Maximum Awesome, a "possibilian", dropped by on an older post to interact some with me. Here's my latest response to his comments.
Possibilian, eh?
Possibilianism is comfortable holding multiple ideas in mind; it is not interested in committing to any particular story.
So, do you think you can know much of anything about The Big Questions? Like God, death, life, man, knowledge, other minds, the one and the many, etc?
the necessity of holding multiple positions at once if there is no available data to privilege one over the others.
How can one get data without some position on how we know things, what data and evidence are, and how they relate to our minds?
Seems like empiricism masquerading as a pretty naive sophistic idea.
"the important thing" about his atonement here is still that it is *scapegoat human sacrifice*.
I don't accept that, though.
On the Christian position, God chooses how He does stuff and we judge the rightness/wrongness of our actions based on the standard that He has provided.
So, it's fine on my end. If you want to give us a way to know that that was wrong or right, I'd like to know it.
there is no underlying principle that can connect these scraps of memorisable commands into a comprehensible system
1) Would you mind quoting me to that effect?
2) I disagree; the underlying principle is God's unchanging character and nature.
There is no possibility of a Unified Theory of Morality
Not if atheism is true.
If Christianity is true, there is a unified morality.
By its very nature, this subject is not amenable to rational inquiry, nor could it ever be.
Reading and exegeting the biblical text is rational inquiry. Any viewing of a systematic theology will attest to that.
You might mean "rationalISTIC", and of course that would be true, since rationalism, the belief that human reason is autonomous and foundational, is irrational.
We think about things, sure, and we are in fact commanded to. But human reason is far from the final standard of truth.
2) God can do whatever he wants. He is not beholden to human morality.
Yes.
He can behave in a manner befitting of Satan, Hitler and Ted Bundy combined
This is a specious characterisation.
Those men are murderers, grossly disobeying the law of God. By contrast, God always acts in accord with His law and His character. So no, it's totally different. God will judge (well, He has judged) those men, and I'd hate to be in their shoes.
He can both allow and cause infinite suffering for any reason he pleases.
Yes, but it's not as if those reasons are all that mysterious, or secretive. He's revealed quite a few of them, and quite clearly.
And all of His reasons are justified, by definition.
If you disagree, please make sure to let us know the standard which you're using to judge. Please also make sure to let us know how you're unsure (as a possibilian) about so many things but you're quite sure about morality. What "data" did you use to come to your moral conclusions?
If you haven't come to any moral conclusions, why are you talking like you have, and doing what seems to be judging God by them?
plucking living souls out of life and burning them forever as it felt like it.
If by that you mean "ending the lives of rebel sinners as He has decreed and given them far more patience than they deserved and placing them in the place that they wanted far more than they wanted God, which includes torment, which torment they preferred rather than bowing the knee to the God Who offered them the free gift of eternal life, which they scorned", then yes.
I was trying to get across the emotional flavour of my reaction.
Yes, and that's the principal motivating factor for pretty much any skeptic who argues like you. Y'all pretend to be so very concerned with reasonable inquiry, but it quickly becomes obvious that you're acting out of simmering bitterness.
The only ones who've got you beat in that regard are liberals.
Maybe it's the golden rule: do unto others, etc. The problem with this is, what if I'm a suicidal masochist? I can't just beat people to death because I want to be beaten to death myself.
Why not?
The problem that you haven't seen is that you proposed a rule (the golden rule) and then saw sthg that doesn't agree with your already-present moral standard and so you reject it. So you're not being honest with anyone here, least of all yourself.
You need to come clean and acknowledge that you yourself personally have set up a moral standard by which you're judging these questions. The standard seems to be "What do I like?"
But that goes back to my common question - where's your badge and scepter? Who anointed you Pope of Morality?
What is your real rule?
This is where being a Christian comes in mighty handy - I can know the answer to most moral questions, and w/o much fuss. I ask God. What He says goes. Done.
You can say this precept has no basis except feasibility, usefulness, enforceability, and popularity: and I can reply that that set of traits is more likely to unite the world than any one religion such as islam, judaism, christianity, zoroastrianism, etc.
Who says that "uniting the world" is a good thing? Apparently you do, O Great Pope of Morality.
You're sneaking your assumptions in again. You have more work to do.
Morality/ethics deals with how to organise people with respect to each other in such a way that they don't make each other uncomfortable
I don't accept that definition of morality/ethics. They are the study of what one OUGHT TO DO.
Yes, impossible on atheism (or possibilianism), but that's hardly my problem.
(with "uncomfortable" here meaning everything from public urination to genocide)
1) And free speech.
2) This sentence says an awful lot about your moral system, where public urination rates hardly above genocide in terms of moral character. You can't and don't really live this way, and thus you show you don't believe this really. If you don't, who am I to disagree?
I'm not saying these secular moral concepts are perfect - they're evolving.
So there's every reason to think that the moral value of genocide (and public urination) could evolve from unacceptable to acceptable. And apparently it did - Hitler thought it was a mighty good call.
Maybe I'm farther evolved than you and have an understanding that genocide is just fine as long as it makes ME comfortable.
Who are you to judge me in the wrong?
you said something about morality being people's imperfect understanding, which evolves over time, and ethics being the permanent principles of why some things are right/wrong
I doubt I said anything of the kind, to be honest.
The statement "because god did it" is a conversation stopper:
1) So is "I have no idea and nobody else can know either".
2) "4" is a conversation stopper when it comes to the question "What's 2+2?" So what?
every believer in every kind of god can make it equally
But only believers in the True God can justify it.
Anyone can make a claim, but as we've seen with your own foundation-less claims, it's harder to substantiate the claim than to make it.
(For more on possibilianism, please also see Dusman's critique of "aloofianism".)
12 comments:
A lot of what you say makes sense: for my part, I'm prepared to admit that my initial impression of you as "closed minded" was off the mark. Your strict demand for an absolute moral standard is inspiring, and I think it's a more helpful approach than the hands-in-the-air relativism you decry.
To put that another way, we probably do share moral intutions and want to live in a reality where genocide, burkas, acid-in-little-girl's-faces, etc, can be objectively ruled out in a way satisfactory to everyone. With that in mind, I'll try to stop being such a dick.
But first off, let's get this cleared up:
>This sentence says an awful lot about your moral system, where public urination rates hardly above genocide in terms of moral character.
That's literally the exact opposite of what I said. I was listing two acts near the opposing poles of "caused discomfort" to give an idea of a vast scale, as if I had said "all the numbers from zero to infinity."
***
About the possibilian thing: it's a term I first heard about 2 weeks ago. My emotional attachment is nil. I can't swear by everything written about it by other sources, but the main idea I was trying to get across was the possibility of differentiating my stance (nameless, before 2 weeks ago) with nihilism.
A lot of atheists, as you say, make what I see as the mistake of claiming we can be sure:
1) There's no god(s).
2) Therefore, nihilism is correct.
Not only is neither position strictly logically defensible, they aren't even related: 2 could be disproven by multiple gods in the case of 1, etc.
What happens, I think, is that people get tired of living in (no offense) your crazy scary nightmare world theology and rebel too hard by declaring themselves certain of the absence of unproven things so they can goof off like they wanted to anyway.
Analogy: we're standing in front of a locked trunk. You say it contains X, muslims say it has Y, ancient greeks say it has Z - I say I have no idea what's in there but I'm open to the evidence. Nihilists say there's nothing in the trunk.
You may think my position is incorrect, but it's not nihilism. It's not a positive statement about an absence, just a negative statement about the certainty of presence.
I liked these comments by you (your quote, of my quote, in quotes):
"
The statement "because god did it" is a conversation stopper:
1) So is "I have no idea and nobody else can know either".
2) "4" is a conversation stopper when it comes to the question "What's 2+2?" So what?
"
Good points. My answers, out of order:
2) You're right: "conversation" is not an intrinsic good. It has to stop sometime. I would say, it's good to the degree that it leads to good ideas. You're also right in that correct ideas don't need further conversation: obviously, we differ in how correct we feel your beliefs are overall, but I was using the "conversation stopper" argument strictly in reference to the possible formulation of a universal moral rule.
1) These are actually two statements: "I have no idea" is, in no way, a conversation stopper. An admission of (actual) ignorance never prevented a truth from being found. An honest account of what we know and what we don't is the precursor to finding truth. It's only the second statement, "Nobody else can know either" that's the stopper - and it's what you seem to be saying, to me, about the possibility of an *objective, secular basis for judging moral actions*.
Here's an abstract question for you - I don't mean it as a gotcha, point-scoring thing - you don't "lose" if you agree, but I don't see how you could disagree: would you like it if such an objective standard were to be formulated, without recourse to supernatural claims about any particular god? I understand that you feel it's impossible, but that's not the same thing as thinking it's undesirable.
Would you be happy to hear about an objective moral standard? How would you recognise it, if you saw it?
To continue this line of thinking: what conditions are likely to help us, as a species, formulate such a standard? You said:
"
>You need to come clean and acknowledge that you yourself personally have set up a moral standard by which you're judging these questions. The standard seems to be "What do I like?"
But that goes back to my common question - where's your badge and scepter? Who anointed you Pope of Morality?
What is your real rule?
This is where being a Christian comes in mighty handy - I can know the answer to most moral questions, and w/o much fuss. I ask God. What He says goes. Done.
"
I accept your admonishment that I have inbuilt moral standards by which I judge these questions: I do *not* accept the apparent implication that my resulting system is entirely random and variable, having no relation to the systems of others. I would argue that my, admittedly less-clearly-delineated-than-yours moral views are, nonetheless, mostly in agreement with most of yours and most of humanity's.
This similarity, in itself, makes me wonder what these systems may have in common.
To put that another way, we disagree about the basis of morality, but agree on most of its specifics. We are not on different sides in function, then, only theory: and I like this moral system we (mostly) share so much, I want to shore it up with an unshakeably objective basis that *even people with different religions won't be able to argue with.*
***
TBH, I'm more interested in the objective morality question, so I'll try to speed through the stereotyped butting of heads over issues we both know neither of us will change our mind about:
"
"the important thing" about his atonement here is still that it is *scapegoat human sacrifice*.
I don't accept that, though.
On the Christian position, God chooses how He does stuff and we judge the rightness/wrongness of our actions based on the standard that He has provided.
So, it's fine on my end.
"
It may be fine on your end - but it is, still, scapegoat human sacrifice. You can find positive ways to say that ("sanitation engineer" instead of "garbageman"), but - my basis for saying it's "bad" or "good" notwithstanding - that's what it *is*.
***
"
there is no underlying principle that can connect these scraps of memorisable commands into a comprehensible system
1) Would you mind quoting me to that effect?
2) I disagree; the underlying principle is God's unchanging character and nature.
"
My clarification of the sense in which I used the word "principle" should clear up both objections:
"A principle is a law or rule that has to be, or usually is to be followed, or can be desirably followed, or is an inevitable consequence of something,"
You're using it in something like the first sense: but I'm using it in the "inevitable consequence" sense, that is, that 2+2=5 and 3+3=7 are both wrong because of the principle of addition.
You're using "argument from authority", I'm looking for an actual argument. I realise you feel the authority in question is sufficient, but that's what your morality reduces to nonetheless.
***
"
He can behave in a manner befitting of Satan, Hitler and Ted Bundy combined
This is a specious characterisation.
Those men are murderers, grossly disobeying the law of God. By contrast, God always acts in accord with His law and His character. So no, it's totally different.
"
I confess that I don't understand how it's different, but will amend my original comment accordingly:
"I find it disturbing that your god's behaviour could never seem wrong to you, even if he produced results identical in every earthly-detctable way to those produced by the world's worst humans."
Or, to use almost your phrasing, "I'm disturbed at the idea of god being above his own laws."
You seem to be using an ad hoc justification to clean up after all his possible behaviour after the fact. I realise you feel I have no standard to express dissatisfaction - but you claim to have such a standard, and to explicitly avoid holding him to it.
***
"
you said something about morality being people's imperfect understanding, which evolves over time, and ethics being the permanent principles of why some things are right/wrong
I doubt I said anything of the kind, to be honest.
"
I'm pretty sure you did, but I'm drawing blanks on google search, so I'll try to get you to agree to something that will serve the same rhetorical function: has the quality of biblical scholarship evolved?
At one point, church fathers had a problem with Galileo - they do no longer. At one point, the bible was presented as supporting slavery - mainstream christians now reject this.
I realise you think the bible, per se, is infallible - but would you agree that interpretations of it improve over time? Evolving, becoming truer to the bible's intent? Would you say the current interpretation of the bible (yours) is the best there has ever been, and that interpretations will continue to improve in future?
Serious question: how do you think this improvement happens? Is it distinct from the process of rational criticism and marshalling of evidence shown in any other science?
I have more to say, but I'll ease into it with a question for you about "oughts": why are they more necessary for morality than any other scientific discipline?
We can study hygiene in an objective way (what behaviours lead to health), and then tack on the "ought" afterward - "you ought to do X but not Y ... if you want to be healthy."
So why can't we study systems of interaction between people, find objective correlates between actions and results, and tack on the "if" afterward - "if you want to be included in global civilisation, you ought to behave according to systems of interaction that lead to mutually agreeable results"?
If reason is enough to provide us with principles to rule out genocide, rape, etc - and the "if" involved is tough enough to exclude dissenters for practical purposes - why do we need "oughts" at all?
I acknowledge that you may have an answer. I also don't necessarily abandon claim to oughts. The question isn't meant to be rhetorical or confrontational, just an opener to further conversation, if you're interested.
*clarification: If reason is enough to provide us with principles to rule out genocide, rape, etc - why can't we rely on the "if, then ought" to prohibit them instead of just the pure/raw "ought"?
MA - I think morality is the study of how people can best "get along"
I concur. Morality, at its best, is the study of how people can make their own lives and those of others better – to include the reduction of suffering and the pursuit of happiness, among other common human values.
For some, morality consists in helping humans achieve human goals. For others, morality is all about following a set of purportedly divine commands (usually found in someone’s holy scriptures). These two concepts are so very far apart that it ought to be strikingly bizarre to contemplate that they are denominated under the same name. Interestingly, however, if you look closely at any given set of allegedly divine commands they are often the sort of commands one might expect from someone interested in promoting the welfare of some particular group of believers. For example, the Israelites were “commanded” to take over certain towns, kill the townspeople, but “keep the virgins alive for yourselves” thus perpetuating both their genes and their memes.
Rho - Laws DEFINE morality. You SHOULD do this. You SHOULDN'T do that.
Any time someone says “You SHOULD do this” the obvious question is “Why should I?” If no reason is given beyond “You should obey those in authority because they are in authority” then you are not talking about morality but rather obedience. Uncritical reflexive obedience is a far cry from a thoughtful morality in which people seek to do good for goodness’ sake. Here is an example:
Q - "Doctor, why do you spend so much time doing unremunerative volunteer work?"
A1 - "Because Allah wills it."
A2 - "Because I want to help people get healthy."
In the first case, the doctor is being pious and obedient to her deity. In the second case, she is doing good because of her desire to impart goodness to people.
MA - I agree that moral commands should be framed as hypothetical imperatives of the "IF you desire A,B,C then you OUGHT to follow rules X,Y,Z."
Theistic morality thus becomes "If you desire to please God, you should follow the divine commands."
Humanistic morallity becomes "If you desire humans to thrive more and sufffer less, you should find out what makes that happen and then do more of it."
Only the latter comes with a research programme.
Damion: the only two quibbles I'd raise is that Rho will jump on "research programme" with a comment about biblical exegesis - but perhaps you're okay with that.
I also foresee him questioning how you can "know" what makes people's lives better: how do we know which "human goals" are worth pursuing?
I would respond to this hypothetical challenge with the claim that morality is an objective discipline that studies the systems of interaction between two or more subjects, with the implicit goal of finding ways of behaving that are mutually agreeable for all parties. The objective results thus produced don't come with an "ought" tag - and they don't need to.
Analogy: "hygiene elves" are the only possible source of "oughts" in the realm of hygiene. Without them, handwashing would "just" be a practice that can be followed to consistently lead to a certain set of results - and, in an An-elvish world, who are we to say that fingers covered in oozing sores aren't just as "hygienic" as sparkling palms?
To be honest, I hadn't thought of oughts this way until Rho emphasized the idea so one-notedly that it broke. The transcendent argument from (X) only "works" to place (X) as the source of consistent systems such as logic, morality, etc - but we can then study those unchanging, permanent systems without recourse to their purported supernatural foundational entities.
I submit that the study of morality (as the results of systems of interaction) is no more or less dependent on "oughts" than hygiene, mathematics or shoe design. The oughts get tacked on afterwards, along with an "if" - and the "if" is something like (not totally sure of the phrasing) "mutual agreeability amongst all parties affected by the results of the system of interaction".
>Interestingly, however, if you look closely at any given set of allegedly divine commands they are often the sort of commands one might expect from someone interested in promoting the welfare of some particular group of believers.
Kosher and halal, for instance: even if someone agrees with one system, it's probably obvious to them that the other, at least, was a rule of thumb for limiting food poisoning before any explanations were available.
Same with the clumsy, repetitive, graven-image fixated ten commandments. We can study morality and hygiene scientifically now, and flesh out these ignorant-but-well-intentioned "oughts".
Not totally sure about this next bit, but maybe "ought" is just a grammatical conjugation, not a fact of reality?
*edit - sorry: I would respond to this hypothetical challenge with the claim that morality is an objective discipline that studies the systems of interaction between two or more PARTIES, with the implicit goal of finding ways of behaving that are mutually agreeable for all parties.
Post a Comment