Monday, August 10, 2009

Why I'm a Rationalist.

Because currently, it makes sense to me.

Agnosticism has been described here and elsewhere as "fence-sitting," and as charges go, it's difficult to refute. Human beings are social creatures, and part of a society is identifying oneself with a group; refusal to identify with one quantifiable group is seen in turns as lazy or stubborn or as part of some contrived iconoclasm.

Doubtless this is true for some agnostics. In a world where "atheist" is getting to be commonplace, agnostic sets you apart. You're different. Neither Bible-thumper nor a mascara-wearing Hot Topic tragedy, you're your own creature entirely! And you don't even have to think about it to join the club, all you have to say is you don't know and shrug it off. No difficult questions, no entrance exam, no obligation beyond the statement of your own indifference.

Except there is.

Is a person Christian just because they claim to believe in Jesus, whether they walk the Carpenter's footsteps? How do they know? Are they atheists if they say they believe in nothing but the tangible, though they've never found themselves in fear for their lives and suddenly comforted by the power of a prayer? Does belief - even a belief in nothing - mean anything deeper than a social label, if it's never challenged?

And so we come to the Metalkort, arena of ideals.

There is a tangible universe around us. We have senses (designed/evolved) to accept input from this world, and a brain (designed/evolved) to interpret that input. That this universe exists and that we exist within it is taken for granted, drug-fueled speculation regarding consensus hallucinations notwithstanding.

Within this tangible universe, there exist a great many schools of thought regarding its origins. Some insist to a greater or lesser degree that with enough effort, everything can be broken down into human-scale understanding, quantified mathematically, and rendered explicable. Many (if not most) of the other schools attribute our existence to the will of a being largely or completely beyond our comprehension, whose motives are open to broad speculation and whose methods are, in essence, forever denied to us by the insurmountable difference in the nature of our being. There's god, and there's man.

Here's the rub: I would like to embrace the wholly-scientific view of the universe. Yes, it lacks comfort in the promise of a personal eternity, but on the other hand I like the idea that mankind might eventually understand everything. I look back at what we've achieved technically in my own flyspeck lifespan, and project that forward across geologic time, and on the whole I'm very rah-rah about our species. We can do anything...assuming that "anything" is within our grasp, which presupposes a rational, human-scalable, understandable universe.

I would like to, but I can't entirely, because I've caught myself more than once hoping there's a God. I caught myself praying when I was riding out a tornado under a cabin in the middle of the woods. I wished there was a hell awaiting the 9/11 hijackers. I've shed tears at the searing blast of the crescendo of Handel's Messiah. None of these thoughts or actions can be comfortably stuffed into a rational cubbyhole, because despite all logic there's a part of me that fervently wants to accept there's something else.

So here I remain, on the fence. Torn between a desire for a scientifically-explicable universe and a fantastic unknowable; two belief systems which seem irreconcilable, each with its own compelling draw.

Thoughts?

31 comments:

  1. Why do you talk as if the universe cannot be scientifically explicable if there is a fantastic unknowable? The two are not mutually exclusive, are they? If so, why do you think that? I know conventional wisdom says that religion stifles scientific discovery, but that's not entirely true. Certain religious leaders may have done that by insisting things like Jerusalem was the center of the earth, the sun rotated around the earth, etc. That does not mean every representative of their faith has to be bound by their mistakes. The interesting thing is that Christian leaders who did stuff like that came up with it on their own because it's not in the Bible. If there is any part of the Bible that is false, I'd say the most likely candidate would be the story of Adam and Eve. However, it is unlikely that we will ever definitively know if it is false, and even if it is one day discovered to be false that does not mean that Christianity is false. It could be a mythic parable to describe our human condition. That may be a separate discussion, though. Back to your point about science and knowledge, there is nothing in the Bible, so far as I know, that prohibits scientific research and discovery.

    There have been, and are, many scientists who are Christians and still very good at what they do. They approach their work expecting there to be rational laws that govern existence, which there are. So even if you don't agree with the assertion I made about moral laws before, you should be able to accept that there do seem to at least be rules, if not absolute laws, that govern our physical world. Like Einstein said: the only unfathomable thing about the universe is that it is fathomable. WHY is it fathomable? No, we don't completely understand it yet, but we keep learning about it. Why are we even able to learn about it? Dolphins are pretty smart, but you don't see them studying black holes. Why is that? Is it all an accident? Will dolphins one day evolve hands and be building space ships with us?

    There is a part in Atlas Shrugged where Dagny is hiding out in a cabin in the woods and is making a walkway up to the door. She starts thinking about the difference between nature and man. Nature, left to itself, is a pointless circle. The seasons come and go, animals breed and die, plants grow and die, etc. Man, however, makes a straight line of progress. Out of all the creatures on the earth, man alone is not content to be part of the circle. Man strives to invent and create. Sure, a beaver may build a dam, but as far as we know beavers have always built dams the same way. There are no beavers that start building dams out of concrete and pass that knowledge on to future generations, or any beavers that build a dam and then sit back and admire their work. Man is special. Why? Is it a coincidence that the Bible says man is special because he was created in God's image? This is what I'm talking about in what I'm looking for as I read through the Bible. It was written long before the entire earth was explored. For all the authors knew, the sun and moon could have been living beings, there could have been some talking beavers or unicorns somewhere else, there could have been giants, walking trees...who knows? The Bible makes many claims that have proved to be accurate, but how many has it made that have proved to be false? That's an honest question, btw, as I still have not read it all yet.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on the first two points from my previous comments. Do you think there is an intelligence or an author behind existence and do you think there are universal moral laws? Since my answer to both of these is yes, that makes me look for what that intelligence might be. The Christian God makes the most sense to me out of anything else that's out there.

    Just for you, apoth, I'm going to refer to an episode of Babylon 5, specifically the original encounter with the highly mysterious beings known as the First Ones. G'kar is asked what they are, and in response he looks down at an ant, picks it up and says, "What is this?" The other person tells him it's an ant an explains what it is. G'kar puts the ant back down and says, "Now if that ant finds one of his friends and points to me and says, 'What was that?!', what will the other ant say?" I think there is more going on in this life than we know or can explain right now. And since we're not ants, maybe we will figure it all out one day, but that doesn't mean it will prove that there is no God. Maybe we are simply incapable of understanding what is really going on at this point in time? Maybe that's why Jesus came but still didn't explain everything himself, because He knew we wouldn't understand? That may sound like a cop out, but I'm okay with there still being mysteries until they are explained with something more convincing than dogmatic Darwinism.

    And for the record, I do respect honest agnosticism more than dogmatic Darwinism because at least the agnostic is open to the possibility of God. That being said, though, you really should make up your mind at some point after doing your research. And no, not simply because you're scared of possibly going to hell (which was not the point in my using Pascal's Wager before), but just to make a decision. After a while it's a little bit like not being able to choose a favorite football team and deciding that you'll wait until after the Superbowl is over to pick your team. Don't be a bandwagon fan.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Why do you talk as if the universe cannot be scientifically explicable if there is a fantastic unknowable? The two are not mutually exclusive, are they?

    I don't approach it from a "religion stifling dissent" angle, and I apologize if it came off that way.

    My reason for separating the two is a suspicion that if God exists, and is responsible for the creation of the universe, the methods by which that act was accomplished are essentially beyond the reach of human understanding forever and ever, and that's it. That's not to say we wouldn't still have a lot to learn and all sorts of interesting bits of knowledge to ferret out, but in the end it'd still come down to "The Big Guy Did It".

    I guess I object to the idea that given enough time and effort by the human species, some things are essentially unknowable. It's not outright stifling, but it's sorta discouraging.

    I do believe in moral laws governing the conduct of human society, but I don't believe they needed a God to define them. Assuming man evolved rather than being created whole, he evolved as a social animal from a long line of creatures who found it a successful survival strategy. Maintenance of a functioning society demands a certain code of behavior from its participants; murder, rape, theft, etc. are obviously not behaviors conducive to a successfully functioning society.

    Bandwagon fan? If I gave this question equal weight with the selection of a football team, that might be persuasive, but I think it goes a little deeper than that. If forced into a corner I'd probably come down in favor of the scientific, but I can't fully internalize that for reasons I already stated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. And I hate, hate, hate Pascal's wager. If there is a God, I hope anyone who signs up based on Pascal's Wager ends up spending eternity changing the newspaper on the floor of the angel pens.

    It's the reduction of the most deeply personal questions of faith to an insurance policy. "maybe there is and maybe there ain't...but JUST IN CASE!" What a load of horse apples.

    I'm certainly no theologian but based on my childhood experiences in Sunday and Vacation Bible School, I never got the impression God was interested in humanity's love and devotion "just in case." That's not belief, that's hedging your bets.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "That's not to say we wouldn't still have a lot to learn and all sorts of interesting bits of knowledge to ferret out, but in the end it'd still come down to "The Big Guy Did It".

    Okay, I see your point and it is a good one. I guess if life, the universe and everything are ultimately beyond human comprehension, that doesn't really bother me that much. Wouldn't the alternative be that there is ultimately no meaning at all? That seems more discouraging to me. I think as long as religion isn't trying to make you stop asking questions by saying "The Big Guy Did It" that it can get along with science just fine. There is a part near the end of Steyn's book America Alone where he quotes a passage from an Arthur Conan Doyle novel involving some arabs and one of them basically says they don't need all of that learnin' stuff. What do we care if some stars have tails and others don't? How will knowing the answer to that make life any better? That's for Allah to worry about. If we needed to know that kind of stuff we'd know it already. I'm paraphrasing but you get the point. I'm very rah-rah about our species, too, and I think there is a lot more we can continue to discover as long as we can avoid stepping into things like socialized medicine.

    As for the moral laws, that's why I used the example of the Nazis. Murder and rape were illegal in their society, only they decided it wasn't illegal if it was done to Jews. Their society kept on moving rather well despite the abominable death camps here and there. If there is no God and no universal moral laws, though, who is to say that they were wrong?

    We probably won't convince each other or reach an agreement about all of this, but it's still interesting to talk about. These are the types of things that really get stuck in my mind because as of yet there is no really good answer.

    Okay, perhaps the football analogy was a bit of an oversimplification, but it IS almost September.

    And everybody hates on Pascal's Wager. I know it's largely dismissed and I thought I'd probably take some heat for mentioning it, but I'll elaborate on that in a little bit.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Murder and rape were illegal in their society, only they decided it wasn't illegal if it was done to Jews. Their society kept on moving rather well despite the abominable death camps here and there. If there is no God and no universal moral laws, though, who is to say that they were wrong?

    It kept moving just fine until the rest of the world rose up and crushed them into smoking craters and dust. As I expect it would in reaction to any casual distortion of a basic moral law of society taken to such an intolerable extreme.

    Notice, though, that even the Nazis acknowledged this on some level. They couldn't perpetrate those atrocities against fellow humans...they had to reduce them to subhumans in order to make it palatable enough for their society to swallow.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wouldn't the alternative be that there is ultimately no meaning at all? That seems more discouraging to me.

    I guess I'm not really as bothered by the idea of there being no ultimate binding "meaning" in the universe, as such. ("Existence exists", as long as we're quoting Rand.) I'd like to know how it exists, but absent the sure belief in a God I'm comfortable with there not really being a "why," which implies a motive. Maybe it just is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Pascal's Wager: apoth, I actually do agree with a lot of what you said (aside from your virulent hatred; sounds like you've been watching Fox News or something). As I originally mentioned, though, I don't think it should be a stand alone reason for anyone to believe in God, not even someone on the fence. I don't want you to think I'm throwing it at you, specifically, like it's the most compelling argument ever. "You don't want to go to HELL, do you???" On the other hand, if you already believe in God I think it can be used as a good illustration of why one might be reluctant to change their mind.

    I already believed in God before I ever heard of Pascal's Wager and here is how I factor it in to my beliefs. Hearing the arguments of someone who is trying to convince me there is no God, and assuming that they do not have any slam-dunk proof and I'm not simply being obstinate, what is the motivation for me to disbelieve? I am content being a Christian. Not only does the thought of an architect to the universe make sense to me intellectually, it would be pretty swell if He is also all-loving and has a personal interest in me and everyone else on earth in some mystical way. I hope I go to heaven and I don't want to go to hell. I'm still free to have doubts and think about them. I don't have anything against science and I don't try to step on anybody's toes. So what is it I'm missing?

    The atheist is telling me I've got it all wrong and that I need to free my mind, unchain myself, not fall victim to the virus that is religion. That's all well and good, but what exactly is the atheist offering me? Definitely not eternal salvation, which sounds pretty nice. He's also not offering me any particularly insightful truth because he doesn't have it yet, either. He's not offering me any better road map for how to live my life, because if I was able to follow the 10 commandments every day of my life, chances are I'd be an all right guy and not cause much trouble.

    Even if I decided to go with the atheist and there really is no God, what would the payoff be? Oblivion. If I stay a Christian and there is no God, and the atheist has been right all along, he won't even get to brag about it because we'll still reach the same destination: oblivion. It's a little bit like the argument of why won't God heal amputees? At the end of all the theorizing and discussion, what is it that the atheist is offering to the amputee? "Congratulations, you're still an amputee," and oblivion.

    But I agree with you that simply not wanting to go to hell does not constitute belief any more that simply giving money to church every Sunday. If Pascal's Wager is used to try and scare people into believing then it's worthless.

    Btw, don't I get any points for squeezing in a B5 reference?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Fox news? Hell, I've listenined to Rush Limbaugh once or twice. I'm a little burning ember of racist imperialist rage. But I digress.

    I know people who've used Pascal's Wager in its "you don't wanna go to HELL" formulation before - growing up in the south it's hard to avoid, but in that form it's so unpersuasive it's barely worth a roll of the eyes. I can see how it'd be more effective in helping an existing believer maintain your faith, but you've already come to the faith via another route. Thus from your perspective, it's not a cynical calculation anymore, it's just icing on the cake.

    I don't know that it's an effective counter to a hardcore atheist's perspective, though, since that person cannot by definition understand the perspective from which your argument is made, and will only interpret Pascal's Wager in terms of the implied threat.

    And yes, you get points for the B5 ref, though I'm never sure whether the overlords are going to react by chasing such references back to Underverse.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "It kept moving just fine until the rest of the world rose up and crushed them into smoking craters and dust."

    Right, but who was the rest of the world to rise up and crush them into dust? That's what I'm saying: the Nazis lost WWII so they are villified (and rightfully so). What if they had won and taught everyone that what they did was okay and the Jews deserved what they got because they are subhuman? What authority could anyone point to that says they would still be wrong whether they won the war or not? They would be in charge. They would be running civilized society. This is all starting to repeat itself in a very sick fashion today, btw, there just aren't any Nazis this time.

    Atheism tends to lead to complete nihilism where nothing is right other than what you want to be right and the strongest person decides what is right for the majority...until an even stronger person comes along. I think the Holocaust was an evil thing, but I believe I think that for reasons other than because I was born in America or because chemicals in my brain make me think that way whether I want to or not. The laws of civilized society can change in the blink of an eye and they tend to get really, really bad when God is taken out of the equation.

    The atheism is where Rand and I part ways, though I understand her arguments. I think she may have had some bad experiences with the Orthodox Church in Russia.

    "I know people who've used Pascal's Wager in its "you don't wanna go to HELL" formulation before..."

    That sort of thing is unfortunate and is probably responsible for a lot of people "falling off the wagon", so to speak. It may work on little kids sometimes, but there is a lot more to Christianity than some kind of boogeyman threat. The Catholic high school I went to had atrocious religious education. Most of the smart students that aced everything including religion class were atheists by their freshman year of college. We spent time watching movies like Philadelphia (?!) and hearing "proofs" about miracles in the middle ages and never even went into the most basic defenses of faith. When I started reading apologetics literature I was surprised to find that they heavily encourage thinking. What a concept!

    "I don't know that it's an effective counter to a hardcore atheist's perspective, though, since that person cannot by definition understand the perspective from which your argument is made..."

    You're probably right and I think that's part of the problem. I can see the perspective of the atheist, but often times they don't want or need to see someone else's perspective. If this were a more hostile forum I would never have brought up Pascal's Wager because predictably the only response would have been, "OHHHHH!! OHHHHHH!!! YOU IDIOT!!! LMAO @ YOU!!" and no matter what else I said would be reduced to me believing in Pascal's Wager, and probably being a "creationist", too.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What if they had won and taught everyone that what they did was okay and the Jews deserved what they got because they are subhuman? What authority could anyone point to that says they would still be wrong whether they won the war or not?

    But they didn't. Because people - from a broad range of faiths, and even in the case of the Russians a relative lack of it - all saw the threat they posed, not just to an individual religion, but to society. It was in the defense of that society the people rose up against them. The Russians didn't take Berlin because God told them to.

    They were tried in the court of public opinion and found wanting. The promise of a really nice highway system and cheap reliable cars wasn't adequate compensation for the death of six million Jews and the surrender of all rights as a subjugated populace.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Granted, the Allies were fighting for their society, but what made us the good guys? And again, the Nazis were only a threat to our society, not their own society. What authority is there to point to other than our strength and the fact that we won to let us say that we were also RIGHT? What makes the US fighting the Nazis different than, say, the Nazis fighting the Soviets, who both had pretty evil men for leaders? What even gives me the right to say Hitler and Stalin are evil? Of course a society needs laws to function, but who can say that a law is good or bad if you have no higher authority to refer to than whoever is in charge or whatever popular opinion happens to be at the moment? I'm not trying to play games or be difficult here because this is what some people actually argue.

    What is generally agreed upon as "good" right now may not be so 50 years from now. Eugenics was all the rage until the news about the Holocaust broke and it was suddenly not so popular anymore. That flame is far from dead in the minds of progressives, though, and it is slowly but surely making a comeback. If 100 years from now our society thinks eugenics is a good idea again, what authority can someone living in that time point to and say, "This is morally wrong no matter what." The Constitution? Okay, an amendment is passed legalizing eugenics, or the Constitution is repealed, whatever. Just words. Men can change their own laws and societies can change their values at will. Why would eugenics still be wrong no matter what?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Good question. What did make us the good guys? Who says we were right? What gives us the right to say so?

    Given my previous thoughts about man as a social animal, depending on certain agreed-upon behaviors to maintain the relative stability of a society, it's clear the Nazis were way off the tracks. The alternate society they were constructing was antithetical to the societies around them. Nobody (with the possible exception of the Vichy French) wanted to be part of that society and nobody liked the way they were going about selling it.

    The defeat of the Nazis was not the result of a jihad or crusade. There were surely strong religious convictions among many of the combatants but religion wasn't necessary as a prime motivator. Maintenance of a society was.

    Hypothetical: if religious dogma had been on the Nazis' side, would they still be "right" even though they lost? They'd have a higher power to appeal to, wouldn't they? Would we be wrong for having won because God said they were right, or would their actions still have been unspeakably vile in our eyes? Would it cease to be genocide because god said so?

    And why, in your view, would eugenics be wrong, Eduardo? I ask you because I honestly don't know what the Bible has to say about eugenics.

    I can't honestly deny I object to the idea of congenital idiots reproducing. MTV already has enough audience.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "The alternate society they were constructing was antithetical to the societies around them. Nobody...wanted to be part of that society and nobody liked the way they were going about selling it."

    I have to disagree with you there. After WWII nobody wanted to be a Nazi, but before WWII fascism was all the rage in progressive circles. The Italian gov't was very similar to Hitler's and so was the Soviet Union; they were all essentially state-run socialism. American progs were all in love with Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin. They were all bold men of the people, don't you know? And honestly, what has changed? Nowadays it's Che Guevara, Castro, Chavez. Wash, rinse, repeat.

    But anyway, about this agreed-upon behavior business. The Aztecs had agreed-upon behavior for their society, too, which involved brutal human sacrifice and wearing cloaks made of human skin. They rose to be the most powerful force in their known world and were unchallenged. Their society sucked for the surrounding tribes, but for the Aztecs themselves it wasn't so bad. If Cortes hadn't shown up who knows how long they might have lasted? So, removing a moral law-giver outside of humanity, how can we say that there was anything wrong with Aztec society other than we ourselves just don't prefer it at this point in time?

    Your question on what I think about eugenics is a perfect example of the point I'm trying to make because it's the reverse of what I've been pestering you about all day. There is no way I can argue against eugenics without eventually invoking my religious beliefs. An atheist, on the other hand, can argue in favor of eugenics all day long by simply saying that there is no God, there are no universal moral laws and society has gotta do what it's gotta do...for the greater good.

    Let's just say, for the sake of argument, you are in favor of forced sterilization for anyone under a certain IQ. I am opposed to it but I have to keep falling back on religious reasons. Which one of us is right?

    And as for specific Bible verses, I'm only on 2 Samuel right now, but other than "thou shalt not kill" the only other possibility I can think of so far might be some other laws described in the Pentateuch. I will keep you appraised of anything pertinent I find if you want me to.

    ReplyDelete
  15. You know, Apoth, your asking the Bible's opinion reminded me of one of the reasons I started reading it through. It is a very valid question. How can I go around shooting my mouth off if I don't even know what the Good Book says? After I posted that last comment I realized I started our discussion with this:

    "The interesting thing is that Christian leaders who did stuff like that came up with it on their own because it's not in the Bible."

    I don't actually know that for a fact, I am just mostly sure that is true. I used to say stuff like that all the time w/out really knowing it for sure. I just trusted that anything important was covered in Sunday school or religion class. Don't want to get caught flat-footed, though.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, removing a moral law-giver outside of humanity, how can we say that there was anything wrong with Aztec society other than we ourselves just don't prefer it at this point in time?

    Well for that matter why go all the way back to the Aztecs? There's a well-known contemporary equivalent. And as it happens, they're pretty convinced their acts are committed in the name of and justified by their god, and they think your God is baloney.

    So how does someone like me judge what they do as "wrong" outside the reference of Christian thought? Start by taking a look at the sorry state of their nightmarish, fragmented society, steeped in acts of brutality and stuck in the dark ages. They simply don't know how to run a just and productive society, and the religious death spiral they're locked into prevents them from ever evolving past their current state.

    So where's our sense of "right and wrong" come from? Is it from the Bible? When you first saw the words "Thou Shalt Not Commit Murder" and it rang true with you, was that divine inspiration, or was it because it touched on something you already recognized as a pretty good idea? I can't really believe it was a revelation.

    So was it a conditioned response, a result of growing up in a society that already widely acknowledged the Christian God? Hammurabi didn't have a Bible, but he churned out a thoroughly ordered and documented set of ideas about how to run a just society, some of which still applies nearly four thousand years later. Lots of it seems archaic and brutal to modern eyes, but wanton murder, rape, theft, and adultery were verboten. 1700 years before the birth of Jesus and 500 years before the birth of Moses, he knew that sort of behavior was detrimental and needed the kibosh slapped on it.

    Where'd he get those ideas? Was it from the Christian God in an earlier guise, or was it a result of observations about what worked to maintain order and what didn't?

    I concede there were and are a lot of progs who Nazis, or at least a lot of the ideology espoused by Nazis, is just spiffy. And for what it's worth I'd hazard a guess that a Venn diagram of those people and atheists would be so near a single circle as to make no difference. But the society those people are working towards isn't ours. Not because they're atheists, but because the justice they seek isn't the justice of the individual, it's the justice of the hive.

    As Americans we see, or at least try to see, people as equal individuals participating in a society, and react accordingly. The society is an end product of the voluntary interaction of individuals, not an individual itself composed of interchangeable, disposable cells.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I feel like there is a disconnect somewhere and we're getting away from the main issue. This is not about who wrote what law first or about what I think; I already said that I believe in universal moral laws whether God whispered in Hammurabi's ear or not. Ultimately I'm not the one you need to convince. This is more about what you would say to someone who really does believe these arguments I'm giving you, and I don't think they would let you get by with simply invoking what the population generally agrees upon. A society doesn't have to be "nice" to function well. Look at China. The question is: are there moral laws that apply to everyone no matter what society or time period you live in or are morals fluid and do they need to change with societal progress?

    You can't think of this in terms of your own values. What you are ultimately saying is that you are passing judgment on other societies based on your own personal feelings about what is good for a culture. Whether or not you have other people that agree with you does not matter. You say that the contemporary equivalent society you mentioned is a nightmare (very non-PC, btw). Well, it has been trucking along for a good while now and is even threatening to replace our own society. Who are you to say they have it wrong? They certainly don't think they have an unjust society. I'm sure its leaders would say any problems they have come from poisonous Western ideas like democracy and women's rights. As long as they keep their population ignorant and superstitious everybody gets along just fine. You or I may think that it is a crappy way of life for the average person, but many of them would just as soon shoot us as look at us. In fact, they would probably blame us for all of their problems instead of their own leaders.

    I am not saying that everything we do has to be done in the name of a holy war or that every good idea in history was divinely inspired. I am just asking you that if you believe in individual freedom and liberty but someone else believes in human sacrifice, how can you say that the other person is morally wrong and that it's not simply a difference in personal preference? What if they said that they have different morals because they live in a different culture that has been working fine for centuries and you need to be respectful of it? Would they still be wrong? A nihilist would tell you that you have no right to say anything to them because there is no right or wrong and no good or evil. What would you say to that?

    ReplyDelete
  18. are there moral laws that apply to everyone no matter what society or time period you live in or are morals fluid and do they need to change with societal progress?

    "Morals" are demonstrably fluid and constantly changing, even within our own society. No matter how well-defined, and by what authority, morals are ultimately always interpreted by the individual. Even within the narrow, well-defined confines of the Christian religion you'll find a wide range of views about what's "moral" and what isn't - and not just frivolous crap like whether it's proper for a woman to show her ankles, either. God says you don't commit murder, but there's no solid consensus on how that applies to capital punishment.

    No, I don't believe anyone's found a universal, indisputable and agreed-upon ultimate authority for morality. So in a society composed of individuals, it really is about what you think, and what I think, and what each individual thinks, and how we group together around our shared views of morality, and how we act on them.

    You can say murder's wrong because God says it's wrong, and that's all the justification you need to make that judgement. I can say murder's wrong because it deprives an independent thinking individual of their life, and that's all I need. Neither of these judgements matters, in and of itself, to the guy sawing people's heads off because his god says it's okay; and it won't matter to him until and unless those individual people with their independently-arrived-at judgements find common cause and make him stop, through reason, or coercion, or naked force.

    And really that's what it comes down to, historically. Ideas are tried on for size, and they're either paid for or put back on the rack. They become popular (or not) and spread (or not) by the power of their resonance with individuals. Some ideas, like "thou shalt not commit murder," resonate through diverse ages and cultures. Others, like "god wants you to go carve that guy's heart out," don't.

    Is the nihilist right or wrong when he says there's no right or wrong? Well, how many successful, thriving societies based on nihilism do you see around you? Could it be that the tenets of nihilism just doesn't ring true to enough people to attract a continual and diverse stream of adherents, and ultimately proponents and defenders?

    It's said history is written by the victors. Maybe those are the same guys who determine what's moral and what isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "Morals" are demonstrably fluid and constantly changing, even within our own society. No matter how well-defined, and by what authority, morals are ultimately always interpreted by the individual."

    Okay, that's the heart of the matter right there. Things like women showing their ankles I don't think are a big deal. Things like the tax code and speed limits will constantly be changing. However, there are some things I believe cannot be fluid and are universally wrong no matter what. Cold-blooded murder is one of those. If someone told me that we could improve humanity by cloning fetuses and harvesting them for their cells I would not be in favor of that. Let me again insert a shameless B5 plug: remember Deathwalker? That's only one example, but the whole point in my making the statement about moral laws is that I think they do exist. Therefore, where did they come from? I think they had to come from somwhere outside of ourselves because anything that we come up with on our own is subject to change in the next election cycle. To try and change my mind about that you would have to get downright nihilistic on me.

    "Well, how many successful, thriving societies based on nihilism do you see around you?"

    I see zero and I hope it stays that way. Nazi Germany was probably the closest we've seen. I don't think a nihilistic society could ultimately be very successful or thriving but I think it could still be "a society". That would be another one of those nightmarish places.

    ReplyDelete
  20. the whole point in my making the statement about moral laws is that I think they do exist. Therefore, where did they come from?

    My guess? Survival of the Fittest, as applied to ideology. Kinda what I've been trying (somewhat ineptly, I guess) to get across.

    Good ideas have their own inertia, bad ones don't and can only keep moving if acted on by an outside force - for example, in the case of middle eastern death cult, the outside force might be petrodollars. Once the outside force is removed (the Aztec priesthood) the idea grinds to a halt (no more amateur-hour cardiology).

    ReplyDelete
  21. Oh no, I understand what you're saying. I'm just pointing out where we disagree. If our moral laws do develop from a kind of survival of the fittest, that means they are still subject to change. If the Bible is true, though, moral laws are one of the reasons God spoke to Abraham in the first place. He was a little unhappy about all of the bad stuff going on in the world and wanted to set a people apart from the rest of the world by definitively giving them the laws to live by.

    And one final point, I should stress that FIRST I believe there are universal moral laws and SECONDLY the Bible supports that. I do not believe that only because the Bible says so and I don't want to leave you with that impression. In other words, it's not like I feel and think one way but the Bible is telling me something else so I just do whatever it says. Like we've been talking about, the laws in the Bible seem to greatly encourage a healthy, just society. This is another example of what I mean about how I see a lot of truth in the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If our moral laws do develop from a kind of survival of the fittest, that means they are still subject to change.

    Aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think some of them are not. If all of our morals are subject to the results of survival of the fittest, then just like in nature that translates into rule by brute force because the strongest will come out on top, not necessarily the best.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well, assuming a "marketplace of ideas," shouldn't the strongest - which, in that context, means the most persuasive and resonant - come out on top?

    ReplyDelete
  25. If the marketplace of ideas decides to go with something that violates a universal moral law, then I think it is wrong no matter how persuasive and resonant it may be with the general populace at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  26. The Aztecs probably thought the same thing.

    It's not that I'm not sympathetic to your view, don't get me wrong. I wouldn't compromise the values I hold in favor of something I disagreed with, just because that new idea was more popular.

    But if an entire society starts gradually shifting its inertia toward a different ideology, eventually that's going to be perceived as the "universal" moral law. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not in our children's lifetimes, but eventually the majority comes to see it as the way.

    That's why we're approaching crisis - too many people are too damn complacent, they're not standing up and fighting for what they believe because they don't think they have to. To them and their narrow perspective of the "here and now," those morals and values are an immovable, universal fait accompli. They can't imagine it not being so, because it always has been.

    And when schools and parents do progressively less and less to teach kids about times in our past when it WASN'T the accepted standard, when they don't get a chance to grasp how unique and precious the values of western society are in the broad stretch of human history, the problem's exacerbated.

    ReplyDelete
  27. But if an entire society starts gradually shifting its inertia toward a different ideology, eventually that's going to be perceived as the "universal" moral law. Maybe not in our lifetimes, maybe not in our children's lifetimes, but eventually the majority comes to see it as the way.

    My whole entire question with the whole morals spiel has ever been: are there laws outside of what we make ourselves?

    If there aren't, and the progs take everything over, then universal healthcare will be the universal moral. They will have the bigger mob and greater strength compared to you and me, so they will suddenly be "right" and we will be "wrong" whereas we would have been "right" 200 years ago.

    This all brings me back to my Nazi analogy, which I just realized I let you off the hook from earlier. IF the Nazis won WWII and taught everyone from the day they could crawl that Jews actually are subhuman creatures, based on what you said above that would become the new universal moral law. I think murdering Jews would still be wrong because there are laws that transcend what we put down on paper from our own minds.

    I think I might need to write an allegorical tale about this and post it in the Underverse. The working title in my head is "The Fetus Harvesters of Zagat 9". The message is going to be really subtle and sneak up on you, but powerful at the same time. Like all true internet fan fiction, I'll probably throw in the obligatory crossover appearance of a character from my favorite show or video game.

    And as for the Aztecs, let's be glad they are not around anymore. Especially since we get a lot of oil from Mexico.

    ReplyDelete
  28. are there laws outside of what we make ourselves?

    I think so. Based on past examples of success and failure, there seem to be some tenets that, when adhered to, make a more effective society than otherwise. Don't kill, don't steal, don't covet your neighbor's wife, etcetera.

    But the problem of what ensures the longevity of a truth was pretty much the thrust of my last post: you can say all you want that murder is bad, but if enough people disagree with you vehemently enough, you're screwed. Your morals can always remain your own, but they're just not going to propagate in a near-vacuum.

    IF the Nazis won WWII and taught everyone from the day they could crawl that Jews actually are subhuman creatures, based on what you said above that would become the new universal moral law.

    Not necessarily; winning the conflict of arms isn't the same as winning the conflict of ideas. We kicked the North Vietnamese square in the ass militarily, but we lost the war of ideas thanks in large part to the competing ideas being spread here at home. When those who'd supported the war in the first place allowed themselves to be swayed, or shouted down, or otherwise silenced...well. We know what happened from there.

    I think murdering Jews would still be wrong because there are laws that transcend what we put down on paper from our own minds.

    Actually, you wouldn't think anything of the sort, because either you'd have been raised to think Jews were evil subhumans and wouldn't know any better, or you'd be dead.

    Which brings me back to the dangers of complacency. Maybe - and I'm just kicking around ideas, here - maybe it's DANGEROUS to think of any truth as being "universal." We're all guilty of this, but think about it: if you accept a moral value as being universal and immutable, whether you derive it from the word of God or some asinine idea of the requirements of smoothly-functioning society, you're less prone to recognize a threat to it and defend it.

    Not you PERSONALLY, mind you. I can see you're fired up about it and you know the score. But people, in general. If they don't appreciate the vulnerability of their morals over the long term, are they as likely to rouse themselves to defend those morals from opposing ideas, before it's too late?

    Timely example: the rest of the world almost waited too long with the Nazis. A few more months, they might've had nukes and the means to deliver them. Complacency.

    We have to accept the existence of competing ideals, that's the nature of humanity. If you refuse to do that, you end up with the Crusades, with millions of dissidents dead at the hands of Stalin, with that one poor, brave, long-dead bastard in Tienanmen Square.

    We're never going to eliminate competing morals, and at some point it becomes dangerous to try. (Look at the Nazis.) We have to sell our morals as being superior.

    I realize none of this answers your question to me about whether there's an overarching, universal font of morals. In short, I don't know for sure, but I don't think so. I think it's probably a product of upbringing and surroundings, and if that's the case, then it's damn critical that both of those are revitalized to reflect the morals and values we all basically agree on - I think we pretty much agree on the principles, even if we disagree on the ultimate source.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Actually, you wouldn't think anything of the sort...

    That's not what I meant, but how about this: if I didn't even exist, the Nazis would still be wrong no matter what.

    if you accept a moral value as being universal and immutable...you're less prone to recognize a threat to it and defend it.

    That somewhat conflicts with:

    We have to accept the existence of competing ideals, that's the nature of humanity. If you refuse to do that, you end up with the Crusades...

    There are some things you don't compromise on, no matter what. If you go too far down that road you suddenly become Lindsay Graham or David Brooks and you end up not standing for anything. Remember: our founding fathers fought a "crusade", and I'm glad they did.

    But then, what is worth killing over? Freedom or cartoons of Mohamed? That's a separate discussion.

    The prophets of Israel are fascinating people in the Bible and their part in it is one I've just gotten to. It's very pertinent to this discussion. At first the kings would repent when the prophets pointed out their sins, but after a while they would simply get executed or ignored. They were largely ridiculed by the general populace but still firm in their message. Obviously, the prophets were trying to remind everyone of the moral laws that still apply whether the people wanted them to or not. I just can't shake the feeling that's getting played out again today, minus the prophets.

    But anyway, you are absolutely right: complacency is death. Like Victor Davis Hanson said, if nobody understands why Western culture is so great, nobody will understand why they have to defend it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. There are some things you don't compromise on, no matter what. If you go too far down that road you suddenly become Lindsay Graham or David Brooks and you end up not standing for anything.

    Right, there's a balance there. And no, I don't know exactly where the line is. It's obviously north of accepting or condoning murder, but how far north? What else is grounds for pushing our morals by force?

    And I should've been more specific: by "accepting competing ideals" I meant within humanity as a whole, not necessarily within a given society. We as a group accept theft as being wrong, and codify it in our laws - you don't get to commit murder within this society, even if you really really hated the guy and Allah said it's okay. But we don't go bomb the hell out Islamabad every time some Pakistani nutjob offs his wife for having the audacity to wear a bra.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Btw, Apoth, if Pascal's Wager won't change your mind about religion, it's sure to change your mind about global warming.

    ReplyDelete