireflies and humans shared some of the same mechanisms.

You’re missing exactly what’s important about those chemicals: producing the emotions that help give us reasons and desires in the consideration of morality. You’re focusing on what we’re made of, not what we’re capable of.

“A humanist has no real boundary for what he should do. He is left with only what he can do. That’s why Allen Dershowitz can tell young lawyers that a pliable sense of morals is necessary to successfully practice law.

What this means is that anything a humanist suggests is subjective to change.”

Okay Demian, do you really want me to demonstrate to you why naturalistic, subjective morality is a better alternative, or are you just toying with me?

Yes, humanists/naturalists do have boundaries on what they should do. Our boundaries are set in place by specific moral considerations – empathy, fairness, equity, and survival, to name a few.

“That’s what I mean by “plastic.” Morals can be melted down and moved. They shift with our decadence. And our decadence always follows one path: please the self versus please the Creator.”

Of course anything a naturalist suggests is subject to change — everything in the natural world is subject to change. Further, I find it advantageous that our understanding of moral questions is specifically tailored to changing environments, so that our actions do not become obsolete or counter-productive.

Subjective morality is more efficient in solving moral problems – it takes a lot of sweat to decide between the compelling interests of moral issues. This is what King Solomon is supposed to have taught us: you can’t just cut the baby down the middle.

Morals shift with decadence? By “decadence”, do you mean a more realistic attitude toward sex? Because I approve of that. We’re not witch-burning anymore like our esteemed Puritan forefathers. What specifically that we’ve changed do you object to?

“Too often, humanists want to throw off the moral base for moral duty and accountability by claiming we are nothing but machines…yet in the same breath declare themselves aware enough to be worthy of respect, honor and love.”

Whoa, Demian. I, for one, am not abdicating moral duty and accountability because I think we are “nothing more than machines”.

If I said something like this about Christianity, you would call it a straw-man and may just become indignant. I won’t, because I understand that we all come from different perspectives, and haven’t necessarily had a chance to understand those with differing opinions.

What I am asserting is that we are machine-like creatures with the capacity for love, respect, and honor and certain moral duties and obligations. The two claims are not contradictory.

I am asserting that we possess the capacity for love, respect, and honor because of our mental frameworks and how our societies have developed.

You need to avoid reductionism; it will not lead you to good places, especially if you are having trouble understanding your opponents’ claims. I tell you this as a helpful word of advice.

“What does Christianity have to offer in place of humanism? A 2,000 year old book founded on the timeless wisdom of an infinite, holy and unchanging God.”

What does Christianity have to offer? A 2,000 year old whose morality hinges upon the nature of a God in his being, which is defined arbitrarily. Christianity posits objective morals predicated upon the nature of a God which is defined arbitrarily. It can’t even get off the ground.

My position gives you a specific, comprehensive framework to carefully weigh complex and intricate moral questions in differing places and times. It’s messy, but it works – it adapts to the modern world and to changing environments, yet still offers the potential for consistency.

I offer my subjective, naturalistic morality as an alternative to Christianity.

Why stumble? Because you must stumble before you can crawl, you must crawl before you can walk, and you must walk before you can sprint.

For Christianity, you are promised wings, but they’re invisible and usually Christians just stumble like the rest of us do, using the same subjective reasoning process to decide moral questions that I am advocating – which is exactly why Christians of good faith have such strong disagreements on scripture.

We live in a messy world where you everyone has to stumble before they can walk. But if you’re promised wings, and you only end up walking like the rest of us, then you might as well realize that walking’s what’s going to get you where you’re going.

Tyro -

Objective has more then just one definition. He was using the meaning as more then just external (see meaning #4). Here is the definitions for you:

–adjective
4.being the object or goal of one’s efforts or actions.
5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective ).
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9.Grammar.
a.pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.
b.(in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
c.similar to such a case in meaning.
d.(in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.
10.being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.
11.Medicine/Medical. (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objective

Teleprompter -

You said:

What does Christianity have to offer?

Read this letter from a Pastor in Atlanta, Georgia written on April 16, 1963. I think he thought Christianity had a few good things to offer with what the bible had to say with respect to human dignity. And it drove him to the point where he had to act. You can’t disconnect his purpose and what he stood for from his faith. I am sure you are ready and able to discect every single word I just posted and are on ready alert to state some sort of case that he was wrong and that there is some sort of disconnect between what this Pastor stood for in his faith and how he choose to live and act of it. I wait with baited breath.

http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Letter_Birmingham.html

Nathan,

I have already read “A Letter from Birmingham Jail” multiple times. It is an inspiring document.

But Martin Luther King Jr. is not the only religious man inspired to act upon ideas of human dignity.

Perchance, have you heard of Gandhi? A man whose campaign of non-violent resistance was intimately bound up with Hindu and Jain traditions. Would you find it difficult to separate Gandhi’s religion from how he perceived human dignity?

It’ll be interesting to see how you separate Gandhi’s religion from his ideals of non-violent resistance, since he obviously had some different religious traditions than you may be accustomed to.

And of course the best part of this analogy is that Gandhi was one of the main inspirations of…you guessed it…

Martin Luther King Jr.

What’s my point?

I agree that religion can do many good and positive things in the world. But that does not extend to Christianity alone. Religious people of many diverse traditions have been inspired to act upon human dignity, like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., or Guru Nanak and the Buddha.

What I’m trying to say is that Christianity is *not* the be-all and end-all of human dignity or morality.

It is I who am awaiting your response with baited breath, Nathan.

What do Hinduism and Jainism and Confucianism and Buddhism have to offer?

I am sure you are going to dissect every single word of mine and show how these non-Christian religious activists were not moved by their non-Christian faith.

Or you could just concede that Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. and Buddha and Demian and you and me all exist on the same moral playing field.

If you take my position, you don’t need to dissect Martin Luther King Jr. from Christianity, but if you take your position, then you do need to dissect Gandhi from Jainism and Hinduism. Which will you choose?

Nathan,

Those are a lot of alternate definitions which is the problem. “Objective” has many connotations. For a start, it implies that two objective (unbiased) observers can arrive at the same moral conclusions which is demonstrably NOT the case with any morals. Nothing in the world would tell you that there is one single standard of morality. Even if we just looked at biblical morality, two unbiased readers could also come to very different conclusions!

There was a recent study which compared moral views of people of different religious and non-religious traditions in a range of countries. Turns out that morals were correlated with country, not with religion. This says that even Christians get their morals from their country and culture rather than from the bible. That’s why European Christians are more likely to support abortion than Americans who are more likely to support it than Africans. You can predict a person’s view on abortion better by asking their country rather than by asking their religion – this despite claims that the bible offers an objective, clear moral code. (It may be external, but it’s so vague that you can get just about anyting from it that you wish. That’s why racists and suffragists can both draw upon the bible to support their contradictory views.)

Demian isn’t looking for morals which can be derived or inferred through careful analysis of the world, but through arbitrarily selecting an external book and then selecting that as a moral base. But there’s no more reason for selecting that book than any other book. Even if you did somehow believe that it was divinely inspired, this still just defers the moral choices to a second party, God. And even if we accepted that God’s morals don’t change (right, like the OT and NT are entirely congruent), this doesn’t make them good, just or right. Either God’s morals are good according to an external standard in which case we should just follow that instead of God, or there are no standards for goodness in which case God’s morals are arbitrary (even if they’ve since been fixed) in which case they are no better or worse than basing our morals on A Clockwork Orange, Siddhartha, or Pinnochio. They’re all external and objective and unchanging.

Teleprompter,

This is the problem with the subjective view of morality as I have experienced it within lawschool. It is pliable and therefore should changes as society changes… these changes are dictated at the whim of the judge (or 5 out of 9 justices) according to his own view of what society’s morality is, or even what he/she thinks should be – often w/ poor consequences.

What I described above is a much different situation than using one’s subjective reasoning to decipher what objective morality requires.

Indeed, cases always involve compelling and conflicting interests. All the more reason to appeal to an objective standard – the hard work is applying that standard to the facts at hand with wisdom to achieve the moral result. Objective morality does not equal easy decisions. Wisdom is still required.

The reason we often screw up is because we are all indeed fallen and flawed. This does not make morality any less objective.

Teleprompter -

you said “I agree that religion can do many good and positive things in the world. But that does not extend to Christianity alone. ”

That isn’t what you said though. You said that Christianity has “nothing” to offer. I never said that Ghandi didn’t have anything to offer. I think that he did. I never said that Christianity was exclusive in morality. I guess you assumed I would say that? You were wrong. Where it is exclusive is in its claims to the solution of depravity.

Tyro -

you said:

“But there’s no more reason for selecting that book than any other book.”

Thats courious because you sound well read yourself. I bet it fair to say that you didn’t reach these conclusions you have about God, religon, morality, ect, ect, ect without the aid of a book or 2. So in essence, aren’t you choosing to select and follow that book over ours?

side note: man you and teleprompter type a lot. My goodness. You guys have more wind then my preacher on Sunday…

lol.

Nathan,

I do type quite a bit. But you and Demian do much to provoke my thinking, so there you go.

“That isn’t what you said though. You said that Christianity has “nothing” to offer. I never said that Ghandi didn’t have anything to offer. I think that he did. I never said that Christianity was exclusive in morality. I guess you assumed I would say that? You were wrong. Where it is exclusive is in its claims to the solution of depravity.”

Nathan, I think I may have conflated your posts with Demian’s.

What I am trying to say is that Christianity does not offer anything as an objective moral system. That is the context of my discussion with Demian; I did not mean to imply that Christianity offers nothing for anything, merely nothing that would help us identify objective moral standards of right and wrong. I hope that helps.

Also, you seemed to be saying that I could not extricate Martin Luther King Jr.’s good works from his religion. So I offered the example of Gandhi, to counter what I thought was the claim that Martin Luther King Jr.’s religious motivations were evidence of exclusive benefits of Christian morality, when other religions also provided motivation for good works.

So we agree that adopting Christianity is not necessary for morality. I apologize. Do we also agree that Christians and non-Christians are on the same moral playing field?

“Where it is exclusive is in its claims to the solution of depravity.”

Not true. Buddhism, you may find, does have claims to the solution of depravity. So do Hinduism and Jainism, to an extent. The question is just framed differently.

Also, you may want to go back to my previous posts where I explained the naturalistic account of “depravity”, as you would call it, in terms of the human aggressiveness derived from the struggle for survival.

I also like Tyro’s post in the “God’s Righteousness” thread where he explains evolutionary reasons for why the world seems “broken”.

Joshua,

“This is the problem with the subjective view of morality as I have experienced it within law school. It is pliable and therefore should changes as society changes… these changes are dictated at the whim of the judge (or 5 out of 9 justices) according to his own view of what society’s morality is, or even what he/she thinks should be – often w/ poor consequences.”

I think you have multiple problems here which you’ve identified. First, you seem to disagree that the law should change as society changes. Second, you seem to disagree with how judges make rulings on law.

Or maybe you could combine both objections and say that you disagree when judges change the interpretation of the law as society changes, when they should really be interpreting the law literally?

One could hold a subjective view of morality and a belief that law should only be interpreted literally. These two beliefs do not have to be contradictory. For example, I could believe that gay marriage should be legal, but that the laws should be changed by the people, and not by judges.

While a literal interpretation of the law seems to fit at least one definition of the word objective (as you have defined it), I don’t think a literal interpretation of the law fits Demian’s usage of the term objective as it refers to morality.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that Demian believes something is objective if it is ultimately right or wrong. If one is to interpret the law literally, one could say that it is being interpreted objectively (as in, without bias) but the intuition that the law should be interpreted literally is still a subjective reason. Do you see the difference?

“What I described above is a much different situation than using one’s subjective reasoning to decipher what objective morality requires.

Indeed, cases always involve compelling and conflicting interests. All the more reason to appeal to an objective standard – the hard work is applying that standard to the facts at hand with wisdom to achieve the moral result. Objective morality does not equal easy decisions. Wisdom is still required.

The reason we often screw up is because we are all indeed fallen and flawed. This does not make morality any less objective.”

So what does objective morality require? What do we need to establish that any act is “ultimately” right or wrong?

We may say that killing is objectively wrong — I believe that killing appears objectively wrong because there are reasons individuals and societies oppose murder which tend to transcend time and place.

But in certain circumstances, it may not be the case that killing is “wrong” – do you believe that war is always wrong or that it is always wrong to execute someone? Those would be instances in which the reasons to oppose killing do not transcend most times and places.

Yes, cases do involve compelling and conflicting interests. But how do you define an “objective” standard? How do you coherently define something to be “ultimately” or “universally” right or wrong?

We do agree on a lot, Joshua. I think we can agree that there are certain standards which should be applied as consistently as possible in our interpretation of the law, and in our interpretation of morality. Fairness, or equity, is one such standard I can identify.

I believe that the reason we screw up is not because we are “fallen and flawed” due to “sin”, but because we live in a messy world in the middle of a generally indifferent universe.

How do you define what is “objective”?

Teleprompter -

A very tactful reply. I appreciate that. Thanks for discussing things with me. I enjoy engaging you more and more as the discussions proceed.

You and Tyro, among others, have done much to advance my belief system in Jesus. You guys have helped keep me on my toes that is for certain. And I have seen fruit in that because my friends that are skeptics (more agnostic then atheist) don’t provide nearly the depth of knowledge needed to engage those on the other side of the fence of the God debate. As you strike my shield you sharpen my sword. I genuinely want to thank you guys for that (not bs).

A few things (I will and be very brief):

you said.

Do we also agree that Christians and non-Christians are on the same moral playing field?

Yes but I would say that because of Romans 3:23 and the arguments Paul presents in the previous 2 chapters proceeding it. However, I assume you reject these passages so I will leave well enough alone.

you also said:
Not true. Buddhism, you may find, does have claims to the solution of depravity. So do Hinduism and Jainism, to an extent. The question is just framed differently.

Not true. Christianity presents the solution differently in the God bore the punishment for sin himself, rather then us having to do something for him. This has far reaching effects and is a very diluted version of the Gospel of Christian theism. I assume you know that is a VERY basic way of stating this, but perhaps you don’t? I don’t know…

But if I can’t show you that we all have a universal problem, you probably won’t believe that the solution is exclusive. And the wheel will keep on spinning…

Tyro and Teleprompter: You guys keep me on my toes and deserve so much more than what I’m giving you here, but I just want you to know that I’m backlogged with life right now, but just wanted to pop in real quick and say thanks for holding my feet to the fire. I’m listening and the wheels are turning…nothing is going unnoticed.

My 2-cents here.

There is not much difference between humanism and naturalism if you really look at it (just where the flag is placed for the starting point). They both start from a finite, imperfect point and eventually reduce everything to Time + Chance. If this is the case, what really is the point of life?

With Time and Chance being the driving factor of the universe, that means that in reality, all is chaos and morals are, and more seriously, must be fluid and changing.

Chaos does not describe the universe we live in. There are chaotic parts, but on the whole, the universe is too well ordered for just Time + Chance.

For a great breakdown of this, I recommend checking out Francis Schaeffer’s works.

Nathan,

So in essence, aren’t you choosing to select and follow that book over ours?

No, I’m using evidence and reason to attempt to avoid mistakes and eventually spiral in on something approaching the truth. Books and interactions can inform me of experiments and observations and it is these which I’m using. I’m not taking anyone’s unchallenged word as an authority. I’m certainly not using any book to guide my morality!

Eric,

“There is not much difference between humanism and naturalism if you really look at it (just where the flag is placed for the starting point). They both start from a finite, imperfect point and eventually reduce everything to Time + Chance. If this is the case, what really is the point of life?”

Yes, I agree that there is not much difference between naturalism and humanism. However, I do try to keep my terms straight to avoid confusion. I also felt that the distinction helped avoid charges of specieism.

However, humanism is an ethical system, and naturalism (as we’re using the word) is essentially the belief that the cosmos is “all that is and ever will be”, like Carl Sagan once said. I may be confused, so I stand for correction.

I’d like to know what you mean by “finite, imperfect point”. Current cosmology seems to indicate that the Big Bang starting expanding and there we went after that…however, we do not yet know so much what happened “before” the Big Bang or even really if such a concept is plausible. So it seems that we don’t know enough to say definitively that it was finite…though there may be philosophical reasons to deduce that it should be.

Also, I’d like to know what you mean by “imperfect”. What does it mean, what would be the problem if the universe were imperfect, and do you think it is perfect, and if it isn’t, what would it look like if it was? I am just shooting in the dark and asking dumb questions because I really don’t understand where you’re going or what you mean by these terms.

What is the answer to life, the universe, and everything?

42.

No really, what is the point to life? We can decide that – we can imbue our lives with meaning. We have the consciousness, the empathy, the social interaction, the intelligence — we can create meaning for ourselves.

Are our lives futile because they will end eventually? No, I assert, that is not the case. Is elementary school sad because it ends? Is middle school sad because it ends? Is high school sad because it ends? Is university sad because it ends?

Things begin and end, things ebb and flow in this transient universe, and I don’t mind being along for the ride. The fact that things end imbues our acts with meaning. We should make the most out of our chances in the here and now. That, I believe, is the point to life.

“With Time and Chance being the driving factor of the universe, that means that in reality, all is chaos and morals are, and more seriously, must be fluid and changing.”

So morals must be fluid and changing…what’s wrong with that? Did we have morality ten billion years ago? Will we have morality ten billion years from now? Morality is dependent upon us, just like meaning.

Morals do change eventually over the long-term because everything changes. There was a time when we were not here, and there will probably also be another time when we are here no longer.

However, morals can stay fairly consistent even in changing environments. Some morals can appear objective because people infer some of the same reasons and desires consistently across time and place, which produces a universal effect and may create the perception of an objective moral standard.

For example, some moral principles may be relatively consistent across societies because of some shared human characteristics. But if certain elements of the mind were tweaked, then different moral principles could be consistent and those would possess the appearance of objectivity.

Again, I agree that morals are subjective and change, but I’m not freaking out about it. To me, it’s not a big deal. It’s a messy world, but it’s the one we inhabit.

“Chaos does not describe the universe we live in. There are chaotic parts, but on the whole, the universe is too well ordered for just Time + Chance.”

I have no idea if this is right or wrong; I tried to go to your link about Francis Schaeffer but I realized that I’d have to pay for the books.

However, I have no problem with your moral arguments re naturalism. I’d like you to clarify what you meant by “finite” and “imperfect” earlier in your post. Thanks for sharing.

Demian,

I appreciate what you are doing, and if I go overboard, let me know. I understand that you have personal commitments, and that those should be the most important things. However, I am committed to untangling these ideas, because I really agree that these are important questions about our world.

Nathan,

I also enjoy discussing things with you. I hope I was not too smug earlier.

Well, you’re right that I don’t put a lot of stock in Paul’s letters since I am not a Christian. However, I’m still not sure if you agree with me.

“Playing field”, I realize, is a bit ambiguous. What I’m trying to say is that Christians and non-Christians use the same subjective processes to analyze moral problems. If you do agree with that, let me know, but I don’t want to assume that you agree with me when I haven’t been explicitly clear on the subject of agreement.

On Christianity’s answer to suffering vs. other religions’ answers, my argument was that other religions have an answer to human suffering, and propose solutions for humanity’s negative mental state.

I assumed that when you said “Where it is exclusive is in its claims to the solution of depravity”, I thought you meant that other religions did not have a solution. But I stand corrected. Now I realize that you meant that Christianity has a different solution than other religions do.

You assert that only in Christianity did God bear the punishment for sin. Well, I’ll grant you that for now, since I can’t immediately think of any counter-examples.

However, I’m not sure it matters, since I am asserting that the Christian view of depravity is in and of itself wrong, which prevents me (for now) from discussing whether the solution presented is right, since I believe that the problem Christianity is trying to solve is not presented or understood correctly.

“But if I can’t show you that we all have a universal problem, you probably won’t believe that the solution is exclusive. And the wheel will keep on spinning…”

I agree that humanity has its problems, and I asserted that these problems stem from a mentality that is too violent and aggressive, and I posited our struggle for survival as the source of the problem, which is a different answer than Christianity may provide.

So we agree that there are problems; we just disagree on exactly what they are.

Eric,

There is not much difference between humanism and naturalism if you really look at it (just where the flag is placed for the starting point). They both start from a finite, imperfect point and eventually reduce everything to Time + Chance. If this is the case, what really is the point of life?

Interesting. I would say that neither naturalism nor humanism take a stance on evolution nor the origin of the universe. Certainly methodological naturalism is a feature of the scientific disciplines which led us to learn about the Big Bang and evolution, but MN was present before these theories. In essence, MN is a part of the process and the theories are the results. It’s backwards to say that MN relies on these theories.

Humanism is a moral and philosophical system and is totally distanced from origin theories.

As for “purpose”, there’s no grand purpose to life. I don’t say this to be depressing or nihilistic, I’m saying it as an observed fact: the pattern of life and matter that we see is not consistent with any purpose, design or intent. And even if someone did have a purpose in mind when He made us, doesn’t mean that we should adopt His purpose as our own.

No, ultimately Christians and atheists and all other people must pick a purpose for themselves. I think most people find meaning and purpose in their families, making the world a slightly better place and living in harmony with others. It’s not grand but it’s satisfying

Teleprompter & Nathan,

Regarding the naturalism & humanism distinction, I am an atheist and accept naturalism however I don’t consider myself a humanist. I often see “humanist” used as a euphemism for atheist but they’re distinct and I suspect the overlap may not be as big as its advertised to be.

(And yes, the speciesism is a part of my problem with humanism.)

Tyro,

Thanks for explaining the distinctions between the subsets of naturalism better than I could. I was trying to echo your sentiments about how our “purpose” in life is up to us, and not inherent to our existence.

You are much more technical than I am, which I appreciate.

I am ambivalent about humanism right now (in part due to things like specieism); but I am definitely a naturalist. I was also trying to make those distinctions, but you say it much more succinctly.

Teleprompter,

I was referring to the starting place of understanding the universe and/or morals.

I was using finite and imperfect in the classic Webster’s Dictionary sense. Humanism and Naturalism both start with finite and flawed starting point in order to define existence (mankind or the universe [neither of which is perfect]).

Having this reference point it is impossible to have objective morals, only subjective ones because in order for it to be objective, you must have an outside observer. If morals come from within a closed system, when that system shifts, the morals must shift as well. If the morals shift, they cannot be objective.

As a Christian I have the missing outside observer in God.

My question to Humanists and Naturalists is this: Do you consider murder to be wrong? If so, what is your basis for that? If you look in the natural world, you will see murder after murder in the animal kingdom, yet this is not labeled as wrong. Why is mankind considered differently in this aspect?

As to the Francis Schaeffer books, if you do not want to spend money, that is what the library is for. One can only learn if one is willing to look at more than one side of the debate. Being a Christian does not mean that I will only read from “authorized Christian resources”. That would be a Cult, not Christianity.

Eric,

My question to Humanists and Naturalists is this: Do you consider murder to be wrong? If so, what is your basis for that?

Humanists support human rights, a prominent one of which is the freedom to live your own life and not be killed by others. While humanists recognize that there are moral dilemmas and difficult situations, I shouldn’t think that it would be hard to defend murder. Why do you imagine this would be a problem?

If you look in the natural world, you will see murder after murder in the animal kingdom, yet this is not labeled as wrong. Why is mankind considered differently in this aspect?

There are many non-human societies which do treat murder as a problem. The key to understanding this is to pick comparable groups – look to other social animals, particularly ones which are groups of pair-bonded couples though even patriarchies have their own “moral codes”. It would also help if you remember to compare their behaviour to similarly-sized human populations such as tribal hunter-gatherers.

It certainly is true that not all animal groups follow the same moral codes which is why I’ve argued that there are no objective morals, in the sense that we cannot derive moral codes through objective observation. It’s the ought/is problem. We can objectively determine what ‘is’, but not what ought to be. For that, we each make individual decisions.

Incidentally, are you a vegetarian? Why or why not?

Tyro,

You are missing or avoiding my point. That is, why is murder wrong in a Humanist or Naturalist worldview? What gives you that foundation? What sets the line where “living your own life” ends and someone else’s “living their own life” begins?

I’ve argued that there are no objective morals, in the sense that we cannot derive moral codes through objective observation. It’s the ought/is problem. We can objectively determine what ‘is’, but not what ought to be. For that, we each make individual decisions.

This, to a point, is what I have been saying. That with a closed universe without any outside definition of good and evil (or good/bad, moral/amoral) the definition of good/evil becomes fluid (because that line will constantly move as opinion changes) and really has no meaning.

What do you think would happen in America if 51% of the population eventually were sociopaths? Again I state, when morals are based off of man or the world around him, the flawed starting point makes static, objective morals impossible and eventually would allow something like Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. to become acceptable if enough people’s opinion conforms to that worldview.

We have fluid morals right now when it comes to murder, (*ducking do to incoming moral indignation from some*) take the abortion debate.

As to being a vegetarian, no, unfortunately, my digestive system cannot handle many fruits and vegetables and I am forced to eat meat. I do not like that fact and I remind myself everytime I eat meat of that fact.

…But fruits and vegetables are living things, just as animals are. Should I just eat dirt instead? Or maybe I was created as an omnivore.

Eric,

What gives you that foundation?

Nothing really. If you think that making people suffer and die is a good thing, there’s nothing I can say which would change your mind. If I knew anyone like that, I wouldn’t try to engage them in conversation.

We must each decide upon a set of principles and values that we base our morals on and if these principles are different, how should we resolve them?

I would try to appeal to self-interest and empathy. If we lived in a world where murder was legal and not discouraged, civilization would collapse. If someone thought this too was a good thing then we’d have nothing in common.

Ultimately there’s no basis for any moral system. You could say that God wanted us to avoid murder, you could say that God wanted us to perpetuate murder of specific groups, you could say whatever you wanted but there’s no reason why I should defer to God’s wishes and there’s no objective reason why God’s morals should be accepted over anyone else’s. God’s morals are as unfounded and baseless as mine except I think it’s immoral to knowingly kill anyone, send plagues or stand by while family members are disembowelled. In my books that puts me up on God.

So yes, I could give you the set of principles for humanism (you can look them up yourself) but there’s no answer to why anyone should accept them. You either do or you don’t. I wish it were different but it isn’t.

That with a closed universe without any outside definition of good and evil

I don’t see how putting your moral guide outside the universe helps. More to the point, there’s still no objective means for determining what these external morals are. You’ve got a book, I’ve got a book, they’ve got books, we’ve all got books. Two Christians can both have the same book and both come to different conclusions. The bible isn’t a way to learn about morals, it’s a way of justifying the morals you’ve already decided upon.

Again I state, when morals are based off of man or the world around him, the flawed starting point makes static, objective morals impossible and eventually would allow something like Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. to become acceptable if enough people’s opinion conforms to that worldview.

Pol Pot and Stalin are real. Even though they were horrific, they were humans and they really lived. This says that whatever you might want morals to be, we must at least acknowledge what they are and this must span the range from Stalin to Gandhi.

This is my problem. You can say that there would be these problems if morals weren’t objective but we see these problems every day! That doesn’t prove that morals aren’t objective (despite what you may wish), but it should give you pause.

…But fruits and vegetables are living things, just as animals are. Should I just eat dirt instead? Or maybe I was created as an omnivore.

Is that a joke? It sounds pretty bad. Think for a sec. Eating meat means you’re responsible for 10-20 times the number of dead plants as vegetarians so if you really cared for the lives of plants you would still go vegetarian. (BTW: fruit and seeds are often meant to be eaten, that’s why the plants produce them.)

I ask because you talk about “murder” in the animal kingdom. It seems that you care so little for the lives of animals that some minor personal comfort and inconvenience is enough to take the life of another animal. I assume that you would treat a human better. So how is it that you act superior if a humanist and a non-human animal does what you do every week? Seems to me these animals you imply have no morals are actually acting as morally as you.

Not meant to be a personal insult, just to point out the problems of sneering at animals who kill to survive when humans kill for convenience, habit, comfort and pleasure.

I’ll try to make this a short statement:

If you think that making people suffer and die is a good thing, there’s nothing I can say which would change your mind. If I knew anyone like that, I wouldn’t try to engage them in conversation.

Because they might try to eat you. [Just kidding. I got a chuckle out of that.]

So what did we decide? Naturalism and humanism are not the same thing…where “naturalism” is a origin theory and “humanism” is a life philosophy?

No, Tyro, you said it’s methodological naturalism that’s the origin theory. Okay. Got it.

I tried to keep my terms straight through the article, and I think I got it right–at least close–that humanists TEND to be fed by naturalism, the origin theory.

In other words, not all naturalists are humanist but all humanists are naturalists.

Tyro: Great distinction, but I missed what’s the philosophy of “naturalism” as philosophical system?

Teleprompter, You said:

If you want one good reason why I post on this website, it’s paragraphs like this.

Cause it’s lobbed like a softball, right?

That you and I disagree on where we draw the line on morality of sex, marriage, life, etc. is the essence of the argument.

And that you think morals should be subjective concerns me, because where do we draw the line? Social expediency is a slippery slope.

Listen, our worldviews differ, so were going to come to two different conclusions.

If I were a atheist, yeah, evolving morals makes sense. I’m not, and have a rigid view that man pretty much is what he was from the beginning. Whenever that was.

But, yes, we need to escape bad conventions like “slavery.” [Slavery is not a moral, just a convention. Like wage labor.]

And yes, some “Christians” used the Bible to defend slavery, but that was because of a bad hermeneutic.

Same goes for witch hunting. Puritan habits like witch-burning, bad. Nuclear family made up of a man and woman, good.

That’s the standard upheld by the Bible…and one I think shouldn’t change. And your attitude that sexual morals should be realistic is exactly my point: Realistic to whom? Me? You? A pedophile?

Social expediency? What if we lived in a society of pedophiles?

You’re missing exactly what’s important about those chemicals: producing the emotions that help give us reasons and desires in the consideration of morality. You’re focusing on what we’re made of, not what we’re capable of.

I like that last line. And I think you’re right. It’s a blindspot.

But I’m not sure I understand your accusation of reductionism, especially when you yourself are guilty when you affirm we are nothing but chemicals who are capable of emotions. For what I mean, see Greedy reductionism.

I think we agree we can be moral people, and we all feel that there are universals like love “respect, honor and love.”

Generally, what we’re arguing about is the epistemology–the origin–of that moral.

And we won’t see eye to eye on that answer since our POVs are different. But hopefully we can learn from each other and grow as individuals, families and communities.

Thanks for the tough questions that don’t lend themselves to short answers. [*throwing the "short answer" out the window*]

Demian,

So what did we decide? Naturalism and humanism are not the same thing…where “naturalism” is a origin theory and “humanism” is a life philosophy?

No, Tyro, you said it’s methodological naturalism that’s the origin theory. Okay. Got it.

Still not quite there

Naturalism is not an origin theory, it isn’t any theory. Methodological Naturalism (MN) which is a current part of science and what I think you’re thinking of, is one component of the scientific method (this isn’t exactly right either but it’s a good start). It describes how we do science, it doesn’t describe any theories.

(Just to be confusing, there’s also Philosophical Naturalism which is a conclusion arising from the overwhelming success of MN, but to keep it simple, let’s ignore this for the moment, shall we?)

Since MN describes how we do science, it is a part of the Big Bang theory in the same way that it’s a part of germ theory and every other scientific theory. It is NOT an origin theory, absolutely not! People who follow MN may accept the Big Bang but that’s because scientists follow MN and scientists accept the Big Bang based on the overwhelming preponderance of the evidence. MN is not an origin theory!

You are right that humanism is a life philosophy, though.

I tried to keep my terms straight through the article, and I think I got it right–at least close–that humanists TEND to be fed by naturalism, the origin theory.

That’s a spurious correlation, probably because most humanists tend to be critical thinkers (indeed, critical thinking is a key part of humanism) and critical thinkers accept the Big Bang. However humanism has been around for over a thousand years, long before any modern origin theories arose.

The two may be correlated but there’s no causal connection between the two.

In other words, not all naturalists are humanist but all humanists are naturalists.

No, not all humanists are naturalists. They generally tend to be agnostics or atheists but aren’t always. There are theistic humanists just as there are secular humanists.

Tyro: Great distinction, but I missed what’s the philosophy of “naturalism” as philosophical system?

Ugh, wished you hadn’t asked that question!

So to refresh, methodological naturalism just says that our methodology for investigating claims do not include supernatural explanations. Philosophical Naturalism (PN) is the philosophical belief that there are no supernatural entities or events.

To draw it out, Christians who are also scientists like Ken Miller will use MN in their day-to-day work yet will reject PN because they do believe in miracles. Make sense?

Stepping back, PN isn’t a philosophical system, doesn’t offer guidance in life, doesn’t help moral dilemmas, doesn’t take a stance on anything other than this one, narrow question. Humanism is an attempt to codify an entire system of morality and so is sweeping.

Does that help?

If I were a atheist, yeah, evolving morals makes sense. I’m not, and have a rigid view that man pretty much is what he was from the beginning.

Well, I think that man is pretty much unchanged biologically, at least for hundreds of thousands of years however the moral systems used by different groups vary wildly. That’s why I say our morals do evolve. This isn’t philosophy and I’m not making a value judgement, it’s a factual statement. So when you come and say you disagree but offer only philosophy I get very confused. Are you ignorant of the evidence? Do you understand but reject it for some reason? Do you accept the evidence but say it should be something different?

I don’t get what you’re trying to say here.

As people have said, you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. It sounds like you’re trying to build your own facts.

Same goes for witch hunting. Puritan habits like witch-burning, bad. Nuclear family made up of a man and woman, good.

Yeah, like nuclear families used to be of mixed genders but a single race. Was that a “bad hermeneutic”? I’ve no doubt that in 30 years, Christians will say that laws banning same-sex marriages were immoral and based on a “bad hermeneutic”. It’s curious how these hermeneuics evolve to match the societies beliefs.

If you were defending death for working on the Sabbath I would believe you when you said you followed the bible but this just sounds like ad hoc rationalization.

Social expediency? What if we lived in a society of pedophiles?

We already live in a society of science-denying, homophobic, closet-racists. What do we do? Fight them, try to enlighten them. What don’t we do? We don’t deny reality or pretend it doesn’t exist. Just because we don’t share their morals, doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t try to convince them to change!

Thanks for the distinction. Now let me go scoop up my brain with a cup now…

Just kidding. I really do appreciate the clarity. Like Tele said earlier, you’re very good with the technical stuff. And I tend to be a slow thinker, so thank you for spelling it out for me.

Not sure what you mean that I’m building my own facts….

And I agree we do live in a society of science-denying, homophobic, closet-racists…as well as abortionists, liberals and pathological hedonists or [fill in the blank]…I’m not trying to deny reality…just trying to convince you to change. Obviously not doing a very good job of it.

(Commenting so I can check the “notify me of follow-up comments” box in case the debate continues. This is a great one)

as well as abortionists, liberals and pathological hedonists or [fill in the blank]…I’m not trying to deny reality…just trying to convince you to change. Obviously not doing a very good job of it.

Great example, thank you!

What do we do about it? What can we do about it? We can debate, argue, implore, lobby, legislate, debate or even fight. More than one war has been launched over these sorts of differences, it really depends on how strongly you feel.

Hey, I’m not saying I like this. I wish that a powerful benevolent God all gave us the same morals, I wish that we could determine a moral code through careful observation, I wish that moral debates could be settled as quickly and painlessly as any scientific debate. The evidence tells me that this isn’t the case and I must follow that.

So if we agree on the facts, what is it that you’re trying to get me to change? Give me some evidence to believe there is a God, that there are some objective morals or heck, that mere belief in a god leads to a better society. Give me a reason to think that morals don’t evolve, that fixing them in place makes the world a better place.

While the US is generally a decade or two behind the rest of the western world in terms of morals, you’re vastly ahead of places like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. You want to see a place that is trying to impose unchanging, religious morality on a country, look no further. Tell me again why this is a good thing.

(And if you try, will you be appealing to the bible, practicality, or your subjective aesthetic sense of what is “just” and “good”?)

Eric,

You complain that not having objective morals is flawed…why is it flawed? What is your alternative? And how do you define objective morality? Could you name any objective moral standards? Thanks.

Demian,

Your paragraph definitely wasn’t a softball – it just seemed painfully unfamiliar with my beliefs. That’s one powerful reason I was motivated to respond.

Where do we draw the lines on moral questions? Good question about the questions, haha.

I believe that there are certain principles which should guide us. For example, on marriage, I believe that any consenting adults should be able to marry. This is a result of my beliefs in protecting children, those who cannot consent, and that individual freedom should be protected as much as possible.

It’s a slippery slope, but it’s not as slippery as you may believe.

I like Tyro’s point in his response to you that many years from now, people will probably defend the Bible and Christianity by saying that Christians opposed gay equality because of a bad hermeneutic.

How do you know that you are using a better hermeneutic than those who favored slavery? How do you know that those who favor gay equality aren’t using a better hermeneutic?

“That’s the standard upheld by the Bible…and one I think shouldn’t change. And your attitude that sexual morals should be realistic is exactly my point: Realistic to whom? Me? You? A pedophile?

Social expediency? What if we lived in a society of pedophiles?”

There you go again. Comparing non-nuclear families to pedophilia is exactly why I comment on this blog.

Listen, pedophiles violate our principle of consent. Homosexuals don’t – and they aren’t pedophiles. There is a clear difference between a relationship between consenting adults and a relationship between an adult and a non-consenting child – I would define the latter as abuse, if consent cannot be present, which is true in the case of the underage.

That sex should only be protected between those who can consent to it? Common sense – the Golden Rule is in effect on that one.

That homosexuality will lead to pedophilia? Ridiculous.

“But I’m not sure I understand your accusation of reductionism, especially when you yourself are guilty when you affirm we are nothing but chemicals who are capable of emotions. For what I mean, see Greedy reductionism.”

Demian, I affirmed that idea only for the sake of argument – I claimed that *even if we are only chemicals, we would still be chemicals who are capable of emotions*. It was meant as a concession for the sake of the discussion, not as a statement of absolute fact.

I do believe that we are more than the individual components of our physical bodies – we are emergent systems, becoming more than the sum of our parts. However, you leveled the accusation that if naturalism is true, then our emotions are “just the firing of chemicals”. That’s reductionism. However, I’m not going to press the objection, because I hope you have realized by now that this is not the case.

“I think we agree we can be moral people, and we all feel that there are universals like love “respect, honor and love.”

Generally, what we’re arguing about is the epistemology–the origin–of that moral.

And we won’t see eye to eye on that answer since our POVs are different. But hopefully we can learn from each other and grow as individuals, families and communities.”

Yes, we agree about the existence of respect, honor, and love. But when it comes to “universals”, I believe that we are talking past each other because we have different definitions. By “universal”, I mean something that is common to nearly all human societies – I am sure that you mean something much different, which may reference God.

We are arguing about the origins of morality, and hopefully we can learn from each other.

Demian,

I hope you’ll forgive me for not addressing humanism per se in favor of the larger matter of objectivity/subjectivity and change since your argument isn’t unique to humanism. I’m curious if you’ve considered, instead of looking at an individual moment, subjective and imperfect as it is, looking between the moments, at the inexorable mutability of a subjective, imperfect world; i.e. the constant in each moment, what connects it to the previous and the next, is its transience. Seems to me that’s something objective and eternal, too. If life gives you the time, I’d like to hear your thoughts on this.

Tyro,

“I wish that moral debates could be settled as quickly and painlessly as any scientific debate.”

Quick? Painless? Point of contention: Science is debate; it doesn’t end, and history shows it’s rarely painless. A niggling comment, I know, but it’s rather important to me.

Quick? Painless? Point of contention: Science is debate; it doesn’t end, and history shows it’s rarely painless.

I understand. I didn’t say it was quick or painless, only that moral (and religious) arguments are many orders of magnitude worse. Instead of hurt careers or hurt egos, they create actual pain: imprisonment, torture, and war. Scientific debates may seem to take forever for those involved but even long-running debates rarely last more than a generation. Religious and moral debates can take centuries and kill millions.

I disagree on some points, but they’re not important enough to mention here.

[...] is exclusive.  It is the opposite of religion.  If you don’t believe me, take a look at this quote (comment 18 paragrah 26) from my atheist friend Teleprompter, who I frequently dialogue with [...]