You'll get the title in a second...
Check out Karen Armstrong's piece in the Guardian, "Bush's fondness for fundamentalism is courting disaster at home and abroad". It may contain a spurious quote.
I also wanted to share a resource that clears up the misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang in layman's terms and with adequate detail, via Angry Astronomer.
Finally, check out these two hilarious Youtube movies to start out your week:
1) Daily Show Report (in the "Constitution Schmonstitution" series): The Faith Based Faith of Stephen With a 'ph'
2) Kids in the Hall present: The Dr. Seuss Bible
________________
Technorati tags: Humor
Monday, July 31
Friday, July 28
Oderint dum Metuant
I don't typically do politics. However, after reading Steve Hays' post expressing his wish that Israel had bombed the UN HQ rather than the outpost, quote,
I think some of the major questions to ask are:
1) Does the UN actually bring about peace, and/or serve any other grand purposes?
2) Does violence beget violence?
Regarding (1), I would point to the futility of the UN troops in Somalia and Kosovo in actually getting some of the things done that needed to be done. However, I would also point out that it is not the sole responsibility of the US (although we provide a hell of a disproportionate amount of UN resources) to maintain global peace and monitor/decide global political issues. And due to this fact, if we (US) can't do it alone, then by default, it will fall to a global coalition to do so. I do not know the statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that UN troops get attacked much less, on average, than a unilateral military force occupying a foreign country.
Regarding (2), I made a comment about the movie Munich, and how it awakened me to the futility of retribution as a means to peace:
1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.
While it is certainly true that "enemies" don't give us such a luxury, it is also true that our response to said enemies is certainly a range of options. The problem with responding to suicide bombers and other such terrorists is that they are a relatively small faction, living amongst a civilian population, whose ideology is furthered when we kill them (and produce so-called martyrs).
2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.
The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?
The huge difference here is that police respond with tactical precision -- they kill the criminals. If there were some way to ensure the same for the jihadis, my point would be rather moot, and we could, theoretically, wipe them out over and over again.
This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.
But as we occupy foreign lands, and as Israel bombs civilians (Qana), the thread only increases. No risk is being "managed" here, fuel is only being added to the fires.
3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.
If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.
Japan was a clear enemy, coalesced around a national identity. Terrorists are not, and coalesce around religious ideologies which cannot be altered. So long as the religious message exists, these terrorists will follow it. We simply cannot apply such force to terrorists, because in so doing, we invariably destroy a large number of civilians, and we turn every moderate family member of a "martyr" into willing holy war combatants in so doing. For every one we kill, we make 4 more.
4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.
I didn't say that. What I said is that this violence is circular and unending, not that the current or present supply of willing participants in said violence is unending.
It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.
And that's the idea here--that if we make them fear, they'll not attack? No. They do not fear DEATH. How can you make someone who does not fear death fear your "overwhelming force"?
Steve then closes out the post with a rejoinder to my mention of Munich, and specifically how it made me seriously consider whether the vicious cycle of violence can ever be ended in itself (via more violence). He mentions this article on Townhall, where our writer remarks:
The reason that Osama is still alive is that our very own CIA taught him survivalist training in Afghanistan, when the occupying force of the time were the Soviets. The reason that we are occupying Iraq is because we were stupid enough to arm Saddam years ago against the Iranians, and provide him with the ways and means to produce chemical and biological weapons. We sow our own harvest, when we leave seeds of violence in foreign fields, and we then reap the whirlwind of our foreign policies.
I support the right to exist of both Israel and Palestine. I also strongly oppose the policies of both. So long as each side undermines the possibility of peace by responding to violence with violence, the cycle of poverty and martyrdom will continue there.
If their hate will not dissipate even when we all sit down to talk about our basic rights to life, and our mutual commitment to ensure basic human rights and needs are protected, then perhaps at least the hate the breeds violence will. One thing is for certain -- tyranny and fear never produced a cowering populace for long: the USA, the French Revolution, and numerous civil wars are historical testimony to that fact. And the fear breeds a certain desperation which naturally dispenses violence out of survival instinct. If fear were just an emotion in a vacuum, then we would prefer it over hate. But when hate and fear combine into desperation, then violence is inevitable, and it will never end until neither side fears for their own life.
Steve's motto appears to be, "oderint dum metuant": let them hate so long as they fear (originally from Caligula). Unfortunately, fear only fuels desperate violence.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
It's a pity that Israel accidentally bombed the UN bunker yesterday...a pity Israel didn't bomb the UN headquarters instead!I had some further thoughts, particularly in light of Steve's response to my comments on the original piece above.
I think some of the major questions to ask are:
1) Does the UN actually bring about peace, and/or serve any other grand purposes?
2) Does violence beget violence?
Regarding (1), I would point to the futility of the UN troops in Somalia and Kosovo in actually getting some of the things done that needed to be done. However, I would also point out that it is not the sole responsibility of the US (although we provide a hell of a disproportionate amount of UN resources) to maintain global peace and monitor/decide global political issues. And due to this fact, if we (US) can't do it alone, then by default, it will fall to a global coalition to do so. I do not know the statistics on this, but I would be willing to wager that UN troops get attacked much less, on average, than a unilateral military force occupying a foreign country.
Regarding (2), I made a comment about the movie Munich, and how it awakened me to the futility of retribution as a means to peace:
I'm not a leftie in the sense that you mean it, but I suppose I see this cycle of violence as cruel in its unending circularity. Watching Munich was a beautiful narrative for convincing me of that.Steve responded with the following points (italicized) and my responses are appended:
How many people think this doesn't just motivate the crazies further, and encourage their efforts to acquire serious weapons, as well as make those with access to such weapons more likely to sympathize with them and give them over?
1.We don’t have the luxury of choosing our battles. Our enemies don’t give us a range of preferred options.
While it is certainly true that "enemies" don't give us such a luxury, it is also true that our response to said enemies is certainly a range of options. The problem with responding to suicide bombers and other such terrorists is that they are a relatively small faction, living amongst a civilian population, whose ideology is furthered when we kill them (and produce so-called martyrs).
2.No, we can’t kill every jihadi on the planet. But that’s not the point.
The police can’t apprehend every criminal or preempt every crime. Should we therefore disband the police force?
The huge difference here is that police respond with tactical precision -- they kill the criminals. If there were some way to ensure the same for the jihadis, my point would be rather moot, and we could, theoretically, wipe them out over and over again.
This was never about winning once and for all. It’s about risk management. Cutting your enemies down to size. Keeping the threat-level on a scale that permits some semblance of normality.
But as we occupy foreign lands, and as Israel bombs civilians (Qana), the thread only increases. No risk is being "managed" here, fuel is only being added to the fires.
3.As I said in my piece on just-war criteria, the way to end the cycle of violence is through the application of overwhelming force rather than proportional force.
If we had used proportional force in Japan, Japan would still be a warrior culture.
Japan was a clear enemy, coalesced around a national identity. Terrorists are not, and coalesce around religious ideologies which cannot be altered. So long as the religious message exists, these terrorists will follow it. We simply cannot apply such force to terrorists, because in so doing, we invariably destroy a large number of civilians, and we turn every moderate family member of a "martyr" into willing holy war combatants in so doing. For every one we kill, we make 4 more.
4. Not all Muslims nurse a death-wish. They may support the suicide-bomber, throw him a stag party before he leaves to do his homicidal thing, but they don’t strap themselves into the explosive vest.
I didn't say that. What I said is that this violence is circular and unending, not that the current or present supply of willing participants in said violence is unending.
It’s better to make your enemies love you than fear you—but if you can’t make them love you, then I’ll settle for fear.
And that's the idea here--that if we make them fear, they'll not attack? No. They do not fear DEATH. How can you make someone who does not fear death fear your "overwhelming force"?
Steve then closes out the post with a rejoinder to my mention of Munich, and specifically how it made me seriously consider whether the vicious cycle of violence can ever be ended in itself (via more violence). He mentions this article on Townhall, where our writer remarks:
Though the film attempts to portray the Israeli response as morally useless -- with "cycle of violence" and "it accomplishes nothing since they just substitute a new terrorist for the one last killed" arguments -- the film is nevertheless a tremendous compliment to the Israelis.The writer here does not address the root argument -- whether or not violence begets violence. He simply justifies Israel's response, and uses the conscience of the Israeli fighters as evidence that they are "better people" than the Muslim terrorists. I would ask Steve how this addresses the real root issue?
The reason that Osama is still alive is that our very own CIA taught him survivalist training in Afghanistan, when the occupying force of the time were the Soviets. The reason that we are occupying Iraq is because we were stupid enough to arm Saddam years ago against the Iranians, and provide him with the ways and means to produce chemical and biological weapons. We sow our own harvest, when we leave seeds of violence in foreign fields, and we then reap the whirlwind of our foreign policies.
I support the right to exist of both Israel and Palestine. I also strongly oppose the policies of both. So long as each side undermines the possibility of peace by responding to violence with violence, the cycle of poverty and martyrdom will continue there.
If their hate will not dissipate even when we all sit down to talk about our basic rights to life, and our mutual commitment to ensure basic human rights and needs are protected, then perhaps at least the hate the breeds violence will. One thing is for certain -- tyranny and fear never produced a cowering populace for long: the USA, the French Revolution, and numerous civil wars are historical testimony to that fact. And the fear breeds a certain desperation which naturally dispenses violence out of survival instinct. If fear were just an emotion in a vacuum, then we would prefer it over hate. But when hate and fear combine into desperation, then violence is inevitable, and it will never end until neither side fears for their own life.
Steve's motto appears to be, "oderint dum metuant": let them hate so long as they fear (originally from Caligula). Unfortunately, fear only fuels desperate violence.
________________
Technorati tags: Politics
The Myth of the Hero
In talking about the existential dilemma the other day, I found myself willing to go read The Myth of Sisyphus, by Camus, when it was suggested by a friend that I see what I can take away from it.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
When the images of earth cling too tightly to memory, when the call of happiness becomes too insistent, it happens that melancholy rises in man's heart: this is the rock's victory, this is the rock itself. The boundless grief is too heavy to bear. These are our nights of Gethsemane. But crushing truths perish from being acknowledged. Thus, Oedipus at the outset obeys fate without knowing it. But from the moment he knows, his tragedy begins.Do we, at the moment of admitting that deterministic physical laws control our universe, willingly embrace tragedy? That is one of the crux issues of the modern existential dilemma.
Yet at the same time, blind and desperate, he realizes that the only bond linking him to the world is the cool hand of a girl. Then a tremendous remark rings out: "Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well." Sophocles' Oedipus, like Dostoevsky's Kirilov, thus gives the recipe for the absurd victory. Ancient wisdom confirms modern heroism.Let us say that our consciousness is but a subjective experience of physical realities over which we have no real control. But let us say that we do have some capacity to turn our conscious minds towards values, purposes, and goals. Can we be virtuous? Is that enough? The nobility of Oedipus' soul was enough for him. And that is my view of the heroic -- one who encumbers the burden of virtue for virtue's sake alone: to say, "this is my life, and I can use it to cultivate goodness or evil in myself and others, and with all the absurdity and futility of life, I will still cultivate goodness." Not just "despite" the absurdity of the world, but because of it.
There is but one world, however. Happiness and the absurd are two sons of the same earth. They are inseparable. It would be a mistake to say that happiness necessarily springs from the absurd discovery. It happens as well that the feeling of the absurd springs from happiness. "I conclude that all is well," says Oedipus, and that remark is sacred.Some might argue that happiness is a mental state to which some peoples' chemistry will not allow access. I don't deny this possibility. For those of us who can access this state of mind (and being), though, ought we not? Is it not all that we can do? What if the other finds his rock too heavy to roll? What can I do for him? Nothing, save rolling my own.
It echoes in the wild and limited universe of man. It teaches that all is not, has not been, exhausted. It drives out of this world a god who had come into it with dissatisfaction and a preference for futile sufferings. It makes of fate a human matter, which must be settled among men.And this is what renders the human a potential hero -- in the way that she may settle with her own fate, in how she deals with it.
All Sisyphus' silent joy is contained therein. His fate belongs to him. His rock is his thing. Likewise, the absurd man, when he contemplates his torment, silences all the idols.Sisyphus chooses to see the same beauty and scope of being in his newfound purpose -- in rolling the rock for eternity, that he found when he was allowed to return from the underworld and experience life again. I am reminded of how the beauty of the universe I saw as a theist at first was crushed when I no longer believed. Now that beauty is returned to me, because it is contained within me. That beauty is no longer some inaccessible external Entity from which it cannot be extricated or internalized. That beauty is now the self, the human, and the potential hero (and the potential madman).
In the universe suddenly restored to silence, the myriad wondering little voices of the earth rise up. Unconscious, secret calls, invitations from all the faces, they are the necessary reverse and price of victory. there is no sun without shadow, and it is essential to know the night. The absurd man says yes and his effort will henceforth be unceasing. If there is a personal fate, there is no higher destiny, or at least there is but one which he concludes is inevitable and despicable.What I did as a theist was define "the highest destiny" to be that which had been given to me by God. What I did not do is recognize that no gift is greater than something earned and learned. It is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, to say that I can exist happily and freely, and yet have been put inside of an inescapable and unyielding cosmic plan, in which I was yet a cog, and towards which we traversed I knew not. The highest absurdity.
For the rest, he knows himself to be the master of his days. At that subtle moment when man glances backward over his life, Sisyphus returning toward his rock, in that silent pivoting he contemplates that series of unrelated actions which becomes his fate, created by him, combined under his memory's eye and soon sealed by his death. Thus, convinced of the wholly human origin of all that is human, a blind man eager to see who knows that the night has no end, he is still on the go. The rock is still rolling.I hope I never lose the eagerness to see, and I hope that the night has an end. I hope I have the courage to continue with that eagerness even should daybreak never give me the merest glimpse. Should the universe in which I live be blind and careless until I die, it is still within my power to see, and to live. I do not have to close my eyes and lay down before my rock has been rolled as far as I can take it.
I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one's burden again.My own burden at the moment is in maintaining rationalism -- a commitment to reason, and optimism -- a commitment not to only see things as better, but to be better and in so doing, this purpose makes "all well".
But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.The stone is something. It is not nothing. Rolling the stone is doing something. Finding purpose in the struggle. Something that is not only not added to when we add "plus God" to the equation, but is in fact completely negated of all purpose.
The theists have argued with me that a finite purpose, or a temporal life, is the same thing as nothing. But what they do is equivocate something with nothing. They are confused.
If this life is but a mere shadow, and the rest of eternity a bright light, then finding purpose in this present darkness is futile and absurd. Christians (and other theists) admit as much -- they call themselves "pilgrims" and "aliens" in the world in which they live, and call their "home" and their "citizenship" heaven. What they do is ignore the rock at their feet, and the power they have to move it upward, and stare towards the top of the summit. But the summit is obscured with clouds -- the zenith cannot be seen from the foot of the mountain. It is in the struggle that one can see further, though perhaps never to the top, because it is not a given that the mountain upon which we labor has a finite end.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Sisyphus
Thursday, July 27
Robert O'Brien and TMI
Brennin, aka Robert C. O'Brien, has now joined my hit list. As such, I decided to repost a forum topic he started and his hilarious admission:
I feel sorry for the guy, given the obvious fact that he is still smitten with the chick. I suppose I don't quite understand the concept that "she was the one" when she broke up with him shortly thereafter...?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Discovery Institute, Eby, Nerd
I have been intimate only with my former gf and even though it was a long, sexually frustrating wait (I am well into my twenties) I am glad that my first time was with someone I loved (and still love) because it was incredible and after experiencing that sort of intimacy and bonding I can't imagine settling for someone I did not love just to fulfill a physical urge. I was not her first but I am glad she was experienced because it helped that she knew what she was doing.
When I was younger I planned on waiting until I was married to have sex but I do not regret losing my virginity to my ex-gf because she was the one. And even though she subsequently broke up with me she will always be a part of me and I believe I will always be a part of her.
I feel sorry for the guy, given the obvious fact that he is still smitten with the chick. I suppose I don't quite understand the concept that "she was the one" when she broke up with him shortly thereafter...?
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Creationism, Discovery Institute, Eby, Nerd
Boils My Blood
If you ever want to see me transform, Bruce-Banner-style, from mild-mannered chemist to raging, boiling-blood, violent animal, this is one way to do it. In Poland, throwing an adult St. Bernard out of your 2nd-story apartment will not only land you in jail for 3 years, but you will also receive a first-class face pounding, courtesy moi, if I happen to be around and witness it (after I catch the furry angel and ensure its safety). Apparently its owners are drunks and worthless, as if you can't tell that just from the story.
Why can't all people treat these animals as they ought to be treated...as spoiled children...or not own them at all?
These f&*kwit meat sacks don't deserve the air that their Saint breathes, or the food it eats. I am sure they've been beating it for a while now, and hopefully it'll land in a good home after this.
________________
Technorati tags: Saint Bernard, Animal Cruelty
Why can't all people treat these animals as they ought to be treated...as spoiled children...or not own them at all?
These f&*kwit meat sacks don't deserve the air that their Saint breathes, or the food it eats. I am sure they've been beating it for a while now, and hopefully it'll land in a good home after this.
________________
Technorati tags: Saint Bernard, Animal Cruelty
R.E.M. Knew It
It's the end of the world as we know it...and R.E.M. knew it long ago.
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Lots of bloggers have been commenting on CNN's choice to interview rapture nuts and eschatological enthusiasts in light of the events in Israel as of late. Media Matters and PZ, along with assorted small fish, have lambasted the network for giving airwaves to the whackos.
What I find more telling than the decision of CNN to air these sorts of sensational and infotaining clips is the way that Paula Zahn's coverage was so biased. Note that her interview with the one reasonable Christian (eg the one who isn't kooky and uneducated enough to buy into the Jerry Jenkins BS), the Rev. Kevin Bean, of St. Bartholomew's, was short and sandwiched between multiple interviews with the wingnut "value voters" currently steamrolling reason and science as they ecstatically plunge into (what they believe is) the end of days.
This makes no sense -- Catholics comprise, worldwide, over half of all Christians. They do not buy into the polyester leisure suit-theology of Tim LaHaye, and most of them are intelligent (and honest) enough to know and admit that the Revelation dealt with the events of Rome. Why do they not show the great disparity between this much more reasoned and evidenced view of the Revelation of John against the kooks? It doesn't sell as well, of course. But it also smacks a little of the bias in America towards Protestant (and general "common man") theology.
Rev. Bean's interview begins at around 3:40 in, and he only gets a few sentences in, and then gets sandwiched against some lady and her idea that the signs are all pointing to the end of the world. Now, compare his coverage to the full 5:11, in which 90% is devoted to the Rapture/End of Days ideas.
Rev. Bean:
There's a fiction being created here, like a Stephen King horror movie...we don't read it [the Revelation] the way that a lot of people do, which is to make that false correlation with present day events. That is a crock. [emphasis mine]
I couldn't have said it better myself, and I second the feeling of R.E.M.'s last line, in considering this crock of horse manure:
It's the end of the world as we know it.________________
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine...fine...
(It's time I had some time alone)
Technorati tags: Eschatology, Rapture
Faking Moral Philosophy
I am grateful to Steve Hays for making me carefully think about my ethical framework. We have had a positive and (at least for me) enlightening discussion about the age-old question, "if not God, why/how be moral?" Not being a moral philosopher (or any sort of one), I have been faking my way through (wink-wink). It has occupied the following threads (newest first):
1) Christian Altruism
2) Who Goes Down with the Ship?
3) Regarding Steve's Post to Danny on the Value of Values
4) The Value of Values
(there are some other threads regarding epistemology, but I'll write on those later)
I have tried to argue along utilitarian lines, specifically survival consequentialism, using as referents both social contracts and egoism, to justify my values and explain how my behavior is not irrational. Steve has referred a lot to "evolutionary ethics", but I fail to see how the method by which human beings are generated immediately necessitates a certain ethos. Read below, or on this thread, for the current discussion.
I have numbered the points to facilitate commentary. Steve's words are italicized.
1) Your argument was predicated on noble values/virtues. What you did was to posit noble values/virtues as second-order values, then argue since these second-order values could not exist absent the first-order value of survival, that the second-order values validated the first-order value.
But one problem with this line of argument is that you failed to validate the operating premise: are there second-order values?
I did misunderstand what you were asking before.
Do we agree that as humans we have many basic needs and desires? This seems self-evident. I would argue that because we cannot fulfill all of our needs and desires simultaneously, or equally, that we must arrange our needs and desires into priorities, or order them, according to our values. It seems an unavoidable part of being human to have "first-order, second-order, etc., etc.," values.
In the same way that the Christian says that her own first-order value is serving God, and then in serving the needs of the state (eg a conscientious objector), I am simply saying that if you want to flip virtue/character/goodness around from being a first principle to being an extension of survival (which seems quite unassailable in its logic, when one lives within a society), thus survival becomes an inextricable part of virtue/character/goodness -- you do what is good in order to survive. You don't rape, pillage, and steal because you recognize that you are less likely to be successful, and to pass on your genes, if you live in such a chaotic society, or if you are ostracized from it, or punished within it.
I'm not very articulate here, but I hope this makes sense of my position.
2) What is your secular argument for the existence of these higher virtues?
Are you asking me how I define them? In the same way Marcus Aurelius did, and many others before and after him.
Are you asking me why they exist? They exist as a part of the spectrum of human behavior. Humans can act in many ways, and acting virtuously is one way humans are capable of acting.
Are you asking me why I should act virtuously?
Because we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation -- we all must work together in a societal structure, or we may as well have a "free-for-all" morally and otherwise. Assuming we will work together (which history has shown works 95% of the time), then exercising virtuous character contributes to the stability of society, and society, just like virtues, becomes a means to an end -- success in health, wealth, and reproduction.
3) SH: Okay, but to play along with your parallel, a Christian apologist would need to establish the value of Sabbath-keeping for the end to justify the means.
If we do not care to survive, then ethics are futile. Why do we care what is "good" for us, if we don't care if we live or die? If we don't use our own life, and if we don't value our own life, and the lives of others, in determining what we ought to do generally, then I would argue that ethics are absurd. We have to start with some primary value around which we frame our ethics. Yours is "what [you think] God said/does/wants".
4) No, the survival of the present generation doesn’t depend on the existence of a future generation. But the survival of the species does depend on reproduction.
Yes, but consider that overpopulation leads to starvation. Consider that there are "premium times" to harvest, and the same applies to having babies -- certain environmental and societal conditions that are more conducive to raising children, and thus we are considering our survival as a species in choosing when and how to have children -- so that they will be most healthy and likely to survive.
5) Yet the force of that argument assumes an obligation to reproduce in order to have agents that exemplify these second-order values.
It is indeed necessary to reproduce, but not necessary to reproduce at all times, since giving birth does not always guarantee the collective survival of the species, and at times may endanger it (overpopulation). Thus, we can choose when and how, in order that the second generation is able to exemplify those values as well (maximally so).
6) But in what sense do we have an obligation to nonentities? Given the existence of moral agents, said moral agents enjoy mutual obligations, including the exemplification of second-order values.
Right.
7) But absent their existence, nonexistent agents have no obligations, and we, as existing agents, have no obligation to nonexistent agents.
One of our obligations is to ensure the survival of our collective species, another to the survival of our society (which is a means to the first), and that the virtues and values we hold dear don't die with us (which we hold, again, virtue to be a means to survival, and survival as our primary value).
8) Your second-order values are not free-floating obligations which compel the existence of property-bearers. Rather, they only kick in given the existence of a suitable property-bearer.
I don't disagree. I am not sure what the real issue here is, to be honest, Steve. Of course it is somewhat tautological, but not all tautologies are invalid. Consider "it is good that humans survive, and ethical behavior is a means to further that survival" and "goodness is itself defined by virtues, when we discover, through learning, what the virtues are, and we extol them, we ought to do what is good; then survival is necessary to extol the virtues and practice them, and pass them on to the next generation".
It is absurd to assume that either survival or virtues or society (the two latter as means to the former) are not already forgone conclusions. We exist. Our species exists. Our species is capable of both virtuous and unvirtuous behavior. We have learned what these mean, within the context of how they promote the welfare of the species, and seen them both played out in history many times over in civilizations.
The question is not whether property-bearers exist, for they already do, but how these property-bearers should act, what they should value. If they do not value their own survival, then ethics is itself undermined -- how can we determine the goodness or rightness of an action if we do not care whether it brings about life or death?
I am not sure what the categorical difference here is, or why you think it invalid to use our survival as a primary value, and ethics as a means to further it. Do we disagree that ethical behavior in society leads to the most healthy and successful society, which in turn gives rise to the most healthy and successful progeny?
9) SH: And what’s your secular justification for social contractualism?
Humans either go it alone or form societies. If they go it alone, they are much less likely to survive, or to live healthy, than if they form societies. Social contracts are one valid way to establish societies in which everyone agrees (a sort of prisoner's dilemma) to hold to ethical precepts to ensure the success of the society, and by proxy, the individual.
10) SM: That doesn’t harmonize self-interest over altruism.
It does. Consider two things:
i) you are more likely to be on the receiving end and receive benefits from living in a society that agrees to put the "many" above the "few" at any given time, by virtue of statistics. Thus, it certainly is in your self-interest to pledge in to such a society, and pledging to it is necessary to maintain its function, that if you should need to sacrifice yourself for the good of the many, you will.
ii) We have to look at self-interest from the perspective of every individual in the society. If you are X, and the question is how many X's must die, then you certainly view as "self-interest" what appears to Y as "altruism". Obviously, we consider it "unselfish" to sacrifice our lives for many other lives, should such a dilemma arise, but from the perspective of the utilitarian, it is acting in the interest of our own society/species/kin, which retains selfish motive -- we want to further their survival because they are us: our children, cousins, whatever. Even other animals show kin altruism (which makes it significantly less altruistic).
What is interesting is how humans show "clan altruism" and, historically, are very selfish when it comes to "non-clan" humans. This is esp true of the Hebraic peoples, but no more so than any other race or tribe.
11) The trolley care [sic] problem doesn’t pose a choice between my survival and the survival of the many.
In the formulations I have seen, it wouldn't alter the problem's significance to put you aboard the trolley, and the switch aboard the trolley as well.
12) The question I’m posing for secular ethics is different. Let’s say I’m an atheist. Let’s say I’m put in a position where I must choose between either saving my own life, or sacrificing my life to spare many others from destruction.
How should a secularist choose?
I just went through that a bit above with kin altruism, but this could also be formulated within the context of viewing your action's morality by its consequences: consider that if you do NOT do X, you are, effectively, killing many people, while if you DO X, you are killing only one. Part of our morality is to minimize the loss of life, so the ethical choice here is clear.
Consider a social contract as well -- that while a priori the society cannot take a life (unnecessarily -- considering the trolley problem and other sorts of dilemmas), an inbuilt clause and understanding is that the success and stability of the survival promotes the greater good -- as it promotes the survival of the many -- and thus if one can choose to take their own life in order to contribute to this society's stability, they ought to do so. Obviously, this ethical onus would be followed only by those persons acting responsibly for the greater good. There is no guarantee that our inbuilt survival instinct could be overcome by all persons at all times, but the ethical choice remains clear.
13) There is only one of me, and while I’m expendable in the great scheme of things, I’m not expendable to myself.
Am I, as an atheist, under some obligation to forfeit my life for the common good?
With arguably more "obligation" than you're under as a Christian -- if I command an ant to obey me and it doesn't, does it render me any harm? In the same way, if your God is not obeyed by humans, is it weakened or lessened by it? No. Conversely, if we do not choose to put the greater good (maximum survival) above our own, when the time calls for it, we are clearly and obviously hurting/harming others. Now, whether or not that matters to you is another question.
As with Christianity, ethics are a choice you make, whether to be selfish and thus cause harm (or death) to many, which is immoral, or to act unselfishly and thus alleviate harm and promote survival to many, which is moral.
14) Why can’t I just be a selfish SOB? It’s not as if a godless universe is going to reward me for my altruism.
You can be selfish. You will get no reward for not being so. However, your fellow kin, society, and the species in general will. That is what makes it an "ought" situation.
Ah, but you see, this is where the atheist's ethics are so much different than the Christian's -- we choose to do the right thing only because it is the right thing, not expecting a cosmic reward or fearing a cosmic punishment. If you choose not to cause the death of many by allowing your own life to be extinguished, and the atheist knows that this is all they have (no afterlife), how much greater a sacrifice is this than dying for only three measly days (and knowing this beforehand), before being raised to life eternal? Who couldn't take that kind of "fall" for others
15) SH: No, you don’t have to reinvent utilitarianism. But your challenge is twofold:
i) How do you derive utilitarian ethics from evolutionary ethics?
This is a point that needs clarification. Why is it that the process by which humans arose determines how they ought to act? Why is it that "evolutionary ethics" even relevant, if someone starts with survival as a primary value, without saying "evolution dictates that we must survive"? Imagine, if you must, that this person is a theist, but not a Christian, and says, "God dictates that we must survive" if you can't get past something undermining the primacy of survival.
16) ii) How do you derive egalitarianism from utilitarianism?
It is not a derived function, it is taken as an a priori commitment -- to the survival of our species, irrespective of race, IQ, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Since we are using human life as a primary value, there is no way to logically or rationally devalue some lives and add value to others. [and no, embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not elevated in value to the status of human beings -- they are potential human beings, but let's lay aside the issue of abortion as to not chase after red herrings]
17) SH: At this stage of the argument, I don’t see that we need to get specific. Is there any case in which, from a secular standpoint, I should put altruism ahead of self-interest? Collective survival above (my) personal survival?
In the outline above, self-interest demands that you agree to utilitarianism, because more often than not, your own life is furthered by the collective good, and thus statistically speaking, you agree to the potential need for self-sacrifice, as in the trolley car dilemma, ironically out of self-interest. Consider that statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be a part of the "many" the the "one/few" when it comes to dilemmas in which there is no way to avoid casualties. You sign in to the agreement/contract out of self-interest, and agree that just as you will more likely receive benefit from it the majority of the time, there is a potentiality for altruism.
18) Is there ever such an obligation in secular ethics? If so, why?
Hopefully I've made it clear by now.
19) On a side note, readers should observe, in the recent exchanges with Danny, that it’s quite possible for a believer and an unbeliever to have a civil exchange of views.
And I hope to see it continue. Both ways.
_**END QUOTE**_
I am certainly (and obviously) no moral philosopher, but I am trying to defend what I see to be a very basic observation: that humans can either choose to behave in such ways as to foster survival and a higher standard/quality of life, or choose to act otherwise. Morality seems to simply be the question of how best to do this former thing. Christians believe it is to follow the commands of God, while as an atheist, I see humans as quite capable of developing secular humanistic ethics that are far superior and more rational (consistent) than the theists' ethical framework.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics
1) Christian Altruism
2) Who Goes Down with the Ship?
3) Regarding Steve's Post to Danny on the Value of Values
4) The Value of Values
(there are some other threads regarding epistemology, but I'll write on those later)
I have tried to argue along utilitarian lines, specifically survival consequentialism, using as referents both social contracts and egoism, to justify my values and explain how my behavior is not irrational. Steve has referred a lot to "evolutionary ethics", but I fail to see how the method by which human beings are generated immediately necessitates a certain ethos. Read below, or on this thread, for the current discussion.
I have numbered the points to facilitate commentary. Steve's words are italicized.
1) Your argument was predicated on noble values/virtues. What you did was to posit noble values/virtues as second-order values, then argue since these second-order values could not exist absent the first-order value of survival, that the second-order values validated the first-order value.
But one problem with this line of argument is that you failed to validate the operating premise: are there second-order values?
I did misunderstand what you were asking before.
Do we agree that as humans we have many basic needs and desires? This seems self-evident. I would argue that because we cannot fulfill all of our needs and desires simultaneously, or equally, that we must arrange our needs and desires into priorities, or order them, according to our values. It seems an unavoidable part of being human to have "first-order, second-order, etc., etc.," values.
In the same way that the Christian says that her own first-order value is serving God, and then in serving the needs of the state (eg a conscientious objector), I am simply saying that if you want to flip virtue/character/goodness around from being a first principle to being an extension of survival (which seems quite unassailable in its logic, when one lives within a society), thus survival becomes an inextricable part of virtue/character/goodness -- you do what is good in order to survive. You don't rape, pillage, and steal because you recognize that you are less likely to be successful, and to pass on your genes, if you live in such a chaotic society, or if you are ostracized from it, or punished within it.
I'm not very articulate here, but I hope this makes sense of my position.
2) What is your secular argument for the existence of these higher virtues?
Are you asking me how I define them? In the same way Marcus Aurelius did, and many others before and after him.
Are you asking me why they exist? They exist as a part of the spectrum of human behavior. Humans can act in many ways, and acting virtuously is one way humans are capable of acting.
Are you asking me why I should act virtuously?
Because we are in a prisoner's dilemma situation -- we all must work together in a societal structure, or we may as well have a "free-for-all" morally and otherwise. Assuming we will work together (which history has shown works 95% of the time), then exercising virtuous character contributes to the stability of society, and society, just like virtues, becomes a means to an end -- success in health, wealth, and reproduction.
3) SH: Okay, but to play along with your parallel, a Christian apologist would need to establish the value of Sabbath-keeping for the end to justify the means.
If we do not care to survive, then ethics are futile. Why do we care what is "good" for us, if we don't care if we live or die? If we don't use our own life, and if we don't value our own life, and the lives of others, in determining what we ought to do generally, then I would argue that ethics are absurd. We have to start with some primary value around which we frame our ethics. Yours is "what [you think] God said/does/wants".
4) No, the survival of the present generation doesn’t depend on the existence of a future generation. But the survival of the species does depend on reproduction.
Yes, but consider that overpopulation leads to starvation. Consider that there are "premium times" to harvest, and the same applies to having babies -- certain environmental and societal conditions that are more conducive to raising children, and thus we are considering our survival as a species in choosing when and how to have children -- so that they will be most healthy and likely to survive.
5) Yet the force of that argument assumes an obligation to reproduce in order to have agents that exemplify these second-order values.
It is indeed necessary to reproduce, but not necessary to reproduce at all times, since giving birth does not always guarantee the collective survival of the species, and at times may endanger it (overpopulation). Thus, we can choose when and how, in order that the second generation is able to exemplify those values as well (maximally so).
6) But in what sense do we have an obligation to nonentities? Given the existence of moral agents, said moral agents enjoy mutual obligations, including the exemplification of second-order values.
Right.
7) But absent their existence, nonexistent agents have no obligations, and we, as existing agents, have no obligation to nonexistent agents.
One of our obligations is to ensure the survival of our collective species, another to the survival of our society (which is a means to the first), and that the virtues and values we hold dear don't die with us (which we hold, again, virtue to be a means to survival, and survival as our primary value).
8) Your second-order values are not free-floating obligations which compel the existence of property-bearers. Rather, they only kick in given the existence of a suitable property-bearer.
I don't disagree. I am not sure what the real issue here is, to be honest, Steve. Of course it is somewhat tautological, but not all tautologies are invalid. Consider "it is good that humans survive, and ethical behavior is a means to further that survival" and "goodness is itself defined by virtues, when we discover, through learning, what the virtues are, and we extol them, we ought to do what is good; then survival is necessary to extol the virtues and practice them, and pass them on to the next generation".
It is absurd to assume that either survival or virtues or society (the two latter as means to the former) are not already forgone conclusions. We exist. Our species exists. Our species is capable of both virtuous and unvirtuous behavior. We have learned what these mean, within the context of how they promote the welfare of the species, and seen them both played out in history many times over in civilizations.
The question is not whether property-bearers exist, for they already do, but how these property-bearers should act, what they should value. If they do not value their own survival, then ethics is itself undermined -- how can we determine the goodness or rightness of an action if we do not care whether it brings about life or death?
I am not sure what the categorical difference here is, or why you think it invalid to use our survival as a primary value, and ethics as a means to further it. Do we disagree that ethical behavior in society leads to the most healthy and successful society, which in turn gives rise to the most healthy and successful progeny?
9) SH: And what’s your secular justification for social contractualism?
Humans either go it alone or form societies. If they go it alone, they are much less likely to survive, or to live healthy, than if they form societies. Social contracts are one valid way to establish societies in which everyone agrees (a sort of prisoner's dilemma) to hold to ethical precepts to ensure the success of the society, and by proxy, the individual.
10) SM: That doesn’t harmonize self-interest over altruism.
It does. Consider two things:
i) you are more likely to be on the receiving end and receive benefits from living in a society that agrees to put the "many" above the "few" at any given time, by virtue of statistics. Thus, it certainly is in your self-interest to pledge in to such a society, and pledging to it is necessary to maintain its function, that if you should need to sacrifice yourself for the good of the many, you will.
ii) We have to look at self-interest from the perspective of every individual in the society. If you are X, and the question is how many X's must die, then you certainly view as "self-interest" what appears to Y as "altruism". Obviously, we consider it "unselfish" to sacrifice our lives for many other lives, should such a dilemma arise, but from the perspective of the utilitarian, it is acting in the interest of our own society/species/kin, which retains selfish motive -- we want to further their survival because they are us: our children, cousins, whatever. Even other animals show kin altruism (which makes it significantly less altruistic).
What is interesting is how humans show "clan altruism" and, historically, are very selfish when it comes to "non-clan" humans. This is esp true of the Hebraic peoples, but no more so than any other race or tribe.
11) The trolley care [sic] problem doesn’t pose a choice between my survival and the survival of the many.
In the formulations I have seen, it wouldn't alter the problem's significance to put you aboard the trolley, and the switch aboard the trolley as well.
12) The question I’m posing for secular ethics is different. Let’s say I’m an atheist. Let’s say I’m put in a position where I must choose between either saving my own life, or sacrificing my life to spare many others from destruction.
How should a secularist choose?
I just went through that a bit above with kin altruism, but this could also be formulated within the context of viewing your action's morality by its consequences: consider that if you do NOT do X, you are, effectively, killing many people, while if you DO X, you are killing only one. Part of our morality is to minimize the loss of life, so the ethical choice here is clear.
Consider a social contract as well -- that while a priori the society cannot take a life (unnecessarily -- considering the trolley problem and other sorts of dilemmas), an inbuilt clause and understanding is that the success and stability of the survival promotes the greater good -- as it promotes the survival of the many -- and thus if one can choose to take their own life in order to contribute to this society's stability, they ought to do so. Obviously, this ethical onus would be followed only by those persons acting responsibly for the greater good. There is no guarantee that our inbuilt survival instinct could be overcome by all persons at all times, but the ethical choice remains clear.
13) There is only one of me, and while I’m expendable in the great scheme of things, I’m not expendable to myself.
Am I, as an atheist, under some obligation to forfeit my life for the common good?
With arguably more "obligation" than you're under as a Christian -- if I command an ant to obey me and it doesn't, does it render me any harm? In the same way, if your God is not obeyed by humans, is it weakened or lessened by it? No. Conversely, if we do not choose to put the greater good (maximum survival) above our own, when the time calls for it, we are clearly and obviously hurting/harming others. Now, whether or not that matters to you is another question.
As with Christianity, ethics are a choice you make, whether to be selfish and thus cause harm (or death) to many, which is immoral, or to act unselfishly and thus alleviate harm and promote survival to many, which is moral.
14) Why can’t I just be a selfish SOB? It’s not as if a godless universe is going to reward me for my altruism.
You can be selfish. You will get no reward for not being so. However, your fellow kin, society, and the species in general will. That is what makes it an "ought" situation.
Ah, but you see, this is where the atheist's ethics are so much different than the Christian's -- we choose to do the right thing only because it is the right thing, not expecting a cosmic reward or fearing a cosmic punishment. If you choose not to cause the death of many by allowing your own life to be extinguished, and the atheist knows that this is all they have (no afterlife), how much greater a sacrifice is this than dying for only three measly days (and knowing this beforehand), before being raised to life eternal? Who couldn't take that kind of "fall" for others
15) SH: No, you don’t have to reinvent utilitarianism. But your challenge is twofold:
i) How do you derive utilitarian ethics from evolutionary ethics?
This is a point that needs clarification. Why is it that the process by which humans arose determines how they ought to act? Why is it that "evolutionary ethics" even relevant, if someone starts with survival as a primary value, without saying "evolution dictates that we must survive"? Imagine, if you must, that this person is a theist, but not a Christian, and says, "God dictates that we must survive" if you can't get past something undermining the primacy of survival.
16) ii) How do you derive egalitarianism from utilitarianism?
It is not a derived function, it is taken as an a priori commitment -- to the survival of our species, irrespective of race, IQ, gender, ethnicity, religion, age, etc. Since we are using human life as a primary value, there is no way to logically or rationally devalue some lives and add value to others. [and no, embryos, zygotes and fetuses are not elevated in value to the status of human beings -- they are potential human beings, but let's lay aside the issue of abortion as to not chase after red herrings]
17) SH: At this stage of the argument, I don’t see that we need to get specific. Is there any case in which, from a secular standpoint, I should put altruism ahead of self-interest? Collective survival above (my) personal survival?
In the outline above, self-interest demands that you agree to utilitarianism, because more often than not, your own life is furthered by the collective good, and thus statistically speaking, you agree to the potential need for self-sacrifice, as in the trolley car dilemma, ironically out of self-interest. Consider that statistically speaking, it is much more likely for you to be a part of the "many" the the "one/few" when it comes to dilemmas in which there is no way to avoid casualties. You sign in to the agreement/contract out of self-interest, and agree that just as you will more likely receive benefit from it the majority of the time, there is a potentiality for altruism.
18) Is there ever such an obligation in secular ethics? If so, why?
Hopefully I've made it clear by now.
19) On a side note, readers should observe, in the recent exchanges with Danny, that it’s quite possible for a believer and an unbeliever to have a civil exchange of views.
And I hope to see it continue. Both ways.
_**END QUOTE**_
I am certainly (and obviously) no moral philosopher, but I am trying to defend what I see to be a very basic observation: that humans can either choose to behave in such ways as to foster survival and a higher standard/quality of life, or choose to act otherwise. Morality seems to simply be the question of how best to do this former thing. Christians believe it is to follow the commands of God, while as an atheist, I see humans as quite capable of developing secular humanistic ethics that are far superior and more rational (consistent) than the theists' ethical framework.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ethics
Wednesday, July 26
Medieval Irish Bible Found
(CNN) :
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
During construction, a very rare medieval Irish edition of the Bible (or part of it) was dug up recently. Interestingly, it was opened to Psalms 83, hardly what I would call a good example of the ethos that modern Christians want to develop, which they borrow from the secular humanism of the Enlightenment. Let's read it:
Psalm 83 (NIV)
A song. A psalm of Asaph.Now I don't know about you, but that sure makes me feel Jesus. Kill those bastard enemies of mine, O God...screw that turn the cheek BS! ;) (HT: New Humanist)
1 O God, do not keep silent;
be not quiet, O God, be not still.
2 See how your enemies are astir,
how your foes rear their heads.
3 With cunning they conspire against your people;
they plot against those you cherish.
4 "Come," they say, "let us destroy them as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more."
5 With one mind they plot together;
they form an alliance against you-
6 the tents of Edom and the Ishmaelites,
of Moab and the Hagrites,
7 Gebal, [a] Ammon and Amalek,
Philistia, with the people of Tyre.
8 Even Assyria has joined them
to lend strength to the descendants of Lot.
Selah
9 Do to them as you did to Midian,
as you did to Sisera and Jabin at the river Kishon,
10 who perished at Endor
and became like refuse on the ground.
11 Make their nobles like Oreb and Zeeb,
all their princes like Zebah and Zalmunna,
12 who said, "Let us take possession
of the pasturelands of God."
13 Make them like tumbleweed, O my God,
like chaff before the wind.
14 As fire consumes the forest
or a flame sets the mountains ablaze,
15 so pursue them with your tempest
and terrify them with your storm.
16 Cover their faces with shame
so that men will seek your name, O LORD.
17 May they ever be ashamed and dismayed;
may they perish in disgrace.
18 Let them know that you, whose name is the LORD—
that you alone are the Most High over all the earth.
Footnotes:
1. Psalm 83:7[a] -- That is, Byblos
________________
Technorati tags: Theology
Tuesday, July 25
Lurching Along
Boy, do I feel Jeebus now. Over at the Christian CADRE site, I got the following godly love from Lurchling:
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
There is a difference between being critical with Christianity, which I support, and being hatefully paranoid about it (cough cough).As a former youth pastor at two churches, who once faithfully followed after [what he thought as] Jesus, I am hardly hateful or paranoid about Christianity. If I were so, I would hardly be spending so much time conversing with theists as I do.
Either way, I've read it seems like too much on the cultural milieu of the NT, textual criticism, source-crit, alternative theories, authorship, etc. etc. etc.Good for you. Um, so, why do you stand by what modern scholars reject concerning the authorship of many of the epistles?
Soooo, that is how I know when you deny everything in the NT when it comes to authorship besides I'm guessing 7 of Paul's epistles, ignorantly stand by that Paul knew almost nothing about Jesus, and that these Jews believed in a spiritual resurrection (oxymoron), you are driven by something more than a sincere search for the truth. And you, Danny boy, should watch the insults and tone.Insults and tone are being watched, scrutinized, even. I'm also glad that you maintain your lovely tone in the midst of your psychic powers. I would probably get cocky if I could read minds.
By the way, I'm responding to you out of tact, but I know pseudo-sceptics who are willing to take any issue overboard like yourself won't listen for anything I have to say, just try to find something wrong with it.You are indeed quite so tactful. I'm just a lowly "pseudo-sceptic" trying to get by. I'm so glad that you really listened to what I had to say.
If there was no suffering, no hardship, then what the hell is the purpose of Christianity's heavenly afterlife?This is like watching a poor trapped animal struggle in a clamp. You are presupposing that there is a heavenly afterlife in order to explain the hardships of this life (and deal with them).
Why must he do this? And all-good does not equal cuddly cushy creator of some candy land where everything is always sunny. Like I said, we could never know, but evil and suffering could have it's purpose, and that purpose in itself could be for the better.Um, if God exists, and is all-good, then God makes the best of all possible worlds. It's called a logical necessity, by definition of "all-good".
Once again, we all gotta die sometime, why is it evil how each of us goes?So your God is not omnipotent, then? We "gotta" die? So you don't think it's evil to be raped and buried alive (as Jessica Lunsford was), compared to dying in your sleep next to your wife at 100 years old? So God is "off the hook" for sitting on Its heavenly thumb while she screamed in pain and tried to crawl out of the grave, slowly suffocating?
I know this will be hard for you, but read carefully through my examples.Hooked on phonics worked for me!
Just to let you know, you are so arrogant and mocking that people might not notice your questionable claims of Jesus. They will hopefully be turned off by your ignorant mentality.I bet you would hate that, wouldn't you? I'm sure they wouldn't notice if you were arrogant and mocking, or disregard your writing because of it, now would they?
I don't need lessons from someone subpar like you on textual criticism and manuscript evidence.Um, well you did ask me to substantiate the claim that it is reasonable to argue that early Christians didn't accept a bodily resurrection. You asked, and received. ;) Sorry it was "subpar".
Your rude comments about the Christian worldview and its perspective are proving nothing. All they prove is that you are an arrogant ignorant pompous atheist claiming to have all the answers but really just being clueless. I am allowed to make that sweeping statement about you because of your sweeping view on the claims of the Bible and we Christian and Jews cartoonish existence.Ah, so "tit for tat"? I thought it was "turn the other cheek"? Maybe you aren't as familiar with your great Jesus as I am. Besides, I'm sure the readers of the thread would find my "insults and tone" a bit different in quality and character than yours.
I stand by my opinion that you are intellectually dishonest and you have a hateful attitude.Well, they do say that opinions are like assholes. You happen to possess one of each, it appears, but only be one of the two.
You will respond to this I'm sure. I am going to try very hard to let you make all the claims you want, but I do not want to debate with someone who is so unyielding from questionable positions. I will try very hard not to waste any more of my life on this.Well, keep fighting the good fight. Try very hard. Pray.
Harmonization is a common historical tool, use it for the resurrection accounts you biggot.First, it's "bigot" you silly moron. Second, be careful what you wish for, silly wabbit...
Dan Barker has already invented the wheel, so why should I reinvent it? From his article, "Did Jesus Really Rise from the Dead?" we see the parallel passages from the gospels (and Acts) laid out so as to show us the impossible task of harmonization of the resurrection stories.
What time did the women visit the tomb?Tag, you're it, Lurchling.
* Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
* Mark "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
* Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
* John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
* Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
* Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
* Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
* John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
* Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
* Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
* Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
* John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
* Matthew: No (28:2)
* Mark: Yes (16:4)
* Luke: Yes (24:2)
* John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
* Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
* Mark: One young man (16:5)
* Luke: Two men (24:4)
* John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
* Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
* Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
* Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
* John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
* Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
* Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
* Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
* John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
* Matthew: Yes (28:8)
* Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
* Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
* John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
* Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
* Mark: Yes (16:10,11[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
* John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
* Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
* Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10[23])
* John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
* Matthew: Yes (28:9)
* John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
* Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
* Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
* John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
* Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
* Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
* Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14[23])
* Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
* John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
* Mark: No (16:13[23])
* Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at that first appearance?
* Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
* Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19[23])
* Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
* John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for more than a day?
* Mark: No (16:19[23]) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
* Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
* John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
* Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
* Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
* Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19[23])
* Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
* John: No ascension
* Paul: No ascension
* Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)
________________
Technorati tags: Apologetics, Christianity
Feeling Rand-y Today
...No, not that kind of randy. I'm talking about Ayn Rand. No, I'm not an Objectivist. After having an interesting conversation with my colleagues over "The Guiltless Man" yesterday, mostly concerning the inability of religion to control such a person, I was thinking about it again this morning.
Thinking is a beautiful thing. From Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 West Point class:
Some ask me what motive I have in arguing with theists. I do not believe, they do, I think they are wrong, but I think there is no real consequence for their wrongness (in the sense that their faith won't "hurt" them or me). Why do I continue, then, to spend so much time reading, debating, and trying to understand philosophies to which I do not subscribe, and hold to be irrational? Primarily, because their faith affects me. The politics and policies of our current administration have been clearly infused with religion and its lobbying power and money. Secondarily, I do so in defense of my mind, my values, my desire for truth. I skeptically analyze arguments for and against God, and I continue to consider them for their validity and strengths.
There are many things over which I find myself disagreeing with Ayn Rand, but on this, we agree -- philosophy is more than necessary, it is inevitable: the only choice you have is whether you will swallow someone else's premises like a jagged little pill, or whether you will question them, and yourself, and everything.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ayn Rand, Reason, Logic
Thinking is a beautiful thing. From Ayn Rand's address to the 1974 West Point class:
You have no choice about the necessity to integrate your observations, your experiences, your knowledge into abstract ideas, i.e., into principles. Your only choice is whether these principles are true or false, whether they represent your conscious, rational conviction--or a grab-bag of notions snatched at random, whose sources, validity, context and consequences you do not know, notions which, more often than not, you would drop like a hot potato if you knew.Of course, it is not truly necessary for persons to integrate all of this into a coherent, rational philosophy. Some people appear to have taken pieces of rational worldviews and mishmashed them in with superstition and folklore, and others (postmodernists) abandon rationalism altogether.
But the principles you accept (consciously or subconsciously) may clash with or contradict one another; they, too, have to be integrated. What integrates them? Philosophy. A philosophic system is an integrated view of existence. As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation--or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated by your subconscious into a kind of mongrel philosophy and fused into a single, solid weight: self-doubt, like a ball and chain in the place where your mind's wings should have grown.Most people do not develop a philosophy in the vein of Descartes -- carefully and from the bottom up. Most people adopt from others what feels right and true, and modern Sophists are able to persuade masses of persons into adopting incomprehensible premises as their foundational "truths".
You might say, as many people do, that it is not easy always to act on abstract principles. No, it is not easy. But how much harder is it, to have to act on them without knowing what they are?Rand seems willing to grant to people something which I cannot -- that they act while thinking, or think before acting. I find no strong evidence that humans behave as rational animals even a fraction of the time.
Your subconscious is like a computer...Who programs it? Your conscious mind...one way or the other, your computer gives you print-outs, daily and hourly, in the form of emotions--which are lightning-like estimates of the things around you, calculated according to your values. If you programmed your computer by conscious thinking, you know the nature of your values and emotions. If you didn't, you don't.John Loftus has written an interesting article on "control beliefs" as it relates to the interpretation of religion and religious evidence by believers versus unbelievers; or what we could call our presuppositions, in which he challenges the notion that we have the ability to free ourselves of biases and see past our weaknesses in order to objectively "program" our conscious minds. The major point he makes is that the fewer presuppositions, or "control beliefs," that we hold, the less likely we are to be wrong about any given one of them.
Many people, particularly today, claim that man cannot live by logic alone, that there's the emotional element of his nature to consider, and that they rely on the guidance of their emotions...The joke is on him--and on them: man's values and emotions are determined by his fundamental view of life. The ultimate programmer of his subconscious is philosophy--the science which, according to the emotionalists, is impotent to affect or penetrate the murky mysteries of their feelings...You have probably heard the computer operators' eloquent term "gigo"--which means: "Garbage in, garbage out." The same formula applies to the relationship between a man's thinking and his emotions.Here we have to get into what Rand means by "his fundamental view of life" -- is this not particularly circular? If I value faith, do I become a believer (thus subscribing to some theistic worldview), or if I am a believer, do I value faith? Where do we begin? How many people even try to figure out what their assumptions are, much the less challenge and question them?
A man who is run by emotions is like a man who is run by a computer whose print-outs he cannot read. He does not know whether its programming is true or false, right or wrong, whether it's set to lead him to success or destruction, whether it serves his goals or those of some evil, unknowable power. He is blind on two fronts: blind to the world around him and to his own inner world, unable to grasp reality or his own motives, and he is in chronic terror of both. Emotions are not tools of cognition. The men who are not interested in philosophy need it most urgently: they are most helplessly in its power.But what Rand ignores is that philosophy can be used as a tool to prop up what men want to believe. Nietzsche showed us that. It is a choice as to how far one develops a philosophy -- it can go so far as to render us nearly nihilistic. If we seriously probe the premises of every position, say for instance in meta-ethics, we will find ourselves much more epistemically skeptical than some people can handle. Therefore, most persons only develop (or adopt from others) enough philosophy to convince themselves that they are rational and "committed to the truth". But how many of us are? How many of us are willing to follow evidence and reason, should it lead us to no hopeful conclusion? What if reason does cannibalize itself, as Nietzsche and others implied?
The men who are not interested in philosophy absorb its principles from the cultural atmosphere around them--from schools, colleges, books, magazines, newspapers, movies, television, etc. Who sets the tone of a culture? A small handful of men: the philosophers. Others follow their lead, either by conviction or by default. For some two hundred years, under the influence of Immanuel Kant, the dominant trend of philosophy has been directed to a single goal: the destruction of man's mind, of his confidence in the power of reason. Today, we are seeing the climax of that trend.And today, we might say that we are in the "post-postmodern" movement -- many philosophers have strongly argued against the premises of postmodernism (pomo), and have had the time to carefully deconstruct existentialism, Heidegger (probably on of the figures in philosophy with whom Rand identified this sort of negative trend), and some of the previously nebulous arguments of pomo's that science is but "another mythic narrative", aka the Counter-Enlightenment. I would say that the tides have turned, in large part thanks to a commitment to Rationalism, to flesh out the claims of nihilism and pomo over the past decades. Basically, if we cannot sustain rationalism, then pomo itself is self-refuted -- how can a coherent proposition be made: there is no rationalism? It is self-refuting and self-defeating, just like, "there are no truths." (if that description of reality is itself true, then the statement itself must be false, if the statement is false, then it tells us nothing of truth)
When men abandon reason, they find not only that their emotions cannot guide them, but that they can experience no emotions save one: terror. The spread of drug addiction among young people brought up on today's intellectual fashions, demonstrates the unbearable inner state of men who are deprived of their means of cognition and who seek escape from reality--from the terror of their impotence to deal with existence. Observe these young people's dread of independence and their frantic desire to "belong," to attach themselves to some group, clique or gang. Most of them have never heard of philosophy, but they sense that they need some fundamental answers to questions they dare not ask--and they hope that the tribe will tell them how to live. They are ready to be taken over by any witch doctor, guru, or dictator. One of the most dangerous things a man can do is to surrender his moral autonomy to others: like the astronaut in my story, he does not know whether they are human, even though they walk on two feet.Rand almost seems comically naive. Every generation has viewed their youth as on a destructive path, whether towards immorality or irrationality or both. I would say that in today's culture, one of the few unique things we have today is access to so much knowledge and information that some persons are paralyzed by it [one of the other things that sets apart our current era from others is the explosion of scientific understanding of our universe]. Knowing what to believe, and who to believe, adrift in a sea of arguments and voices can be overwhelming. But that does not mean that we must not believe, else we be wrong, only that we must focus our energies on narrow slices of the big philosophy pie. Few persons that I know go to original sources in philosophy, preferring summaries and reviews of topics and questions in philosophy. There is just too much to read and absorb, and too few days to do it.
Now you may ask: If philosophy can be that evil, why should one study it? Particularly, why should one study the philosophical theories which are blatantly false, make no sense, and bear no relation to real life?And it is for those reasons that I continue to study the Bible, theology, and think about God. I do not claim, as Paul wrote in Phil. 3, "to have apprehended...". I have not arrived at some "self-enlightenment". I somewhat doubt that such a final state can exist, for that would mean it would be nearly impossible to self-doubt or critically analyze the experience. My view of personal enlightenment is more a process and progress in which we analyze and skeptically critique everything. But unlike the pomo, I find no reason to abandon rationalism, as I know nowhere else to be, no other way to live, and no other way to think. I choose to value reason, and build my worldview upon it, and I have seen the efficacy of this played out as personal success and happiness, not despair and hopelessness. In that sense, you might say I pragmatically cling to rationalism.
My answer is: In self-protection--and in defense of truth, justice, freedom, and any value you ever held or may ever hold.
Some ask me what motive I have in arguing with theists. I do not believe, they do, I think they are wrong, but I think there is no real consequence for their wrongness (in the sense that their faith won't "hurt" them or me). Why do I continue, then, to spend so much time reading, debating, and trying to understand philosophies to which I do not subscribe, and hold to be irrational? Primarily, because their faith affects me. The politics and policies of our current administration have been clearly infused with religion and its lobbying power and money. Secondarily, I do so in defense of my mind, my values, my desire for truth. I skeptically analyze arguments for and against God, and I continue to consider them for their validity and strengths.
There are many things over which I find myself disagreeing with Ayn Rand, but on this, we agree -- philosophy is more than necessary, it is inevitable: the only choice you have is whether you will swallow someone else's premises like a jagged little pill, or whether you will question them, and yourself, and everything.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Ayn Rand, Reason, Logic
The Existential Dilemma
After dicussing how death and our view of the afterlife impacts our meaning and perceived value as human beings at the Triablogue, I found the topic resurface yesterday. A short story by Hemingway frames the existential dilemma well:
It was a nothing that he knew too well. It was all a nothing and a man was nothing too. It was only that and light was all it needed and a certain cleanness and order. Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it was already nada y pues nada y pues nada. Our nada who art in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is in nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing full of nothing, nothing is with thee. He smiled and stood before a bar with a shining steam pressure coffee machine. (A Clean, Well-Lighted Place)
Is man devoid of meaning? If he is not created by some entity with its own external purpose, does man have no purpose? Does the existence of God determine a man's purpose, or does man himself? Is it possible for some external entity to give you meaning and purpose? Listening to Paul Kurtz on Point of Inquiry radio, he spoke about the existential dilemma. From the Stanford Philosophical Encyclopedia,
Paul points out that being a part of such a worldview, in which every behavior is outlined -- "do this, don't do that, be this, don't be that" is the very antithesis of freedom and individuality. Secular humanism presents an ethical alternative to religions, and allows one to maintain individual identity (rather than collective identity) and to pursue ones goals and hopes freely.
Insofar as views of the afterlife go, does death render life beautiful, or meaningless? Certainly, the value of every day increases exponentially if they are your only days to live. Clearly, the value of 70 years of life is pitiful if a hundred million trillion years of life follow. Just because life is thus made "precious" in value does not mean that death confers "meaning". We all must assign meaning to our own lives. We all must decide what will make our lives "worthwhile". Believers decide that faith is the penultimate goal, and that pleasing God is their summa bonum.
What this seems to boil down to is an argument on the part of theists that if we assign our own purposes and meanings to life, that those values and meanings are functionally deficient. A counterargument to them would run along the lines that they choose to assign meaning to themselves through their faith, and so in that sense, they can't escape the idea of "man-centered meaning/values/purpose". They choose to value God, religion, faith, etc. Their own faith is itself temporal, just as my values and purposes and meanings and goals are. Does that render faith pointless and functionally deficient? Or is faith not just another avenue by which humans assign themselves value?
How do I personally look at life, death, and despair? I'm a sort of Stoic. I'm a determinist who wants to live a good and virtuous life, and tries to deal with the things that I can know and control, and learn to accept the things which I cannot know or control.
I have written a little on quasi-Stoicism before, in the context of Stephen King's novella, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
The quick and easy way to become a Stoic? Simply know the things that are within your power, and the things that are not. Recognize how small you really are in the scheme of things, and do not despair or fret when circumstances do not unfold as you had planned or hoped. Be courageous enough to control those things which you can for good, and courageous enough to accept those things which fate/life/chance hand you unexpectedly. It does not mean you must become emotionless or apathetic, as is commonly misconceived. It means that you allow your mind, via reason, to rule your passions, and recognize the dangers posed by the passions to the execution of our values and goals.
One of the beautiful things about Stoics was the way that they derived value and meaning from the pursuit of virtue, and ataraxia, or inner peace. That is why Seneca, Marcus Aurellius and Epictetus, all at very different stations in life, held a similar outlook upon life's value and meaning. I don't want to get into the distinction between classical Stoicism and its difficulties with reconciling fatalism and freedom, but this should give you a picture of how I view the existential dilemma from a broad perspective.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Stoicism, Existential Dilemma
Another term for the groundlessness of the world of meaning is "nothingness." Heidegger introduced this term to indicate the kind of self- and world-understanding that emerges in anxiety: because my practical identity is constituted by the practices I engage in, when these collapse I "am" not anything. In a manner of speaking I am thus brought face-to-face with my own finitude, my "death" as the possibility in which I am no longer able to be anything. This experience of my own death, or "nothingness," in anxiety can act as a spur to authenticity: I come to see that I "am" not anything but must "make myself be" through my choice. In commiting myself in the face of death — that is, aware of the nothingness of my identity if not supported by me right up to the end — the roles that I have hitherto thoughtlessly engaged in as one does now become something that I myself own up to, become responsible for.Most of what Paul speaks about in his interview is "the courage to become" -- the courage to become who and what you want. Paul doesn't prescribe some step-by-step, self-help manual-type philosophy for us. What he does do is point out that religions all require the same thing, that you, as the believer/follower, abdicate yourself of your own freedom, and enter into the homogeneous fold. Without uniformity, believers are unable to easily identify themselves and "the others", and so maintaining a strong sense of community and identity almost requires these shared rituals, customs, and peculiar behaviors which are particular to each denomination of each religion. And thus the religion, or, as they would insist, the God of the religion, becomes the believer's purpose [although arguably God is subsumed into the religion and its customs, interpretations, Scriptures, etc.]. But what the believer has done is lose their own personal identity and purpose into this form of collectivism.
Paul points out that being a part of such a worldview, in which every behavior is outlined -- "do this, don't do that, be this, don't be that" is the very antithesis of freedom and individuality. Secular humanism presents an ethical alternative to religions, and allows one to maintain individual identity (rather than collective identity) and to pursue ones goals and hopes freely.
Insofar as views of the afterlife go, does death render life beautiful, or meaningless? Certainly, the value of every day increases exponentially if they are your only days to live. Clearly, the value of 70 years of life is pitiful if a hundred million trillion years of life follow. Just because life is thus made "precious" in value does not mean that death confers "meaning". We all must assign meaning to our own lives. We all must decide what will make our lives "worthwhile". Believers decide that faith is the penultimate goal, and that pleasing God is their summa bonum.
What this seems to boil down to is an argument on the part of theists that if we assign our own purposes and meanings to life, that those values and meanings are functionally deficient. A counterargument to them would run along the lines that they choose to assign meaning to themselves through their faith, and so in that sense, they can't escape the idea of "man-centered meaning/values/purpose". They choose to value God, religion, faith, etc. Their own faith is itself temporal, just as my values and purposes and meanings and goals are. Does that render faith pointless and functionally deficient? Or is faith not just another avenue by which humans assign themselves value?
How do I personally look at life, death, and despair? I'm a sort of Stoic. I'm a determinist who wants to live a good and virtuous life, and tries to deal with the things that I can know and control, and learn to accept the things which I cannot know or control.
I have written a little on quasi-Stoicism before, in the context of Stephen King's novella, Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.
The quick and easy way to become a Stoic? Simply know the things that are within your power, and the things that are not. Recognize how small you really are in the scheme of things, and do not despair or fret when circumstances do not unfold as you had planned or hoped. Be courageous enough to control those things which you can for good, and courageous enough to accept those things which fate/life/chance hand you unexpectedly. It does not mean you must become emotionless or apathetic, as is commonly misconceived. It means that you allow your mind, via reason, to rule your passions, and recognize the dangers posed by the passions to the execution of our values and goals.
One of the beautiful things about Stoics was the way that they derived value and meaning from the pursuit of virtue, and ataraxia, or inner peace. That is why Seneca, Marcus Aurellius and Epictetus, all at very different stations in life, held a similar outlook upon life's value and meaning. I don't want to get into the distinction between classical Stoicism and its difficulties with reconciling fatalism and freedom, but this should give you a picture of how I view the existential dilemma from a broad perspective.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Stoicism, Existential Dilemma
Monday, July 24
Cretinist Extraordinaire
Favorite Dr. Dino quote:
Democracy is evil and contrary to God's law.**UPDATE** Dr. Dino, world-famous liar and fraud, speaks out! (HT: ooblick)**
Apparently, his method of avoiding taxes by refusing to register his church, not recognizing his employees, and claiming to be above the law is not a solo act, but a growing trend of lawlessness. Most ironic to me is that Hovind claims not to be a citizen (he's done this before with his bankruptcy case back in the 80's), but he sure doesn't mind using the attorney that the state is providing for him (as a citizen).
Hovind is now running a blog as well, CSEBlogs, to document some of his personal issues. Interestingly, nothing has appeared there since the arrest. Probably a little too busy with court appearances, and pleading to be given special treatment to go to Africa during his legal troubles.
I also found it very interesting to read about "Richard", who runs a support website for Hovind's legal issues. It appears that "Richard" may either be Hovind or one of his employees, using Hovind's computer. Hilarious.
You couldn't invent a character so colorful if you tried. See here and here for more on his credentials. Below is a picture of his "university":
________________
Technorati tags: Hovind, Fraud, Liar
Hovind also sells anti-Semitic books like Fourth Reich of the Rich and has recommended The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a book blaming the world's problems on a Jewish conspiracy. Environmentalism and income taxes, Hovind says, are designed to destroy the United States and "bring it under Communism."(From the same article.)
Hovind is now running a blog as well, CSEBlogs, to document some of his personal issues. Interestingly, nothing has appeared there since the arrest. Probably a little too busy with court appearances, and pleading to be given special treatment to go to Africa during his legal troubles.
I also found it very interesting to read about "Richard", who runs a support website for Hovind's legal issues. It appears that "Richard" may either be Hovind or one of his employees, using Hovind's computer. Hilarious.
You couldn't invent a character so colorful if you tried. See here and here for more on his credentials. Below is a picture of his "university":
Technorati tags: Hovind, Fraud, Liar
Sunday, July 23
Bush is a F&%*ing Moron, Proof #20,193
Harsh title? Yes.
Tim Russert just got to the crux of the issue on stem cells. Josh Bolton stammered and stuttered around, but the completely absurd illogic is clear: destroy the embryos, don't use them. Bolton tried to duck and dodge, shuck and jive, but Russert nailed him [more, his stupid boss] to the wall. If Bush doesn't oppose the process of IVF, which creates hundreds of thousands of excess embryos, yet calls the use of these embryos in research "murder" [via Tony Snow], then there is a clear disconnect in the Prez's already-fuzzy little brain.
Bolton was also asked whether he agreed with Karl Rove's statement that adult stem cells contained "far more promise" than embryonic stem cells, a statement which Russert pointed out had zero scientific support. Bolton once again stuttered and stammered, saying, "I'm no scientist," to which Tim quickly replied, "neither is Rove".
Bolton goes on to point out that adult stem cells have already shown promise...without seeming to be able to comprehend that an unfunded area of research will never be able to prove its promise. Universities, where the most crucial fundamental research is carried out, receive very very little private funding. If federal funds are not made available, and NIH and NSF grants are not devised for stem cell therapy research, then millions of people will continue to suffer and die, needlessly. Why? Because of our prez's "moral fiber". The same sort of fiber that I saw in a toilet once -- pure shit. "Blastocyst-Americans" apparently garner more votes for our prez than those dying of ALS and diabetes.
Bolton also fell back onto the "snowflake children" that Bush used as a prop in his PR event on the veto. Isn't that heartmoving, to see those kids, and think, "yeah, we can't kill them!"...? Problem here is that there was absolutely no potential of that happening.
Considering the fact that one of the two bills that passed outlaw "fetal farming" (what a joke) and ensured that no embryo which would otherwise be adopted would be used, there is absolutely no logical ground for this dolt to stand on:
According to sub-section 2 here, the only potential embryos to be used are explicitly not those which may be "adopted" and implanted -- thus no "snowflake babies" will be murdered.
What he has done is prevent millions of people from receiving life-saving research, and send hundreds of thousands of embryos to a trash can, because he is a stupid ass with no moral principles at all. What moral principles guide a moron into sending potentially life-saving research into the trash can? Yes, I'm as mad as hell.
Bush just walked into a burning hospital, and there was one Alzheimer's patient on one side, and a million fertilized embryos on the other side, and he only had time to save one...what did he do?
...the f&%*ing idiot just turned his back on both, and walked out, whistling to himself and patting his own "morally-princpled" back, leaving both to die, based on his "ethics".
________________
Technorati tags: Bush, Stem Cells, Veto, Bush is a F&*%ing Moron
Tim Russert just got to the crux of the issue on stem cells. Josh Bolton stammered and stuttered around, but the completely absurd illogic is clear: destroy the embryos, don't use them. Bolton tried to duck and dodge, shuck and jive, but Russert nailed him [more, his stupid boss] to the wall. If Bush doesn't oppose the process of IVF, which creates hundreds of thousands of excess embryos, yet calls the use of these embryos in research "murder" [via Tony Snow], then there is a clear disconnect in the Prez's already-fuzzy little brain.
Bolton was also asked whether he agreed with Karl Rove's statement that adult stem cells contained "far more promise" than embryonic stem cells, a statement which Russert pointed out had zero scientific support. Bolton once again stuttered and stammered, saying, "I'm no scientist," to which Tim quickly replied, "neither is Rove".
Bolton goes on to point out that adult stem cells have already shown promise...without seeming to be able to comprehend that an unfunded area of research will never be able to prove its promise. Universities, where the most crucial fundamental research is carried out, receive very very little private funding. If federal funds are not made available, and NIH and NSF grants are not devised for stem cell therapy research, then millions of people will continue to suffer and die, needlessly. Why? Because of our prez's "moral fiber". The same sort of fiber that I saw in a toilet once -- pure shit. "Blastocyst-Americans" apparently garner more votes for our prez than those dying of ALS and diabetes.
Bolton also fell back onto the "snowflake children" that Bush used as a prop in his PR event on the veto. Isn't that heartmoving, to see those kids, and think, "yeah, we can't kill them!"...? Problem here is that there was absolutely no potential of that happening.
Considering the fact that one of the two bills that passed outlaw "fetal farming" (what a joke) and ensured that no embryo which would otherwise be adopted would be used, there is absolutely no logical ground for this dolt to stand on:
SEC. 498D. HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH.
`(a) In General- Notwithstanding any other provision of law (including any regulation or guidance), the Secretary shall conduct and support research that utilizes human embryonic stem cells in accordance with this section (regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo).
`(b) Ethical Requirements- Human embryonic stem cells shall be eligible for use in any research conducted or supported by the Secretary if the cells meet each of the following:
`(1) The stem cells were derived from human embryos that have been donated from in vitro fertilization clinics, were created for the purposes of fertility treatment, and were in excess of the clinical need of the individuals seeking such treatment.
`(2) Prior to the consideration of embryo donation and through consultation with the individuals seeking fertility treatment, it was determined that the embryos would never be implanted in a woman and would otherwise be discarded.
`(3) The individuals seeking fertility treatment donated the embryos with written informed consent and without receiving any financial or other inducements to make the donation.
`(c) Guidelines- Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary, in consultation with the Director of NIH, shall issue final guidelines to carry out this section.
`(d) Reporting Requirements- The Secretary shall annually prepare and submit to the appropriate committees of the Congress a report describing the activities carried out under this section during the preceding fiscal year, and including a description of whether and to what extent research under subsection (a) has been conducted in accordance with this section.'.
Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2005.
According to sub-section 2 here, the only potential embryos to be used are explicitly not those which may be "adopted" and implanted -- thus no "snowflake babies" will be murdered.
What he has done is prevent millions of people from receiving life-saving research, and send hundreds of thousands of embryos to a trash can, because he is a stupid ass with no moral principles at all. What moral principles guide a moron into sending potentially life-saving research into the trash can? Yes, I'm as mad as hell.
Bush just walked into a burning hospital, and there was one Alzheimer's patient on one side, and a million fertilized embryos on the other side, and he only had time to save one...what did he do?
...the f&%*ing idiot just turned his back on both, and walked out, whistling to himself and patting his own "morally-princpled" back, leaving both to die, based on his "ethics".
________________
Technorati tags: Bush, Stem Cells, Veto, Bush is a F&*%ing Moron
Friday, July 21
Engaging on Euthyphro - 1
Steve and I have had some interesting exchanges over at the Triablogue. First, in a thread on evolutionary ethics, I challenged the idea that evolution necessitates any particular ethos, to which Steve returned some dialogue, and then Steve responded again to one piece of it -- the Euthyphro Dilemma. Read below for my entries.
First comment on the evolutionary ethics thread:
1) I explicitly addressed that the mechanism of our origins have little to do with the existence of good and doing good for the sake of good. "Poof" doesn't confer good, nor does descent with modification. It's funny that you probably wouldn't argue this with a Catholic who sees the fine tuning of the universe as a sufficient mechanism of creation (that evolution was contingent upon only primary causation in the Big Bang).
2) Beautiful non sequitur. First, sex is NOT a need, Paul. That's right, it's not. Not for the individual. It is a drive and a desire, but humans can and do survive their entire lives without it...unlike food, water, and shelter.
It is only a "need" for the species, for the society. And as we move from the individual to the society, we have to define why the society exists, and who has conferred rights. IN our country, "we the people" do, and all are equal. We start there. You have the right to be free from harm from others, until you violate that same right. It's a beautiful concept of fairness, justice, and symmetry that the Enlightenment gave us because your God didn't choose to. Your God chose to give the Hebrews "special status" and to slaughter the Egyptian children, then the Canaanite children, etc., not because it was unavoidable, or symmetric, but just because.
We said we base ethics on human needs, not the immediate fulfillment of those needs at the expense of the freedoms and rights of other persons. As much as you wish you could tear down secular humanistic ethics, you first have to oppose the values thereof. The values are rather simple -- justice: you cannot infringe upon the rights of others in order to fulfill your own -- no asymmetry is allowed. And see, that's the problem from the start with your system, because it allowed one group of persons to slaughter another, and their children, because they were "god's chosen" (same theme rings on today in the Middle East).
Basic human needs are no more "subjective" than your choice of "Scripture", your interpretation of Scripture, your choice of the canonized ones, or your faith that they came from your God.
Unfortunately for you, each of those things is quite subjective.
3) Circularity doesn't bring home the bacon. Is good/morality/logic/existence contingent upon God's creation of them and direction of them, or are these things which are necessary for God? IE child rape isn't intrinsically evil, only because God commands it so. If God has no frame of reference to be illogical, or define evil, then God is no more logical or moral than a rock. This is the epitome of arbitrary -- if God had commanded murder, then murder would be good, (as you say it is in such passages as Num 31:17 and 1 Sam 15:3)... if God had commanded X, then X is good, regardless of X. Arbitrary to the core, as the simple value of authority makes something right. Hitler's authority to order things, and ability to see them carried out, made nothing "good", no more than your God's does throughout the OT.
Relativity is the heart of your dilemma -- After all, murder is wrong (10 Commandments), then murder is okay (scriptures listed above). Your God makes everything and sees it is "good" (Gen 1,2), but has a serpent crawling around ready to send everything to "bad" (relative to time), and then gets "grieved" (Gen 6-8) and basically kills everything that "grieves" It.
This also presupposes quite a few things, especially that God's will is somehow revealed to select persons, that those persons are inspired, that their writings are also, and that the revelations to them were universal for all mankind...etc., which is absurd by demonstration: It is clear that if we apply each of the commands to the Hebrews to all persons at the same time, then the national identity of all humans would have prevented them from ever coalescing outside those original divisions (ie there were clear commandments not to intermarry). In that sense, your own morals are neither universal nor objective, but relative to each culture...only to a select group of people, and only at a given point in time, eg temple sacrifices and feasts and burnt offering and the commands to stone offenders of the law. Sure, sure, Jesus didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law...right, right, and that's why you are still stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday (Num 15), and why the pericope adulterae represents that same principle, right?
Oh, but wait, God had changed Its mind and decided to dispense grace during that time, right? Boy, God sure keeps moving the goalposts, eh?
Talk about arbitrary.
__
First response:
i) Survival is a necessary value for ethics. The question is NOT whether it is a part of our ethics, but whether survival will be promoted or opposed by every moral decision/action, as it is an unavoidable aspect of our universe. If we do not frame ethics in such a way as to promote survival, then do we frame them in such a way as to oppose it?
I am quite unclear as to how "survival is good, ethics must value human life" violates the naturalistic fallacy. I did not say "survival is good because evolution promotes survival" or some other naturalistic perspective. I am not justifying the statement by using some scientific observation. It is a premise, foundational, and self-evident.
If we do not value survival, then do we value ethics, or even attempt to make them? If we do not care if our actions bring about our own demise, or that of others, then why do we care if our actions are "good/bad" in any other sense at all?
In point of fact, you Christians value your own skin as well. Aaron Kinney (and others) have argued that Christians are just as egoistic as any other group. That self-interest (survival) is an innate part of all moral systems.
Why do you obey God? Why do you avoid hell? It is certainly out of a sense of self-preservation, fear, and hope for your destiny.
ii)-a) The wording of our Declaration of Independence is helpful here: "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" ("life, liberty, property," according to Locke, but Jefferson replaced the last with "pursuit of happiness")
The basis of utilitarian ethics start with an equal value assigned to all persons, or else it is not possible to calculate the beneficence of any given action or decision. If we "tilt the scale" at the beginning, then the idea of the "common good" is a non sequitur and we go back to "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". This is clearly the view of your God with respect to the Hebrews, and even with respect to Noah, etc., throughout the Bible, as some persons were "favored" over others. Your God does not hold all persons in equal esteem. That is why our values are diametrically opposed.
We do not start with "what value does this person have?" and use arbitrary tests, but instead "all persons are valued equally" and use the objective measure of how any given action/decision affects every persons' needs and rights (to life and liberty).
ii)-b) Your assertion about homosexuals being a burden should be supported by some sort of study other than the completely discredited work of one quack (Cameron)
I don't believe in "homosexual rights" any more than I believe in "Christian rights" or "atheist rights". I subscribe to equal human rights. It's pretty simple.
Are you asking me if we should endow governments with the authority (somehow) to prevent consenting adults from engaging in whatever sexual behaviors they choose? That of course would violate the sovereignty over ones own body, which all humans must have in a system which honors liberty, so long as persons do not use their bodies to infringe upon the rights of others. As Jefferson said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..." How does it pick your pocket, or break your leg, Steve, for gays (or anyone) to engage in anal sex if they choose to?
ii)-c) Ditto. Women and men must be afforded equal opportunities, which does not imply that they must somehow be "rendered completely equal". We open the door of freedom so that women enjoy the same rights as men, we are not obligated to ensure that they use their freedoms and rights to pursue any particular path towards personal happiness.
And, your assertion about the gender disparities is scientifically shown to be a function of education and not intrinsic abilities. Unfortunately, women are not encouraged and educated with equal enthusiasm to go into some fields as men are. This is the only explanation for why boy and girl children start out with equal cognitive capabilities, but over time we see an unequal distribution of adult men and women in certain occupations and career fields.
You are trying to examine persons to see if they "qualify" for equality, whereas secular humanism defines humans as equal (in the eyes of the law and human rights), and goes from there. A simple defense of this is in discussing how we arbitrate law if otherwise than "lady justice is blind to race, sexual preference, sex, religion, etc." What we find is we obviously discriminate and infringe upon a person's rights and liberty if we define some arbitrary measurement of how they need to "qualify" to get equal access, treatment, and protections under the law.
ii) (second ii) Frame and Bahnsen have argued that morality is both necessary and dependent upon God, and Martin has engaged their arguments. The especially relevant debates center around Martin's TANG. It seems that a false dilemma would not have garnered so much time and effort from an otherwise-bright theists, now would it? I have yet to hear you specifically commit to say that morality is contingent upon God, or that morality is necessary for God. Perhaps you can stake out your position and then we can go from there.
Does God have the ability to choose freely among many actions and decisions? If so, when God makes that choice, and acts, or decides something, is it moral just because God chose it (moral contingency), or is it moral only if God chooses a particular set of actions/decisions, which are themselves able to be evaluated as moral/immoral (morality is necessary)?
If God commanded child rape in the Bible, would it be good? If God commanded that we eat each other? Or, do we agree that God cannot make certain acts/decisions moral simply by acting/deciding them?
___
Second response:
Some things would always be evil, such as ingratitude towards one’s Maker.
Careful Steve, or you'll be starting down the slippy slope towards establishing a moral realism that your divine command theory prohibits.
By contrast, the laws of logic obtain in every possible world.
Subject-object relationships are required for logic to exist. The only intelligible definitions of logic thus require a subject (observer) and objects (A) to make remarks such as, "A is A" and "A cannot be A and B". They don't require a subject/object to be God, unfortunately for you.
Obviously, one possible world is the world of the naturalist, a world in which matter and energy have no need of "creation" and undergo transformations without a divine mind willing them.
Is the only difference between a rock and a moral or rational agent the presence of a frame of reference? What about little things like consciousness?
No I didn't say the "only" difference, but obviously, I made it clear that a creature which cannot access decisions or actions which are wrong/evil/immoral is completely amoral, just as a rock is. If a creature cannot choose wrongly, it cannot choose rightly in the moral sense -- this presupposes consciousness, as all morality does.
An objective standard doesn’t need another standard external to the objective standard to be objective. Otherwise we’re lost in a vicious regress.
This was an odd sentiment to read in coming from someone whose blog hosts presuppositional apologists who insist that we "account for" logic/morality/X, and insist that Christianity supplies the only coherent "account of" X.
On the one hand, you demand rigorous transcendental defenses of the existence of logic and morality, and on the other hand, your God is allowed to sneak under the radar. When God does/is/has it, it just IS, but if I say, "logic exists", Manata et al ask, "WHY?" Your axioms are unassailable, but I am not allowed axioms at all (undefended foundational premises).
Classical foundationalism denies that you can use your God's existence as an axiom*, but you presuppose it nonetheless, and subsume all subsequent questions into these meaningless propositions: God is good, God is logical, etc.
* Classical foundationalism demands that axioms be self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses. Of course, theists presuppose that Rom 1 is true, and insist that God's existence is self-evident, although bereft of argument. In Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, he counters objections to this tactic (of trying to include God's existence in classical foundationalist definitions) with "Quinn's defeater", "The Great Pumpkin", and "The Grounding Objection", which all have atheistic responses, of course. This could go off topic, but I just wanted to point this out as a side note.
For if the source ever came to an end, why—then the question itself loses all meaning, and things just are as they are, without possible reference to "objective" cows or turtles.
I understand quite well the need to stake out certain premises in our worldview without support, but your presuppositional apologetics seem to deny us this. I am willing to subject my premises to scrutiny and reductio ad absurdum, of course, but the circularity of your premises (God exists, we know this and God's character by Scripture, we know by Scripture that you know this as well, thus God's existence is self-evident) prevents a symmetric approach from theists. I hold to epistemic positions tentatively and skeptically, willing to open my mind to the possibility of being corrected and/or being wrong. Perhaps property dualism is a more rigorous and defensible explanation of consciousness than materialism... perhaps there is no oscillating universe, and no multiverses either, and thus the Anthropic principle has some merit.
It seems that theists such as yourself attempt to hide behind the sort of vacuous certainty you are afforded by saying that somehow, some way, i) things are evil because God commands them, ii) things are evil because of man's nature, iii) and things are evil because they just are (see first comment above) -- the latter of which is of course my position.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Evolution, Ethics, Euthyprho Dilemma
First comment on the evolutionary ethics thread:
1) I explicitly addressed that the mechanism of our origins have little to do with the existence of good and doing good for the sake of good. "Poof" doesn't confer good, nor does descent with modification. It's funny that you probably wouldn't argue this with a Catholic who sees the fine tuning of the universe as a sufficient mechanism of creation (that evolution was contingent upon only primary causation in the Big Bang).
2) Beautiful non sequitur. First, sex is NOT a need, Paul. That's right, it's not. Not for the individual. It is a drive and a desire, but humans can and do survive their entire lives without it...unlike food, water, and shelter.
It is only a "need" for the species, for the society. And as we move from the individual to the society, we have to define why the society exists, and who has conferred rights. IN our country, "we the people" do, and all are equal. We start there. You have the right to be free from harm from others, until you violate that same right. It's a beautiful concept of fairness, justice, and symmetry that the Enlightenment gave us because your God didn't choose to. Your God chose to give the Hebrews "special status" and to slaughter the Egyptian children, then the Canaanite children, etc., not because it was unavoidable, or symmetric, but just because.
We said we base ethics on human needs, not the immediate fulfillment of those needs at the expense of the freedoms and rights of other persons. As much as you wish you could tear down secular humanistic ethics, you first have to oppose the values thereof. The values are rather simple -- justice: you cannot infringe upon the rights of others in order to fulfill your own -- no asymmetry is allowed. And see, that's the problem from the start with your system, because it allowed one group of persons to slaughter another, and their children, because they were "god's chosen" (same theme rings on today in the Middle East).
Basic human needs are no more "subjective" than your choice of "Scripture", your interpretation of Scripture, your choice of the canonized ones, or your faith that they came from your God.
Unfortunately for you, each of those things is quite subjective.
3) Circularity doesn't bring home the bacon. Is good/morality/logic/existence contingent upon God's creation of them and direction of them, or are these things which are necessary for God? IE child rape isn't intrinsically evil, only because God commands it so. If God has no frame of reference to be illogical, or define evil, then God is no more logical or moral than a rock. This is the epitome of arbitrary -- if God had commanded murder, then murder would be good, (as you say it is in such passages as Num 31:17 and 1 Sam 15:3)... if God had commanded X, then X is good, regardless of X. Arbitrary to the core, as the simple value of authority makes something right. Hitler's authority to order things, and ability to see them carried out, made nothing "good", no more than your God's does throughout the OT.
Relativity is the heart of your dilemma -- After all, murder is wrong (10 Commandments), then murder is okay (scriptures listed above). Your God makes everything and sees it is "good" (Gen 1,2), but has a serpent crawling around ready to send everything to "bad" (relative to time), and then gets "grieved" (Gen 6-8) and basically kills everything that "grieves" It.
This also presupposes quite a few things, especially that God's will is somehow revealed to select persons, that those persons are inspired, that their writings are also, and that the revelations to them were universal for all mankind...etc., which is absurd by demonstration: It is clear that if we apply each of the commands to the Hebrews to all persons at the same time, then the national identity of all humans would have prevented them from ever coalescing outside those original divisions (ie there were clear commandments not to intermarry). In that sense, your own morals are neither universal nor objective, but relative to each culture...only to a select group of people, and only at a given point in time, eg temple sacrifices and feasts and burnt offering and the commands to stone offenders of the law. Sure, sure, Jesus didn't come to destroy the law, but to fulfill the law...right, right, and that's why you are still stoning people for picking up sticks on Sunday (Num 15), and why the pericope adulterae represents that same principle, right?
Oh, but wait, God had changed Its mind and decided to dispense grace during that time, right? Boy, God sure keeps moving the goalposts, eh?
Talk about arbitrary.
__
First response:
i) Survival is a necessary value for ethics. The question is NOT whether it is a part of our ethics, but whether survival will be promoted or opposed by every moral decision/action, as it is an unavoidable aspect of our universe. If we do not frame ethics in such a way as to promote survival, then do we frame them in such a way as to oppose it?
I am quite unclear as to how "survival is good, ethics must value human life" violates the naturalistic fallacy. I did not say "survival is good because evolution promotes survival" or some other naturalistic perspective. I am not justifying the statement by using some scientific observation. It is a premise, foundational, and self-evident.
If we do not value survival, then do we value ethics, or even attempt to make them? If we do not care if our actions bring about our own demise, or that of others, then why do we care if our actions are "good/bad" in any other sense at all?
In point of fact, you Christians value your own skin as well. Aaron Kinney (and others) have argued that Christians are just as egoistic as any other group. That self-interest (survival) is an innate part of all moral systems.
Why do you obey God? Why do you avoid hell? It is certainly out of a sense of self-preservation, fear, and hope for your destiny.
ii)-a) The wording of our Declaration of Independence is helpful here: "we hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights" ("life, liberty, property," according to Locke, but Jefferson replaced the last with "pursuit of happiness")
The basis of utilitarian ethics start with an equal value assigned to all persons, or else it is not possible to calculate the beneficence of any given action or decision. If we "tilt the scale" at the beginning, then the idea of the "common good" is a non sequitur and we go back to "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others". This is clearly the view of your God with respect to the Hebrews, and even with respect to Noah, etc., throughout the Bible, as some persons were "favored" over others. Your God does not hold all persons in equal esteem. That is why our values are diametrically opposed.
We do not start with "what value does this person have?" and use arbitrary tests, but instead "all persons are valued equally" and use the objective measure of how any given action/decision affects every persons' needs and rights (to life and liberty).
ii)-b) Your assertion about homosexuals being a burden should be supported by some sort of study other than the completely discredited work of one quack (Cameron)
I don't believe in "homosexual rights" any more than I believe in "Christian rights" or "atheist rights". I subscribe to equal human rights. It's pretty simple.
Are you asking me if we should endow governments with the authority (somehow) to prevent consenting adults from engaging in whatever sexual behaviors they choose? That of course would violate the sovereignty over ones own body, which all humans must have in a system which honors liberty, so long as persons do not use their bodies to infringe upon the rights of others. As Jefferson said, "it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg..." How does it pick your pocket, or break your leg, Steve, for gays (or anyone) to engage in anal sex if they choose to?
ii)-c) Ditto. Women and men must be afforded equal opportunities, which does not imply that they must somehow be "rendered completely equal". We open the door of freedom so that women enjoy the same rights as men, we are not obligated to ensure that they use their freedoms and rights to pursue any particular path towards personal happiness.
And, your assertion about the gender disparities is scientifically shown to be a function of education and not intrinsic abilities. Unfortunately, women are not encouraged and educated with equal enthusiasm to go into some fields as men are. This is the only explanation for why boy and girl children start out with equal cognitive capabilities, but over time we see an unequal distribution of adult men and women in certain occupations and career fields.
You are trying to examine persons to see if they "qualify" for equality, whereas secular humanism defines humans as equal (in the eyes of the law and human rights), and goes from there. A simple defense of this is in discussing how we arbitrate law if otherwise than "lady justice is blind to race, sexual preference, sex, religion, etc." What we find is we obviously discriminate and infringe upon a person's rights and liberty if we define some arbitrary measurement of how they need to "qualify" to get equal access, treatment, and protections under the law.
ii) (second ii) Frame and Bahnsen have argued that morality is both necessary and dependent upon God, and Martin has engaged their arguments. The especially relevant debates center around Martin's TANG. It seems that a false dilemma would not have garnered so much time and effort from an otherwise-bright theists, now would it? I have yet to hear you specifically commit to say that morality is contingent upon God, or that morality is necessary for God. Perhaps you can stake out your position and then we can go from there.
Does God have the ability to choose freely among many actions and decisions? If so, when God makes that choice, and acts, or decides something, is it moral just because God chose it (moral contingency), or is it moral only if God chooses a particular set of actions/decisions, which are themselves able to be evaluated as moral/immoral (morality is necessary)?
If God commanded child rape in the Bible, would it be good? If God commanded that we eat each other? Or, do we agree that God cannot make certain acts/decisions moral simply by acting/deciding them?
___
Second response:
Some things would always be evil, such as ingratitude towards one’s Maker.
Careful Steve, or you'll be starting down the slippy slope towards establishing a moral realism that your divine command theory prohibits.
By contrast, the laws of logic obtain in every possible world.
Subject-object relationships are required for logic to exist. The only intelligible definitions of logic thus require a subject (observer) and objects (A) to make remarks such as, "A is A" and "A cannot be A and B". They don't require a subject/object to be God, unfortunately for you.
Obviously, one possible world is the world of the naturalist, a world in which matter and energy have no need of "creation" and undergo transformations without a divine mind willing them.
Is the only difference between a rock and a moral or rational agent the presence of a frame of reference? What about little things like consciousness?
No I didn't say the "only" difference, but obviously, I made it clear that a creature which cannot access decisions or actions which are wrong/evil/immoral is completely amoral, just as a rock is. If a creature cannot choose wrongly, it cannot choose rightly in the moral sense -- this presupposes consciousness, as all morality does.
An objective standard doesn’t need another standard external to the objective standard to be objective. Otherwise we’re lost in a vicious regress.
This was an odd sentiment to read in coming from someone whose blog hosts presuppositional apologists who insist that we "account for" logic/morality/X, and insist that Christianity supplies the only coherent "account of" X.
On the one hand, you demand rigorous transcendental defenses of the existence of logic and morality, and on the other hand, your God is allowed to sneak under the radar. When God does/is/has it, it just IS, but if I say, "logic exists", Manata et al ask, "WHY?" Your axioms are unassailable, but I am not allowed axioms at all (undefended foundational premises).
Classical foundationalism denies that you can use your God's existence as an axiom*, but you presuppose it nonetheless, and subsume all subsequent questions into these meaningless propositions: God is good, God is logical, etc.
* Classical foundationalism demands that axioms be self-evident, incorrigible, or evident to the senses. Of course, theists presuppose that Rom 1 is true, and insist that God's existence is self-evident, although bereft of argument. In Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, he counters objections to this tactic (of trying to include God's existence in classical foundationalist definitions) with "Quinn's defeater", "The Great Pumpkin", and "The Grounding Objection", which all have atheistic responses, of course. This could go off topic, but I just wanted to point this out as a side note.
For if the source ever came to an end, why—then the question itself loses all meaning, and things just are as they are, without possible reference to "objective" cows or turtles.
I understand quite well the need to stake out certain premises in our worldview without support, but your presuppositional apologetics seem to deny us this. I am willing to subject my premises to scrutiny and reductio ad absurdum, of course, but the circularity of your premises (God exists, we know this and God's character by Scripture, we know by Scripture that you know this as well, thus God's existence is self-evident) prevents a symmetric approach from theists. I hold to epistemic positions tentatively and skeptically, willing to open my mind to the possibility of being corrected and/or being wrong. Perhaps property dualism is a more rigorous and defensible explanation of consciousness than materialism... perhaps there is no oscillating universe, and no multiverses either, and thus the Anthropic principle has some merit.
It seems that theists such as yourself attempt to hide behind the sort of vacuous certainty you are afforded by saying that somehow, some way, i) things are evil because God commands them, ii) things are evil because of man's nature, iii) and things are evil because they just are (see first comment above) -- the latter of which is of course my position.
________________
Technorati tags: Philosophy, Evolution, Ethics, Euthyprho Dilemma
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)