Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. (Eccl 9:11 ESV)Ecclesiastes is a difficult book. I found this sermon by Brian Morgan interesting. Here is a quote from it.
By stating that all of life is hebel (meaningless), Qohelet (the author) is not suggesting that all life is “meaningless or insignificant, but that everything is beyond human apprehension and comprehension.” Every time a tragedy occurs, our immediate reaction is to attach “meaning” to the event, as if we know how this finite moment in time will work out in the grand scheme of things. We have a very terrible time living in the tension of “unknowing.” We want rock bottom clarity. And when the event is extremely complex and baffling, we just babble on and on, hoping to land on some thought bordering on significance. But Qohelet explains that when we insist on multiplying our words to bring definition to what we do not know, all we succeed in doing is creating more “smoke” (hebel - “vanity,” “a puff of wind”), adding more contradiction and confusion. “The more the words, the less the meaning, and how does that profit anyone?” (6:11 NIV).In summary, Ecclesiastes seems to state that fortuitous things and shit just happen. We are supposed to plug on, sowing seeds and reaping at appropriate times, but in the end, earthly endeavors don't amount to much. What is important is to simply obey God's commandments and trust that all will be revealed someday.
The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. 14For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil. (Eccl 12:13-14 ESV)In the end, Ecclesiastes poetically implores us to have blind faith admitting that on the surface of it, life seems pretty random but if we continue to have faith, we will eventually attain reward of an eternal life with meaning. It pushes fear of God's judgment should we not have blind faith. The beautiful writing of Ecclesiastes sugar coats this bitter pill.
Instead, I'll accept the Darwinian view that yes, life is random. Rewards (offspring) do not always go to the swiftest because being swift might come at other expenses (like not being charming or stupid -- either way, the result is not getting the babes). But bad things also happen to good people. It's called dumb luck, and that happens too. I don't have to trust that all will be revealed someday when my little human mind has had a few million years of hand-held tutoring by the Creator to finally be capable of understanding the answer to my question "What the fuck?"
25 comments:
As you already know, there are no easy answers - just choices. But once we make this choice, we need to at least live consistently. There really are only two options available to us.
Option 1 is materialism - to believe that the physical universe is all that there is, and there is nothing immaterial or spiritual, that there are no truths that transcend the material world, and nothing has ultimate purpose.
As an aside, you refer to this worldview as Darwinism, but I think that is a mistake because many Christians, such as me, accept evolution as a valid explanation of creation. Statements like that might boost your stock with your atheist friends, but if you ever want your Christian friends and family members to learn to accept evolution as the most probable mechanism of creation, then you shouldn't invoke the name of Darwin this way. It makes my job more difficult!
Option 2 trusts that behind it all, there is a God who is in control of all things. We still might have to live without any immediate answers to difficult questions, but we can at least cling to a hope that someday all will be made right. However, as you have already noted, the difficult questions don't just fade away, they in fact become more difficult. Why does bad "stuff" happen to me when my neighbor - who shakes his fist at God everyday - seems blessed beyond measure? What about all of the injustice in the world? Why are there mean people who want to kill nice people?
To many folks, this doesn't seem like much a choice. We can either choose to believe that "stuff" just happends because life has no meaning, or we can choose to believe that someday all things will be made right, and we may or may not ever see the ultimate purposes behind those things that appear so senseless to us now.
Neither option answers the tough questions. And neither one can satisfy our damand to know why. Yet only one of these options provides us with a philosophical context from which we can even make value judgements in the first place. If we cling to option 1, then we have no right to demand answers to these questions because there really is no right or wrong, good or evil, mean or nice. These are transcendent concepts that have no ultimate meaning in a materialist worldview. We have no right to be outraged by injustice, unfairness, or senseless evil because these things are just matter in motion, and at most are irrational sentiments that we attach to certain events to give them meaning. But if there is no ultimate meaning then why bother with these sappy religious sentiments? To even get upset over them is to act "religious" -that is, to attach irrational meaning and purpose to something that has no intrensic value. Who gives a fudge if some "preditor" molecules rearrange some "innocent little girl" molecules? Isn't her pain offset by his pleasure? Could her family's pain be offset by his friends' pleasure if they all took turns with her? What if she was an orphan and nobody is weeping for her? Does that tip the pain/pleasure scale the other direction? Is this offensive to you? It shouldn't be - it is all part of nature which is "tooth and claw" - "offensive" is just a sappy religious sentiment attached to meaningless events by irrational people - right?
Option 2 might still leaves us hanging with respect to ultimate answers, but at least our anger and disgust at these tragedies can be justified. The outrage we feel at injustice and needless suffering is real, becasue these things really are bad - not just becasue the upset us, BUT BECAUSE THEY UPSET GOD. Not because they simply tip the "pain to pleasure" balance too far to one side, but because in the grand scheme of things, they really are fundamentally evil even though they may or not affect us personally.
Why should I care that a few hundred thousands members of an African tribe are slaghtered with machetes half way around the world (in the name of religion) when it doesn't affect my comfort? Option 1 shouldn't even care - species have been competing for limited resources for billions of years, why should we get upset now? But when materialists do care, all they can do merely complain and blame an imaginary god for being asleep at the wheel when no such entity should even exist in the first place. At least with Option 2, our anger with the wolrd is justified.
Again, I'm not saying that these are easy choices. Neither one will provide ultimate answers. But at least one clings to the hope that there are ultimate answers. And even though we may never learn them, the sense of injustice that we feel is real, and we can rest assured that someday all wrong will made right.
I know you probably think that I am irrational and silly for choosing option 2, and that is fine - I don't expect to change any minds with this argument. But if you choose option 1, then you should at least liberate yourself from the burden of caring in the first place. To even ask "WTF" assumes that these things can be answered, and that such an answer could give you the meaning that you desire. What the hell does it matter? Just get yours before somebody else does, you only go around once - make it count!
GLG wrote
If we cling to option 1 [materialism], then we have no right to demand answers to these questions because there really is no right or wrong, good or evil, mean or nice. These are transcendent concepts that have no ultimate meaning in a materialist worldview. We have no right to be outraged by injustice, unfairness, or senseless evil because these things are just matter in motion, and at most are irrational sentiments that we attach to certain events to give them meaning.
They're not "transcendent concepts" at all. They are descriptions of behaviors that have consequences. And because thinking beings, humans can weigh those consequences in the light of agreed standards and come to judgments about the behaviors. Nothing transcendent about that. After all, that is exactly what religious communities do when they pick and choose from among the precepts of their holy books. (And pick and choose they certainly do!) Consider the variety of (often mutually contradictory) interpretations of the numerous moral precepts and examples of the Bible among the various religious sects. Each of them thinks they have the 'right' interpretation and the others are mistaken (often called heretics and in another age were killed for it). The only difference from materialists that I see is that the religious claim divine sanction for their (various and mutually contradictory) judgments, and that claim rests on zero evidence of the existence of the divine sanctioner.
I commend to GLG's attention the essays on morality available on The Secular Web. Here's a search to get him started.
RBH
I don't doubt that this is how, in practice, atheists account for morality. And I don't deny that relgion can completely fumble the ball when it comes to right and wrong. We can both cite endless examples. And there are many atheists whose company I would probably prefer to some Christians. I would rather have a beer with the late Carl Sagan than sit around with Pat Robertson discussing what socially unacceptable group is to blame for latest natural disaster - any day of the week.
My main point is that the atheist worldview has no way to ultimately judge what consequences are bad and what consequences are good, apart from whatever floats your boat. And even though religion often misses the point, at least we can agree that there IS A POINT to be missed - and that this point is beyond ourselves - it is more than mere chemistry and biology. I know you would say I am being naieve, but I just don't see how you can still do this and be a philosophically consistent atheist.
But nevertheless, I will read up on this link you provided. Perhaps there is something there I haven't yet considered.
-GJG
Thanks for the lengthy comment, Gordon, and your post on your blog.
Regarding option 1, what is a truth that transcends the material world? You say "right or wrong, good or evil, mean or nice", but these do not stem from supernatural events. It's chemicals in my brain making neurons fire. My dog loves to wrestle, but he doesn't bite. There's nothing too transcendental about it, but it does involve a lot of coordination of neurons.
So how/why is a supernatural necessary for ultimate purpose? Christians often say that the meaning of life is to live eternally with God and in His love. But this is not a meaty argument. It's elusive. It's filled with the same faith, that "God, I hope heaven is a lot more enjoyable and makes more sense than this place!" but in reality, there is no imagination of what heaven could be. I think it is more a fear that <gulp> this is all there is.
If this is all there is, then what is "this"? Yes, it's random fortuitous stuff and bad stuff, and in a way, directionless. In which case, there is no "ultimate purpose". As a human, though, I have a capacity to appreciate and carve a life that is fulfilling not only to me, but to my fellow human beings, other critters, and for all their children.
As clever as I am, there's nothing transcendental about me. I've got all those human capacities of love, hate, remorse, longing, curiosity, etc. But like all the other critters, I have to believe that there is nothing particularly special about my decision-making that can make me immortal.
Thanks Tom for the response.
I don't doubt at all that descent atheists, such as yourself, have the capacity and desire to live fulfilling lives, to promote justice and discourage evil, and to care and provide for those creatures around them. Of course I would say this is the image of God in man, but I don't expect you would agree with that.
I was very touched the other day by how you described your dog in a previous post. We would both agree that folks who force these creatures to fight to the death, and brutally execute those that fail to perform is sick and immoral (ie-Michael Vick). But as disgusting as this type of behavior is, it does bring pleasure and fulfillment to some individuals. We would consider them sick and disturbed. But on what basis can we make these value judgements? If the idea that we are all responsible to our fellow creatures is not something that transcends our own chemistry and biology, then we have no basis to use terms like "good/evil right/wrong" to describe any behavior that makes people happy.
That was basically my point, and not to cast any doubt on the ability of individuals to lead moral lives apart from any belief in God. I aplogize if that was how my point was taken.
-GJG
GJG (forgive my use of "L" earlier) wrote
My main point is that the atheist worldview has no way to ultimately judge what consequences are bad and what consequences are good, apart from whatever floats your boat. And even though religion often misses the point, at least we can agree that there IS A POINT to be missed - and that this point is beyond ourselves - it is more than mere chemistry and biology. I know you would say I am being naieve, but I just don't see how you can still do this and be a philosophically consistent atheist.
And my response is very simple: Theists actually don't have a way to ultimately judge the goodness or badness of consequences, either. Theists must assign that responsibility to some external authority -- a deity -- but they choose the particular authority to which they assign responsibility in no less (and no more) a human way than atheists the way choose our moral principles.
Consider that a theist must choose among hundreds of available gods, extant and past, and having chosen the one(s) he will deem to be the "ultimate" authority, must then choose from among that god's precepts which will be used as the referent for moral judgments, when many of those precepts are mutually inconsistent. To take an easy example, a Christian must choose whether to use the 'eye for an eye' moral principle or the 'turn the other cheek' moral principle. As far as I recall from my Protestant near-evangelical upbringing, there's no clear guidance on which is to govern when, so one must use one's own brain to make that choice. But so must atheists. The difference is that we atheists know we have to depend on ourselves and therefore know that we are solely responsible for our own decisions, whereas a theist can lay off responsibility for the decision on some deity and call it an "ultimate authority," when in fact it's as much a personal 'float your boat' decision as the atheist's.
"Whatever floats you boat" is a sad caricature of the grounding an atheist can use for moral judgments. See below.
GJG wrote to Tom
If the idea that we are all responsible to our fellow creatures is not something that transcends our own chemistry and biology, then we have no basis to use terms like "good/evil right/wrong" to describe any behavior that makes people happy.
One of the parts of Dawkins' books that few seem to recall is the 11th chapter of The Selfish Gene. Let me quote the last paragraph of that chapter:
It is possible that another unique quality of man is a capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. I hope so, but I am not going to argue the case one way or the other, nor to speculate over its possible memic evolution. The point I am making now is that, even if we look on the dark side and assume that individual man is fundamentally selfish, our conscious foresight -- our capacity to simulate the future in imagination -- could save us from the worst selfish excesses of the blind replicators. We have at least the mental equipment to foster our long-term selfish interests, rather than merely our short-term selfish interests. We can see the long-term benefits of participating in a 'conspiracy of doves', and we can sit down together to discuss ways of making the conspiracy work. We have the power to defy the selfish genes of our birth and, if necessary, the selfish memes of our indoctrination. We can even discuss ways of deliberately cultivating and nurturing pure, disinterested altruism -- something that has no place in nature, something that has never existed before in the whole history of the world. We are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.
Now, that was written more than 30 years ago. We have learned a good deal since about some of the bases of morality. Humans have evolved highly developed cognitive capabilities, and we alone among animals can transcend our purely biological nature. We can imagine, empathize, sympathize, and apprehend (in the archaic meaning of that word) other people's (and other animals') states of mind and feelings. We actually now know some of the neural bases for those abilities. Because we can do that, we can behave morally in a way that my dog that killed a groundhog this afternoon (in spite of my efforts to pull him off) cannot.
So we can transcend our own chemistry and biology, but that does not require appealing to some deity. It requires only appeal to cognitive and emotional capabilities that we have, yes, evolved. In the end, theists and non-theists are in exactly the same boat with respect to making moral decisions. The only difference is in where we assign responsibility. Theists assign it to God, atheists to ourselves.
Thanks rbh, that was a very good explanation. I am still quite comfortable with my Christian worldview, as are you with yours.
We both agree that man has a heightened sense of moral responsibility, even though we can still be quite screwed up. I would attribute this to the image of God in homo sapiens, I'll even grant that an evolutionary pathway exists that explains, in material terms, how we devloped this trait. But I am still compelled to believe that there is a reality beyond chemistry and biology - and there is no rational explaination for this that I can give you (which is why it is called faith and not a logical deduction).
But your thoughful comments at least make it clear that apart from any "ultimate authority" many atheist do struggle with the same moral problems that theists struggle with. In fact, I will probably soften this argument in the future and not make these kinds of sweeping generalizations.
-GJG
I hope we can continue this conversation because I wanted to run this by you.
Yesterday you said something that made me step back and think about my argument. You said that when it comes to assigning immaterial terms such as right/wrong good/evil to certain behavior, both theists and atheists are both in the same boat philosophically. We are both forced to engage in a sort of democratic process that attempts to distill these things from a source. For theists, that source is a combination of revelation and natural law (and most revelation is based on the moral traditions of the nations surrounding Isreal - ie: the code of Hamaurabi). For atheists, that source is purely natural law.
In both cases, the social process of getting from A to B can break down. Theists can take liberties with their interpretations of revelation and use them to oppress others (ie: the antebellum south, medieval catholicism, 1st century judaism, etc...). In fact, Jesus spent most of his time railing against the 1st century religious establishment for creating a monsterous religion that only alienated average sinners from the grace of God. If Christ were alive today, his harshest words would actually be for the Christian right, which occupies the same socio-political space as the Jewish right did in Jesus' day. But on the other hand, some of the most brutal regimes in history (or at least the 20th century) were atheists and utilitarians who took it upon themselves, or an elite few, to impose their will on the masses, many times at the barrel of a gun.
So one might say, "If - at the end of the day - it is WE who must decide the course of our own future, then why muddy the waters by bringing in an extra dimension?"
But consider the example of mathematics. 2+2=4, not because a bunch of smart theorists got together and decided it should be so, but becasue there is a law that exists, independent of ourselves, that was around long before us, and we just happend to have the intellectual capacity to both understand it and use it to our advantage. Likewise, pi is 3.14159... not because it was voted on by a panel of mathematicians, but because it exists independantly and we stumbled upon it through a process of discovery.
But unless there is a trancendent reality that exists out there called mathematics, then we would never know when we've got it right. We would never have the assurance that if we operate under these principles, we can avoid negative consequence and ensure a favorable outcome. These truths would allways be under review, up for grabs - depending on what regime was in power, or what socio-political winds were influencing the majority.
I like to compare mathematics to natrual (moral) law. It is there whether we recognize it or not, you don't have to be a theists to figure out, and it transcends the material world. We can all agree that certain bahavior is wrong, without any appeal to a deity. But the reason we feel so strongly about these things, is because they are not just social constructions, but they are real. THIS IS NOT TO DENY THAT WE DON'T DISCOVER THEM THROUGH A SOCIAL PROCESS. Revelation and tradition, for the theists, is a part of this process. But much like the mathematicians who stumble upon an elegant expression and have a "eureka" moment that somehow, this thing was part of the frabric of the cosmos and they had the good fortune to simply uncover it, that is how we know when justice is being served - even though justice can't be found on the periodic table or measured in a laboratory.
So I guess what I'm saying is this: granted that human beings must socialize to agree on what is just, right, fair, etc... But unless there really is a natural law that exists apart from our own selfish devices, we have no right to impose these things on others, which is where I think atheism breaks down as a moral philosophy. But I'm sure that you have a response to this, and I am genuinely interested in hearing it.
-GJG
Tom, RBH, Gordon,
Some observations ...
I am enjoying this exchange. What I see happening here is that Gordon is gaining undertandings of how a very thoughful, non-combative, informed atheist thinks. And all of this touches deeply upon Gordon's fundamental argument for theism (see the opening chapters of his book Beyond the Firmament). While I beleive that his arguments are still compelling, this converstion will force his argument (an mine) to be a bit more nuanced, more sophisticated. On the other side, I beleive that Tom and RBH are gaining a fuller, more helpful understanding of the non-fundamentalist, scientfically informed, deeper thinking brand of faith that Gordon represents so well. Some of the brash, often outlandish statements of Dawkins and others are unfair, unreasoning, and miss the mark (unless the mark is focused only upon fundamentalist Christianity.)
I can only see good fruit coming out of these kinds of discussions, and that give me hope on many levels!
Tom,
Going back to the original post ...
I believe you're analysis of Ecclesiates is accurate. In the theology that is developing in my mind, randomness (or apparent randomness) plays a significant role. As I read your comments, I was going "Yes! Yes! Yes!". The difference is that I believe that in the cosmic battle between death and life, evil and good, life and goodness win out in the end. And that not because God manipulates the process. Rather, because he knows, from the beginning, that death cannot ultimately overpower the greater dynamic of life, and goodness does overcome evil (as Paul teaches us is true on the microcosmic scale of personal morality, Romans 12:18-21.) In the context of this "level-playing-ground" cosmos in which divine intervention is quite limited, and randomness seems to reign supreme, there is still a place for faith, for human cooperation with the purposes of God, to accelerate the ultimate triumph of life and righteousness. This is a very thumbnail description of thoughts that I am painstakingly developing on my blog. But I wanted you to know that there is at least one Bible-believing evangelical Christian out there who sees the same kind of randomness you and Qohelet see. I do agree with Qohelet’s final conclusion, but your are correct: his conclusion does seem to be a blind leap. My faith is also informed and driven by additional New Testament revelation, the teachings of Jesus, and our dawning understandings of entropy, evolution, and other late-day unveilings of our cosmos.
Just a quick note to say that I haven't abandoned this thread. My business requires a good deal of end-of-month foofooraw, and I am embedded in that for a bit.
You guys aren't quite the original audience I anticipated when starting this blog--I figured there'd be some YEC-turned-atheists out there, but apparently I'm a rarity!
That being said, you guys (except RBH, as an atheist) are a challenging lot because you represent what I have tried to balance, but could not, so I look forward to our challenges/exchanges. And that being said, I'm swamped with work and reading your books and blogs!
There's a lot embedded here that will take several postings here and on your sites. I'm glad we're off on a roll! I will respond in a day or two with a new post.
You guys aren't quite the original audience I anticipated when starting this blog--I figured there'd be some YEC-turned-atheists out there, but apparently I'm a rarity!
Rare, yes, but we have a number of such folks on Internet Infidels Discussion Board, the largest secular discussion board on the Web. And registration is painless. You'll find several forums relevant to the topic of this thread, Moral Foundations & Principles being the main such. You may also note that I'm an administrator of the board. [/end board pimping. :)]
Gordon wrote
Yesterday you said something that made me step back and think about my argument. You said that when it comes to assigning immaterial terms such as right/wrong good/evil to certain behavior, both theists and atheists are both in the same boat philosophically. We are both forced to engage in a sort of democratic process that attempts to distill these things from a source. For theists, that source is a combination of revelation and natural law (and most revelation is based on the moral traditions of the nations surrounding Isreal - ie: the code of Hamaurabi). For atheists, that source is purely natural law.
Let me be a little clearer about what I mean. In the most general sense, both atheists and theists must make personal decisions associated with choosing a moral system. My point is that theists must make more decisions than atheists, on no better (or worse) grounds. The theist must choose which deity(ies) to which he will assign responsibility for generating moral principles; must choose from among the (often contradictory) moral principles offered by the chosen deity(ies); and finally must choose which reading(s) of the selected principles is 'correct.' There is dispute among theists within (broadly defined) religious traditions about all of those choices. And there is no principled way to make those choices available to the theist that the atheist does not also have. They are precisely as personal and "subjective" as the direct choice of moral principles by the atheist.
Now, consider Gordon's math analogy:
But consider the example of mathematics. 2+2=4, not because a bunch of smart theorists got together and decided it should be so, but becasue there is a law that exists, independent of ourselves, that was around long before us, and we just happend to have the intellectual capacity to both understand it and use it to our advantage. Likewise, pi is 3.14159... not because it was voted on by a panel of mathematicians, but because it exists independantly and we stumbled upon it through a process of discovery.
There are number of views about just what mathematics "is". See here for the range of views about just what "2+2=4" is. What Gordon has described is basically the view of "mathematical realism" -- the view that that the relations among the terms and operators of mathematics have an independent existence, and that the task of mathematicians is to discover those relations. The first question one might ask, then, is well expressed in the linked Wikipedia article: "The major problem of mathematical platonism is this: precisely where and how do the mathematical entities exist, and how do we know about them? Is there a world, completely separate from our physical one, which is occupied by the mathematical entities? How can we gain access to this separate world and discover truths about the entities?"
Another equally plausible view is that mathematics is a construction of human brains, and is invented rather than discovered. Math, on this view, is a set of syntactical conventions for manipulating symbols. Humans invent new syntactical rules for manipulating symbols, and sometimes (but not always) those conventions can be used to represent the relations among 'real' entities in the physical world. For example, it seems perfectly valid to say that Newton invented the calculus because existing mathematical conventions were inadequate to describe the behavior of physical objects. On this view, 2+2=4 is "true" because we humans have defined a set of conventions for manipulating symbols independent of any physical realization, and 2+2=4 is a valid statement under those conventions. 2+2=4 is true by (human) definition of the number symbols (2 and 4) and operator symbols (+ and =), not because the numbers and operator have some sort of independent existence in some Platonic world outside the physical world. One way of illustrating that mathematics is a human-invented conventions is to observe that there are circumstances under which "2+2=4" can be false, as for example in vector addition where the vectors point in different directions. In vector addition "2+2" can equal anything between 0 and 4, depending on the angle between the vectors. So the "meaning" of "2+2" depends on the system being mapped by the terms and operators.
Gordon wrote
But unless there is a trancendent reality that exists out there called mathematics, then we would never know when we've got it right. We would never have the assurance that if we operate under these principles, we can avoid negative consequence and ensure a favorable outcome. These truths would allways be under review, up for grabs - depending on what regime was in power, or what socio-political winds were influencing the majority.
Well, in fact there are ways of ascertaining whether we got it "right", depending on what "right" is taken to mean. If we mean 'Is 2+2=4 "right" in the context of arithmetic', then we determine that by ascertaining whether the expression conforms to the (conventional) syntactic rules for manipulating symbols in arithmetic. If we mean 'Does 2+2=4 correctly map some piece of the physical world' then we map the symbols and operators onto the objects and relations in the world, and look to see if the right side of the equation maps onto the outcome of the operations specified by "+" on entities mapped to the symbols, e.g., to "4". For example, if I assert that I have two marbles in my left hand and three marbles in my right hand, and therefore I claim to have a total of five marbles, we can map the two symbols "2" and "3 to the sets of marbles in left and right hands, respectively, and determine the total by counting all the marbles, the operation corresponding to "+". If the symbol "5" is the result of our counting operation, we conclude that the express "2+3" correctly models the physical scene.
On the other hand, if I have two marbles in my left hand and three marbles in my right hand, and claim to have six marbles because 2x3=6, one would challenge my claim not because 2x3 does not equal 6 in the formalism of arithmetic -- it's a syntactically valid statement -- but rather on the ground that I have incorrectly mapped the terms and operators of the math onto the physical situation: the "x" operator does not veridically represent the marble-counting operation. Many creationist misrepresentations of probability estimates of various biological phenomena trace to invalidly mapping the terms and operators of the probability calculus to the physical/biological world.
In these instances we assess whether math is "right" by ascertaining the mapping of the terms and operators of the math onto the objects and entities of the physical world -- we determine "right" via empirical methods. On this view, mathematics is useful to the extent that it veridically maps the objects and relations of the physical world. And what tells us how to map the terms and operators of math into the physical world is a theory -- we choose the math model according to some theory of he physical world, and assess the validity of the theory by ascertaining whether manipulations of the math yields results that correspond to manipulations (e.g., via experiments or systematic field observations) of the physical world.
So the analogy fails because it's not at all clear that mathematics has some sort of independent existence. And the same is true of moral 'laws'. There is no evidence that they have any existence independent of their instantiation in behavior.
Further, it seems almost an oxymoron to argue that natural (moral) laws have some sort of existence outside (transcending) nature itself. Like the revelations, written or personal, of theists, nature presents a range of choices regarding "moral" behavior. Those choices have at one end of some "moral continuum" the apparently gratuitous cruelty of the Ichneumonidae, some of whose larvae disable the motor but not the sensory nerves of their hosts, so the host cannot move, but can still 'feel' as the larva consumes it from within, artfully saving the core life functions of the host until last. The human analog of the Ichneumonidae might be the torturers of the Inquisition or a Stalin using his seminary training to figure out how to create a cult of personality that repels all competitors, secular or religious, killing or torturing or starving the competition. At the other end one might place the apparently selfless altruism displayed by (a few) humans, if such actually exist (I have my doubts on that score). But revelation also provides a wide range of potential behaviors, ranging from the slaughter of children and kidnapping of Midianite virgins to be parceled out to the Israelite soldiers or the torturers of the Inquisition, to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. And there is no principled guidance as to what one should choose in the range available for either.
Once again, theists may give the instructions of a deity as a justification for their particular moral principles, but the route by which they arrive at that justification is not different in principle from that of atheists. It's just more convoluted.
I should say one or two brief things about my use of "useful" above. Consider another analogy: If we believe that disease is due to demonic possession, we are unlikely to invent effective ways of reducing its incidence. If we accept that there are materialistic causes of disease, we are more likely to find effective means of preventing and treating it. Similarly, regarding 'bad' behavior as stemming from inescapable original sin, due to the transgression of some (real or metaphorical) ancestors, or regarding it as a consequence of the failure to follow some supernatural entity's orders, does not lead to effective measures to decrease 'bad' behavior. There is no evidence that theism in general, or Christianity in particular, decreases the incidence of 'bad' behavior in humans.
Understanding the evolutionary origins of morality, and understanding how humans come to decisions about moral matters, is critical to increasing the incidence of moral behavior and decreasing the incidence of immoral behavior, regardless of what we deem to be moral or immoral. The failure of straaight abstinence-based sex education is an example of an attempt to modify 'moral' behavior that wholly ignores what we know about human sexuality. Such an approach can only be doomed to irrelevance. Hence attributing moral principles to some transcendent realm, to be discovered by revelation or imposed at the whim of ecclesiastical authority, seems to me to be self-defeating.
Finally, Gordon wrote
But on the other hand, some of the most brutal regimes in history (or at least the 20th century) were atheists and utilitarians who took it upon themselves, or an elite few, to impose their will on the masses, many times at the barrel of a gun.
True, but irrelevant to the present issue. Theists have been just as brutal to co-religionists of a different stripe in the deeper past, and escaped being brutal on the scale of a Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot (to use the three most often attributed to atheism) only through lack of the technical means for efficient killing of large numbers of people. There's no reason to believe early theists would have been less brutal had they possessed the technical means that were available to Stalin or Hitler. Even without that technology theists did remarkably well given the primitive technology available to them, putting whole cities to the sword, including some particularly brutal disemboweling of pregnant women. And unless one can establish that the 20th century regimes cited did their killing on account of their (alleged) atheism or because of utilitarianism, all they demonstrate is that humans can display remarkably pathological behaviors. And that ought not be surprising to anyone who reads the Old Testament. :)
RBH
RBH, thanks for the link to internet infidels!
Here I thought my original post was controversial, but it was upstaged by "2+2=4"! This leaves me a bit stumped as to what to throw out there for my next post! ;)
RBH,
A well reasoned response. At the risk of display my own lack of training in philosophy & anthropology, I would like to raise a couple of questions.
Your point about there being no transcendent “moral code” out there (at least none that we could verify as being uniform across human cultures) is well taken. But, if I understand Gordon’s argument, it is not a specific moral code that he raises as evidence for theism. Rather, it is the innate human search for a moral code, it is our natural quest to understand and define rightness and wrongness which finds its most logical source in a transendent order. And perhaps you would counter that this quest is a manifestation of our advanced cognitive and social skills. But do you see the difference in this argument, and does it have any significance beyond the notion of a specific “moral code”. Of course, Gordon and I would believe that such a code does, in fact, exist. But we would be hard-pressed to demonstrate it for the very reasons you site. But we all know that there is a human quest for a moral code. What of that?
Secondly, your write, “Similarly, regarding 'bad' behavior as stemming from inescapable original sin, due to the transgression of some (real or metaphorical) ancestors, or regarding it as a consequence of the failure to follow some supernatural entity's orders, does not lead to effective measures to decrease 'bad' behavior. There is no evidence that theism in general, or Christianity in particular, decreases the incidence of 'bad' behavior in humans.” I think it decreases the incidence of ‘bad’ behavior in me! But I will not argue your point. However, would you agree that the Christian viewpoint (assuming for the moment that it is correct) can be useful in moderating overly optimistic aspiration of humanists who set goals based on their belief that we could, with the right social policies, stamp out human evil? I know this begs the question in a way. But I believe that some humanistic proposals are dangerous, and the Christian beliefs about sin do provide a helpful counterweight. What is your view?
Cliff asked
But, if I understand Gordon’s argument, it is not a specific moral code that he raises as evidence for theism. Rather, it is the innate human search for a moral code, it is our natural quest to understand and define rightness and wrongness which finds its most logical source in a transendent order.
...
But we all know that there is a human quest for a moral code. What of that?
Well, evolution is pretty good at explaining "innate" stuff. :) The (modern) human search for a moral code says nothing at all about anything transcendent. There is no logical connection at all between the proposition "Humans search for a moral code" and the proposition "Moral codes are transcendent." That many people (or even all people) search for something gives no information about the existence (mundane or transcendent) of the thing searched for. It may be that the search is itself enlightening and should be encouraged. I'm all in favor of thinking carefully about one's moral principles, but I think that searching in places (some sort of transcendental parallel universe) we don't know exist for something we don't know exists (a codified universal moral code) is an exercise in futility. I rather think that we must construct such a code if it is to exist, and depend on what we know about human evolution to base the construction on. Note carefully that I am not here committing the naturalistic fallacy, but rather arguing that we must ground what we are to become in what we are and how we got to be as we are. And evolution is the best available answer to the last part of that.
The fact that humans are still searching for a "transcendent" moral code after millenia of trying suggests to me that such a code does not now exist, and is not transcendent, or at least we have no means of finding a transcendent code. It's been a long time since I took any anthro. I was an anthro major way too many years ago, but didn't pursue it further. However, IIRC there are some human 'moral' universals -- incest taboos, for example, and controls on when it's appropriate to kill someone, and the like. But one can explain those universals in terms of selective advantages and disadvantage, for example, those associated with the deleterious effects of in-breeding in small kin groups like those humans inhabited for all but the last few thousand years of our history.
Cliff remarked I think it [theism, or Christianity in particular] decreases the incidence of ‘bad’ behavior in me! Let me riff on that just a little. Some (by no means all) theists have argued that in the absence of a divine overseer, people would display all kinds of antisocial behavior, to the point of arguing that only religion stands between us and a world of killing, rape, and general mayhem. That's the "Without God, all things are permitted" argument that sort of hangs around in Gordon's argument, I think. Imagine that you have twin boys, aged 7, named Tom and Jerry. Imagine also that you have a younger son, Al. Watching out the window, you see Al fall on the sidewalk, and Tom runs to him and helps him up, comforts him, and cleans him off. Later the same thing happens -- Al falls, and this time Jerry runs to him and helps him up, comforts him, and cleans him off. So far the twins behaved identically.
So now you ask Tom why he helped Al, and Tom answers "Because I could see he was hurt and I know how I'd feel if that happened to me, so I helped him." Then you ask Jerry why he helped Al. Jerry answers "I knew you were watching from the kitchen window and if I didn't help Al I knew you'd spank me." Which son performed a moral act when he helped Al? The one who did it out of empathy for Al, or the one who did it out of fear of punishment?
I do not doubt that being Christian (or Buddhist or Hindu or Islamic or whatever) may help someone be a better person. However, I do not believe that necessarily derives from the (alleged) supernatural or transcendental source of the stimulus to be 'good'. One can explain the change in behavior in terms of social learning, peer examples (and pressure), and other similar variables, I think.
Cliff asked
However, would you agree that the Christian viewpoint (assuming for the moment that it is correct) can be useful in moderating overly optimistic aspiration of humanists who set goals based on their belief that we could, with the right social policies, stamp out human evil? I know this begs the question in a way. But I believe that some humanistic proposals are dangerous, and the Christian beliefs about sin do provide a helpful counterweight. What is your view?
Well, I'm not sure why being overly optimistic about stamping out evil is a sin. :) I do know that "humanists" who fail to take into account the origin and current state of human 'nature' (roughly, innate behavioral dispositions) are doomed to failure in attempts to change human society and/or behavior, just as theists who fail to do so are doomed to failure in the same enterprises. Most utopians that I know of, secular or religious, pretty much disregard the fact that we evolved in a very different kind of social context than that we currently inhabit, and many of the individual and social pathologies that characterize the modern world (that is, the world starting around the time of settled agricultural societies with social groups larger than a hundred and fifty people or so) have roots in that difference. Ignoring that fact leads to some pretty pernicious nonsense, ranging from (again) the futility of abstinence-only sex education in modifying the behavior of horny teenagers to the secular behaviorist utopian scheme of B.F. Skinner's Walden II. We ignore our own history and nature at our peril. I should add that I'm not one of those "overly optimistic humanists" -- I'm actually fairly pessimistic about the future of humans. I think we will totally screw up the planet (and ourselves) long before we are able to get our act together well enough to do something informed and effective as a population. The technology available to screw things up has far outstripped the mechanisms for social control we inherited.
In any case, I'd be interested to hear just what it is about the Christian viewpoint that is said to moderate the overly optimistic humanists.
RBH
All points taken, but let's bring this down to where the rubber really meets the road.
Here is a scenario (a "thought experiment" so to speak): Let's say we have two stray dogs from the pound. Neither of these dogs appear to have an owner who cares they are missing, so the pound lets a star NFL quarterback adopt them. For all the pound knows, these dogs will live like kings on a lavish estate.
NFL QB takes them back to a place in rural Virginia where a small group of a dozen dog-fighting entheusiasts is waiting for them. You've been watching the news. These folks enjoy forcing dogs to fight one another to the death and often end up torturing and killing them if they don't perform.
Here are the facts:
(1) These 10 individuals, no matter how twisted we might think them to be, will take great pleasure in the torture and death of these animals.
(2) Nobody knows about this crime, so none of the participants is at risk of getting in trouble.
(3) Nobody on the entire earth will shed a tear for either of these animals. The pound feels good about the adoption because they have no clue what's in store for these animals.
(4) These Dogs will suffer needlessly and then eventually be killed.
Now for most of us, this isn't even a moral dilema. For most theists, arguments over religious particulars would fade as we quickly join together, with the help of compassionate atheists, to stop such a thing from happening.
My question is this: why? If nobody is hurt by this, and at least 10 people are pleasured by this, and the folks at the pound feel good, why is all of this happiness and bliss not worth the price of two unwanted animals? There is no risk of being caught, no risk of geeting in trouble, and no risk that anybody on the "outside" will be traumatized by hearing news of it.
Unless man has a God-given responsibility to protect the weak and innocent, or to care for the rest of God's creation by exercising responsible stewardship, I don't know how we could possibly judge this kind of behavior as immoral. Any such judgements would have about as much moral force as the choice between chocolate or vanilla.
But if there is a God, and he created all things (via an evolutionary process that intimately connects us with the rest of creation), then we have some kind of binding authority to judge this type of behavior as "wrong" - in an ultimate sense. Not just becasue it offends us (ie: chocolate vs. vannila) but because it offends God (ie: 2+2=4) - and since we were created with the capacity tap into what offends God (granted through a human social process), we can know these things with some amound of certainty.
Politically, I am libertarian. So I don't take kindly to the state restricting liberties in an arbitrary and capricious basis. But without this kind of moral certainty, on what basis could we deprive someone else of their liberty (ie: incarceration) for doing something immoral? Unless that behavior is immoral in an absolute sense, any action taken against immoral behavior would be the equivalent of incarcerating chocholate lovers, while sparing the vanilla lovers (just because the majority wanted it to be so).
If you have a spare moment, I would honestly like RBH or Tom to walk through this scenario, from an atheist worldview.
Thanks,
Gordon
Gordon and Cliff,
Through comments like "...descent atheists, such as yourself,..." and "...compassionate atheists..." you touch on a big complaint I have with Christianity -- this notion that, we're sinful without God's grace.
RBH summarized and perhaps exaggerated your point that "...in the absence of a divine overseer, people would display all kinds of antisocial behavior, to the point of arguing that only religion stands between us and a world of killing, rape, and general mayhem."
Regarding the dilemma you outlined, do I need God's grace to understand the bloodshed and the yelps of the dogs to empathize with the dogs? No. Evolution, more than creation, makes me empathize with these critters because I have to believe they have fear, anger, confusion, and extraordinary pain. Their physiology is so much like ours!
As a Christian, I have a loophole. I can ask God for forgiveness and chalk up any detours along the straight and narrow as learning experiences because I'm "a work in progress". Did Michael Vick know that what he was doing was wrong? Of course! Otherwise he would have done the horrible exercise at the pound! Instead, he got to sneak off in the woods, enjoy it with friends, and then ask for forgiveness. I suppose you'll have eternity with him and God to get the real scoop, and see how the Lord worked on Michael's heart to transform him, and if dogs go to heaven, too, then Michael Vick can properly make amends and have a beautiful relationship with their spirits that pales anything we've ever experienced on this earth. Aaaahhh.
Truth is, all us Christians and atheists, normal people, see the same activities and probably largely ascribe the same moral labels, but Christians assume justice will ultimately come from God. If Michael Vick isn't sincere, he'll get the same punishment as me, a compassionate atheist, in hell. I haven't walked my dog in two days and feel guilty about that, so I think the magnets in my moral compass are working better than Michael's, but it doesn't seem fair that we both suffer the same fate.
As an atheist, am I ultimately free to do whatever I want? Look to evolution again. While there might be a lot of random things going on, everything has consequences. I guide my life by hopefully setting up fortuitous events over the unfortunate by taking advantage of good things and coping with and protecting against the bad things. I try to balance this not only for me, but of course my family, other animals, and the world at large. It's my vision of the kind of world I want to create. As we all do it, we create culture, laws, and wars when we're not in agreement leaving many of us ironically living in fear and suspicion of each other. I don't see an end to it, really, and have perhaps only a mildly more optimistic view than RBH.
Part of the human spirit seems to make conflict. This isn't necessarily so dire as always warring with each other, but we push ourselves individually to confront fears, accept challenges, and burn the candle at both ends. As long as we're always doing that, we will push society through terrible wars, but also reach new levels of appreciation of each other and various expressions of culture that make the human experience all the more novel, and in your favorite word, Gordon, "transcendent". I can't imagine how heaven could operate any other way.
I just spent 4 hours writing a letter to my daughter's 6th grade science teacher. There was a question on her biology test that asked, "Why should we avoid stating that different organisms classified together in the same group are related?" Are you kidding me? Common descent is the ONLY reason that orgainisms can be classified in a nested hierarchical structure in the first place!
Sometimes I envy you atheists, everybody on your side is so stinking rational. You don't have to deal with silly things like this. But then again, here you are talking with me and Cliff! You will probably ask me, "why not make the leap over to our side?" But the grace of God is a powerful force, and besides, there is plenty of work to be done over here as a "science ambassador" to the faithful.
You asked, "do I need God's grace to understand the bloodshed and the yelps of the dogs to empathize with the dogs?" That was not my point. I am not asking about you personally. You have obviously demonstrated the ability to transcend biology without saving grace (but not without common grace). My point was that if there are no net negative consequences, why should a dozen dogfighting entheusiasts not do what makes them happy? This is my version of "if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forest-will-it-make-a-sound-if-nobody-hears-it" applied to a moral transgression that doesn't have a net negative consequence for society as a whole.
I'm satisfied with your other answers to my scenario. I just wanted to hear you response. Obviously we are not going to see eye-to-eye on this one. But it does help me to better understand my fellow man.
-GJG
Through comments like "...descent atheists, such as yourself,..." and "...compassionate atheists..." you touch on a big complaint I have with Christianity -- this notion that, we're sinful without God's grace.
When I pay such compliments, I am not in anyway referring to comparative sinfulness. Rather, it is in contrast with many atheists whom I find to be brash, aggressive, and unreasonable. I'm sure you could say the same thing about many (most?) Christians you encounter. I find both you and RBH to be couteous, reasonable, and worthy adversaries. I hope you could say the same about Gordon and myself.
Once again, atheists (like theists) have to make decisions about the moral principles that they will use for guidance in assessing their own behavior and that of others. One of my rules, consciously adopted a loooong time ago, is that gratuitous cruelty, whether to humans or animals, is bad -- immoral. That principle is in the first instance based on pure reciprocity -- don't do to someone else what you wouldn't want done to you. Sure, it's the Golden Rule, and that's fine: it stands on its own without divine sanction. Reciprocity is not a bad place to ground a moral system irrespective of divine sanction.
I extend that principle to non-human critters that apparently have enough neural equipment/capability to experience pain in something like the way humans do. Dogs are a member of that class, as are cats, groundhogs (I really felt bad about that groundhog my dog killed the other day), and most mammals and not a few reptiles, birds, and most such critters. Fish are on the edge, and jellyfish are over the edge, though even with jellyfish I wouldn't go out of my way to cause them whatever passes for pain in a jellyfish, if for no other reason than to stay at least somewhat consistent.
None of that is to say that causing pain per se (as distinguished from gratuitously causing pain) is forbidden altogether. I've run on a volunteer fire department/emergency squad for over 30 years, and there have been not a few occasions (a difficult extrication problem, for example) when I've caused pain not by inadvertence but on purpose because it was necessary to the longer-term higher-good goal of getting the person out of the wrecked auto and treated. You tell them, "OK, this is going to hurt some, but we have to do it." And then you do it.
So in my book, the pain of the dogs trumps whatever pleasure the humans in the scenario get from the torture and death of the dogs. In effect, those people define themselves as pathological. In evolutionary terms, that prohibition stems from my ability (and that of most but not all other humans) to imagine -- mentally model -- pain in another being, and to empathize with them. As I remarked earlier in this thread, we now know something about the neural basis for that -- so-called "mirror neurons" may provide the neurological substrate for empathy. There are obviously psychopaths who apparently have no model of other peoples' minds/emotions, and for whom causing pain is not a problem. That the humans in the scenario cannot imagine/model the pain they're causing the dogs from the dog's point of view defines them (for me, and also clinically) as pathological and subject to sanctions. I do not want to live in a society where that behavior is regarded as OK. Hence I would reject it and would endeavour to persuade others to reject it, to come to some sort of societal consensus about the unacceptability of it.
Now, I do not extend the same rule to non-human critters. I do not expect my dogs or cats to practice the same moral principles I do, for the reason that they do not have mental models that allow them to put themselves in the place of another critter, to imagine what another critter perceives and feels. Hence when a cat plays with a mouse I don't regard it as immoral, but if a human did the same I would regard it as immoral.
Gordon wrote of the necessity of a "binding authority" in order to justify incarcerating the miscreants or judging their behavior as wrong. I can provide that authority without a God by arguing that tolerating or sanctioning behavior like that tends to create a society that will sink beneath the waves, and the "binding authority" is the law of humans devised to defend a society worth living in.
Gordon wrote
Unless that behavior is immoral in an absolute sense, any action taken against immoral behavior would be the equivalent of incarcerating chocholate lovers, while sparing the vanilla lovers (just because the majority wanted it to be so).
That's a poor analogy, if for no other reason than it's the vanilla eater who should be incarcerated. :)
More seriously, moral principles that are societally enforced by force of law and the sanctions of law (as distinguished from those that are personally held) must be consensually agreed principles, where "consensually" means a substantial majority. There is a real difference between the moral principles each of us holds personally and the moral principles that the state should be permitted to enforce. The latter must be shared by a substantial majority of the society, or enforcement would become tyranny. I can't emphasize enough how important that distinction is. (By the bye, the requirement for a substantial consensus is not exhaustive of the requirements I would place on the principles that the state should be permitted to enforce. It's necessary but not sufficient.)
And once again, the theist has no other ground for making the same decision. Various theisms define a wide range of behaviors as morally sanctioned, or even as required. Had you (and I, most likely) been born in the time of Jephtha we doubtless would have applauded his steadfastness and piety in carrying out his vow to sacrifice the first thing out his front door when he returned victorious. (Too bad for his daughter, that.) Had we been born as 13th century Aztecs we would have been certain that human sacrifice was necessary for the proper functioning of nature. That the deity some folks believe in now has a different idea is purely an accident of the time and place of birth. Bear in mind that it has not been long since being me -- openly atheist -- would have been dangerous, even in the West. Even now it's not without dangers. Living where I do, if I put an atheist bumper sticker on my American-made pickup truck like the Christians put Christian bumper stickers on theirs, mine is certain to be vandalized within weeks. The Christians around here don't tolerate dissent well.
RBH
P.S. Maybe later we can circle back to the notion of an "absolute" moral code.
While I'm up let me add to my Tom & Jerry scenario above. I previously wrote
Imagine that you have twin boys, aged 7, named Tom and Jerry. Imagine also that you have a younger son, Al. Watching out the window, you see Al fall on the sidewalk, and Tom runs to him and helps him up, comforts him, and cleans him off. Later the same thing happens -- Al falls, and this time Jerry runs to him and helps him up, comforts him, and cleans him off. So far the twins behaved identically.
Recall that Tom said that he helped Al "Because I could see he was hurt and I know how I'd feel if that happened to me, so I helped him." Jerry syas he did so because "I knew you were watching from the kitchen window and if I didn't help Al I knew you'd spank me."
Add a third boy, Moe. On another observed occasion he also helps Al. When Moe is asked why he helped, he responded "Because God says it's the right thing to do."
Can you, Gordon (or anyone) rank those three reasons, Tom's, Jerry's, and Moe's, on some sort of scale of morality, giving reasons for the ranking? How does a Christian evaluate the different reasons given for the same act?
RBH
RBH,
The Bible distinguishes between doing something right, but for the wrong reasons, and doing something right out of strong sense of compassion to our fellow man. The story of the Good Samaritan comes to mind. The two religious leaders who ignored the man's cries for help thought that they were doing "the right thing" by not associating with a "sinner" - but Christ was clear that such distinctions should not interfere with our duty to our fellow man (look at the folks Christ hung out with!).
So we would probably agree, but for different reasons, that the child who helped out of genuine sense of compassion scored "highest" on the moral scale. But we still haven't answered the question of why there is a moral scale, rather than simply moral "preferences" (chocolate vs vanilla). And doing something simply because God says so (and not because it is right) is no different than doing something just because you'll get in trouble with dad if you don't.
This doing "right" out of fear of consequence might serve a purpose for a time, that is to instruct children in riteousness, but ultimately, people have to grwo up and develop good habits of caring and compassion that motivates them after they are out of dad's reach.
-GJG
I'm jammed for time for a bit, but this post by Mano Singham covers some of the ground concerning the independence of morality and religion.
RBH
Post a Comment