Even before I ever set foot into the secular halls of
university, I fell pray to the allures of secular materialism. It assured me
that there were no principles or truths higher than myself. In fact, in the
world of materialism – a world that contains no more than chemical reactions –
no one could rationally censure me. Even better, I could dismiss my own overbearing
conscience that accused me of every kind of failure.
I now became the captain of my own ship, unrestrained by
social convention or conscience. The seas of delight lay before me, and I could
navigate my ship into any waters I so desired. I was free after years of
bondage to various worries, standards, guidelines, and anything else that would
bring criticism against me. I was also sure that I would now be able to free
myself from the self-loathing that had long stalked me, whenever I fell short
of my own demanding standards.
After years of secular psychotherapy for my life-long
struggle with depression, I felt that I had finally received clarity – If
everything is simply molecules-in-motion, there is no basis for judgment or
guilt. They just don’t exist!
However, I failed to grasp that cost that this “epiphany”
would exact from me. All along, I was paying unseen premiums. I began to
“understand” that if everything is physical or material, then I am no more than
a product of my genes and developmental influences. Without any transcendent
values, everything that I did was done for material purposes, to feel good
about myself. What I had previously held sacred – those things that had given
my life some sense of purpose – had become no more than the creations of my
psychological needs.
I hadn’t seen that what had promised me freedom was now beginning
to enslave me. If all I had was me, my feelings became my new idol and master,
dictating all of my choices and actions. They became my object of obligatory worship.
If I was successful and loved, I had good feelings. If
instead I was unable to secure these now all-important, self-validating
commodities, my depression thickened. Without being able to anchor my life upon
any higher values, I became even more self-absorbed and despondent. Happiness
and fulfillment completely eluded me.
In my failure to find the satisfaction that I so craved, I
became convinced that there was something un-fixably wrong with me. I was
“mentally ill,” and the shame intensified. It became so intense that I couldn’t
escape self-consciousness and felt uncomfortable in anyone’s presence.
I was now a prisoner to my “freedom.” Materialism had
narrowed my life into what I now regarded as a defective product. Psychologist
and disciple of Carl Jung, James Hillman, wrote persuasively about the effect
of this narrowing:
- We dull our lives by the way we conceive then…By accepting the idea that I am the effect of…hereditary and social forces, I reduce myself to a result. The more my life is accounted for by what already occurred in my chromosomes, by what my parents did or didn’t do, and by my early years now long past, the more my biography is the story of a victim. I am living a plot written by my genetic code, ancestral heredity, traumatic occasions, parental unconsciousness, societal accidents. (The Soul’s Code: In Search of Character and Calling, Random House, 6)
I was a victim and knew that I needed to somehow free myself
from this deadening self-awareness. Consequently, as a university freshman, I
decided to join the West Oakland Project,
where I assisted a teacher in a deeply troubled school. However, I knew that I
was volunteering essentially for my own mental well-being and not for the
students.
My teacher invited me to his home along with a number of the
faculty. Around the dinner table, the attention finally turned to me. It was
1966, and they were very interested in the student uprisings at my school – UC
Berkeley - and asked, “What is behind the idealism of the Berkeley students?”
I answered as honestly as I could, according to my cynical, materialistic
presuppositions: “People do what they need to do to feel good about themselves
– to give their lives meaning.” They understood what I was saying – that life
and all of our idealistic endeavors were nothing more than a grotesque charade,
an extension our psychological needs. But this confession also indicted me. I
too was part of this charade. My helping the students and my teacher had
nothing to do with them but had everything to do with me and my feelings of
self-worth.
I sensed their horror, as if I had unmasked even them. They
turned to safer conversation as I was left brooding, feeling that I was the
biggest hypocrite in the world. Consequently, I stopped volunteering. If I
couldn’t be virtuous, at least I could be authentic. I’d live for my own
pleasures, but that was most depressing of all!
However, in the midst of suicidal ideation, I began to see
arrows of transcendence. Certain pieces of music – Rachmaninoff in particular –
invited me to behold another world. At the time, I didn’t know what it was that
I was beholding, but I knew that it was taking me to a place of hope beyond the
material.
There were also other arrows of transcendence, but I was too
locked into my worldview to follow their trajectory. I thought that I was
seeking for truth, but I was still locked into choosing what felt right to me.
I wanted the transcendent, but it had to be packaged according to my
specifications.
It wasn’t until years later, while bleeding to death from a
chainsaw injury, that the Transcendent finally drew near to my nearly lifeless
body to reveal Himself, eventually even to convince this zealous Jew that He
had died for my sins. Ever since, He has been freeing me from my shackles:
- To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32)
It's a bit unfortunate that so many people aren't as reflective of the implications of their choices as you are.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, shallow pursuit of creature comforts, aka secular materialism, is the most that they'll ever spiritually and intellectually occupy themselves with.
Good post.
Too bad most folks enter the broad gate. (Despite the warnings)
Truth,
DeleteI just thank God that He broke me so that He'd heal me.
The problem with us humans is not that we lack the ability to see. Rather, we lack the will to see.(Romans 1:18-32)
I can relate so well with what you say. After serving in the military (1960s) I was trying to make sense of life. I was attracted to Ayn Rand's Objectivism as it emphasized the individual (along with reason) and subscribed to her monthly Objectivist newsletter. I remember one article where she quotes a contemperary philosopher as saying life is a tremendous cul-de-sac and that allows us the ability to laugh and enjoy it as nothing has meaning. Another article described the student rebellion on campus as "children of Kant" who were like helium balloons floating away with no attachment to reality. I read books on the college students who went South to register black voters and their discussion was always about giving meaning to their lives through their actions.
ReplyDeleteI rejected both Rand's and the the student's way of thinking and decided not to think about life as there were no answers. Physics became Truth (capital T) to me. Then I was in a college physics class where we were discussing an electron's motion in a magnetic field and life came crashing back in. I actually dropped my pencil as I realized that, whatever an electron did, it meant nothing to my life.
At that point I had nothing left to believe in. The process toward Christianity
as what was really True was started.
No one can stay at the "life is meaningless" stage for long without negative consequences. People WILL believe in something Transcendent. Rand believed in Reason. The students of the 1960s had as their heros Mao, Ho, and Che and the political systems they represented. Today Reason appears to be strong but, since it leads to humans being determined by neuro-chemical processes and thus a victim of determinism, it cannot lead to meaning. It seems to me that such a state of affairs will lead to a totalitarism State as people want, indeed must, to believe in something. I think of Heidegger and his belief in Nazism as a philosophy that explained Reality.
Larry,
DeleteYou make many good points. I agree that meaning depends on the transcendent. I also agree that the demise of reason and truth will lead eventually to totalitarianism. Without truth and moral persuasion, force seems to inevitably fill the gap.
It seems like we share the same generation. I was at Berkeley 1965-68. Where were you?
I am originally from Tennessee. I went to college for 3 semesters after high school and had 3 different majors. I quit college and joined the Navy. I was always a nut in seeking Truth and did a lot of reading and observing of people and how they handled life.
DeleteFor some, truth is merely an annoying impediment to their life, but for you, it evidently became a doorway to life.
Delete"The problem with us humans is not that we lack the ability to see. Rather, we lack the will to see.(Romans 1:18-32)"
ReplyDeleteTrue, dat.
If you're a monergist, Calvinist, or Reform, then it's God who gives the Elect the will to see.
John 6:40-44
DeleteDear Mr. Mann:
ReplyDeleteShouldn't you include verse 45 in there too?
Sincerely,
D.Smith
D.Smith,
DeleteI'd be glad to!
Mann: I fell pray to the allures of secular materialism.
ReplyDeleteSecularism and materialism are basically unrelated. One can be a theistic secularist, or an anti-secularist materialist. In fact, there are many Christians who seem to be in favour of secularism.
Mann: It assured me that there were no principles or truths higher than myself.
Since you completely misunderstand the nature of secularism and materialism, it is little wonder that you also misunderstand what follows from either one.
Mann: In fact, in the world of materialism – a world that contains no more than chemical reactions – no one could rationally censure me.
This is quite simply false, since whether or not materialism is true, I can still call you out for behaving badly, and I can muster rational arguments as to why your behaviour is bad, justifying the censure.
Mann: I now became the captain of my own ship, unrestrained by social convention or conscience.
This does not follow necessarily from secularism or materialism, either individually, or when combined.
You would still be restrained by social convention and conscience - you would still (likely) feel guilty for behaving badly, and you could/would be arrested for doing so (or be ostracised for lesser infractions).
Mann: I was free after years of bondage to various worries, standards, guidelines, and anything else that would bring criticism against me.
No you weren't - people would surely still criticise you, you would still be expected to follow standards and guidelines, etc.
Mann: I was also sure that I would now be able to free myself from the self-loathing that had long stalked me, whenever I fell short of my own demanding standards.
I think here we start to see the reason why you found the simplistic moral relatavism you now rail against attractive.
Mann: After years of secular psychotherapy for my life-long struggle with depression, I felt that I had finally received clarity – If everything is simply molecules-in-motion, there is no basis for judgment or guilt. They just don’t exist!
That simply does not follow. It's like saying that because neither hydrogen nor oxygen is wet, water cannot also be wet.
Since you've expressed a dislike of point by point rebuttals to your posts, and since you're also unlikely to post this comment, I'll leave it there.
You argue that even within the world of your materialism,
Delete• “I can still call you out for behaving badly, and I can muster rational arguments as to why your behaviour is bad, justifying the censure.”
However, a purely material world gives you no basis for the ontological, transcendent categories of “badly…bad, justifying censure.” As a moral relativist, you are restricted to merely using these categories as arbitrary, changeable, and relative human categories based on your purely personal, subjective assumptions. Therefore, you cannot say that I’ve acted “badly.” You can only say, “according to my subjective and personal judgment, you have acted badly.”
Nor can you say that I deserve “censure.” You can only say, “according to my own feelings and thoughts, you deserve censure.”
Mann: However, a purely material world gives you no basis for the ontological, transcendent categories of “badly…bad, justifying censure.”
DeleteWell, since "bad, badly, justifying censure" aren't transcendent, but are rather conceptual and applied to things in the material world, I don't see this is a problem
Mann: As a moral relativist, you are restricted to merely using these categories as arbitrary, changeable, and relative human categories based on your purely personal, subjective assumptions.
I'm not going to go through this again Daniel, but suffice to say that your naive moral relatavism is not the only option, nor is it what I think is the case.
Basically, you're mistaken and you appear to have no desire to correct your mistake.
Mann: Therefore, you cannot say that I’ve acted “badly.” You can only say, “according to my subjective and personal judgment, you have acted badly.”
No, I can say "according to what makes a society a happy and healthy one, you have acted badly". This would be referring to something objective (though perhaps not known in entirety).
On the other hand, according to you, all you can say is
"according to my subjective and personal interpretation of my particular God's judgment, you have acted badly."
Which puts you into a very similar situation to the naive moral relativist you take me to be.
We've gone through the morality merry-go-round a number of times Daniel. I've repeatedly shown that not only is your caricature of non-theistic morality not the only option available (and not the best of the bunch), but that your theistic morality suffers from problems similar to those you point out in rejecting non-theistic morality.
You would be best to try to understand non-theistic morality a little better before making a strawman argument to burn.
I’m afraid that your response is incoherent. Here’s how you responded:
Delete• No, I can say "according to what makes a society a happy and healthy one, you have acted badly".
Although you claim that you do not have to resort to moral absolutes to make a coherent judgment, you’ve made moral absolutes out of “happy” and “healthy.” You have introduced these two categories as if these are absolutes measures by which you can judge everything else
"Happy" and "Healthy" can be measured in regards to a society (as well as to individuals) - they're objective measures which can be appealed to without requiring something immaterial to "anchor them" as you seem to require.
DeleteWhat you seem to want is that the words "Bad", "Good", "Evil" have meaning divorced of any context. I simply don't see why this need be the case. I see no reason why saying "Good behaviour" need appeal to anything qualitatively different to "Good car" - a car is good if it fulfils the purpose we hold for cars (which can be different for different people, btw). Behaviour is good in so far as it fulfils the requirements we hold for behaviour (which again can be different for different people).
Where this leaves us, it seems, is in the position of arguing the merits of certain concerns as they apply to cars (top speed, aesthetic appeal, fuel economy, etc) and behaviour (impact on others, adherence to a set of rules, etc). Here you and I appear to be in exactly the same position regarding convincing others that our particular criteria for "Good behaviour" is "correct" (or at least, is rationally justified).
To condense, moral ought statements such as "You ought not steal" appear to always have an unstated appeal to some sort of justification.
DeleteYours might be "because theft is against the will of God", mine might be "because you would object to someone stealing from you and you have no reason for such inconsistency generally", but both of us seem to appeal to unstated assumptions such as these.
You claim that,
Delete• "Happy" and "Healthy" can be measured in regards to a society (as well as to individuals) - they're objective measures which can be appealed to without requiring something immaterial to "anchor them" as you seem to require.
However, even if these two criteria could be measured, their measurement is no more significant as a moral standard than the measurement of the skies, oceans or clouds. Once again, you are trying to move automatically from what “is” to what “ought to be.” While you admit that there are no ontological objective moral absolutes, you try to import them by merely tweaking the terminology.
There are many moral questions that you have to answer:
1. Why is happiness a “good?” People can become insensitive and jaded with too much.
2. Who should be happy? Everyone? Are you assuming equality? What then is the basis for equality, seeing that each human has different behaviors?
3. Perhaps peoplehood is illusory and happiness just locks us into the delusion?
4. Should “happiness” pertain equally to mosquitoes. Should we pass laws to protect their happiness?
Now you appeal to the “golden rule” as your criterion for judgment. Although I certainly agree with it, I don’t see why you present it as a moral absolute. What would make it absolute – universal and unchanging? I think that you admit that it has no being or reality outside of our own changing feelings. As such, how then can you appeal to it any more than appealing to our feelings of revenge or lust? Why should the “golden rule” be absolute?
DeleteYou correctly identify it as your “unstated assumptions.” However, you want to wield it as a moral absolute. However, you can give no reason for elevating it as such.
Mann: However, even if these two criteria could be measured, their measurement is no more significant as a moral standard than the measurement of the skies, oceans or clouds.
DeleteThis is false. "Happy" and "Healthy" relate to behaviours, beliefs, desires, etc, which is what morality is concerned with. Skies, oceans or clouds are not.
Mann: Once again, you are trying to move automatically from what “is” to what “ought to be.” While you admit that there are no ontological objective moral absolutes, you try to import them by merely tweaking the terminology.
I didn't 'move automatically from what “is” to what “ought to be.”'. I stated things which can help us to make moral decisions, objective features of the world. Most people value happiness and healthiness, both their own and that of others, and therefore such measures are certainly valid as a means to judge moral decisions.
Mann: 1. Why is happiness a “good?” People can become insensitive and jaded with too much.
"Eudaimonia" is probably a better term than "happiness", since "happiness is generally associated with short term fulfillment.
It seems to be a good because it is what people strive for.
Mann: 2. Who should be happy? Everyone? Are you assuming equality? What then is the basis for equality, seeing that each human has different behaviors?
There are some general universals that all people (apart from the mentally ill, such as psychopaths/sociopaths) which lead to "Eudaimonia".
Mann: 3. Perhaps peoplehood is illusory and happiness just locks us into the delusion?
Perhaps it is, but that would be a question for science to answer, and in the mean time, personhood appears to be a solidly attested concept (though as a continuum rather than as an strict line in the sand).
Mann: 4. Should “happiness” pertain equally to mosquitoes. Should we pass laws to protect their happiness?
We should probably protect animals to the extent that they can attain "Eudaimonia", suffer, experience joy, etc. This, without invoking the human exceptionalism that Christianity requires (but reality doesn't supply), allows us to rationally promote our own well being over those of, say the mosquito.
Mann: Now you appeal to the “golden rule” as your criterion for judgment. Although I certainly agree with it, I don’t see why you present it as a moral absolute.
I'm not presenting it as a "moral absolute" Daniel - I don't think there are such things. I see it as a good rule of thumb which is not always applicable.
Mann: What would make it absolute – universal and unchanging?
It isn't absolute, nor is it universal and understanding of it has changed over time, so it isn't unchanging. What it is, it seems to me, is a decent rule of thumb. Something that in many circumstances helps a social group to get along. Something like it has been observed in other animals too, as I've pointed out to you in the past.
Mann: I think that you admit that it has no being or reality outside of our own changing feelings.
It has reality outside of our feelings - it's conceptual rather than merely an emotional response.
Mann: As such, how then can you appeal to it any more than appealing to our feelings of revenge or lust? Why should the “golden rule” be absolute?
Why do you continue to require something to be absolute Daniel?
Mann: You correctly identify it as your “unstated assumptions.” However, you want to wield it as a moral absolute. However, you can give no reason for elevating it as such.
I want no such thing.
You didn't seem to want to touch my observation that both you and I are in the same boat regarding morality - we both appeal to other reasons for something being "good", indicating that things are not "good" but are, like my analogy with a car, "good for other reasons".
Although you are correct that considering the question of happiness “can help us to make moral decisions,” happiness isn’t the substance of moral absolutes – an absolute standard of judgment – any more than other things that we might consider like age, disability, and psychological makeup. These are just important considerations we turn to when we attempt to apply our absolute objective standards.
DeleteIn any event, you still are mired in the same dilemma, trying to appeal to changing phenomena upon which to base an absolute system of judgment. The very fact that most people value happiness is not a basis for moral truth any more than the fact that most had believed that the sun revolved around the earth had been the basis for scientific truth.
Mann: Although you are correct that considering the question of happiness “can help us to make moral decisions,” happiness isn’t the substance of moral absolutes – an absolute standard of judgment – any more than other things that we might consider like age, disability, and psychological makeup
DeleteDaniel, you keep coming back to moral absolutes, but I'm not arguing for such things.
If you want to make the case that morality requires absolutes, please do so (and make sure you provide a positive case for your position), but don't keep asking me to argue for that position.
Mann: These are just important considerations we turn to when we attempt to apply our absolute objective standards.
But morality does not appear to rely upon absolute objective standards Daniel. You believe it does. You think the standard is your interpretation of your non-existent deities will or nature, but that is simply your personal subjective opinion, nothing more.
Mann: In any event, you still are mired in the same dilemma, trying to appeal to changing phenomena upon which to base an absolute system of judgment.
Daniel, you really don't seem to get it, though I've pointed it out to you repeatedly.
Here, I'll try again: "I'm not arguing for an absolute system of judgement".
Mann: The very fact that most people value happiness is not a basis for moral truth any more than the fact that most had believed that the sun revolved around the earth had been the basis for scientific truth.
Let me paraphrase you:
"The very fact that you value your interpretation of your deities will is not a basis for moral truth any more than the fact that most had believed that the sun revolved around the earth had been the basis for scientific truth."
You reiterate, "I'm not arguing for an absolute system of judgement".
DeleteHere’s why I keep bringing the discussion back to moral absolutes – an objective basis for moral judgment: If you admit that you don’t have such a basis, then you CAN’T make moral judgments other than for yourself. Therefore, when you challenge my moral judgments, you admittedly do so without any basis or criterion. You admit you can’t make such a judgment, but you make it anyway. This is totally invalid and logically incoherent.
You also reiterate, "The very fact that you value your interpretation of your deities will is not a basis for moral truth."
However, this theistic system is coherent. We believe that there is an objective unchanging and universal basis – God - to make objective moral judgments. You are certainly free to challenge my premise, but this isn’t the subject of this essay.
Mann: If you admit that you don’t have such a basis, then you CAN’T make moral judgments other than for yourself.
DeleteThis is false. I can appeal to values, and simply point out what follows from them. I can appeal to reasons why those values should be held.
None of this need be "subjective". For instance, as I pointed out earlier, if you value your own life, and value consistency, then you ought no kill another person. This is not in the least bit a subjective observation, nor can I only make it for myself.
Mann: Therefore, when you challenge my moral judgments, you admittedly do so without any basis or criterion.
This is also false.
I challenge your moral judgements on the grounds that your referrent does not exist. If you're claiming to ground something in the nature of another thing, and that other thing doesn't exist (as your God does not exist), then I don't need to appeal to moral judgments at all - I can be completely concerned with logic and epistemology.
Mann: This is totally invalid and logically incoherent.
It might appear so if you do not actually understand my position, and try to shoe horn all of my statements into the same framework you yourself use.
Instead of saying that alternative moral philosophies are false because they are not the same as you own, you need to demonstrate they are false by actually critiquing them directly. You are doint the former here, not the latter.
Mann: However, this theistic system is coherent.
You can believe and claim this to be the case, but that does not make it so.
Mann: We believe that there is an objective unchanging and universal basis – God - to make objective moral judgments.
Again, this does not mean that there actually is an unchanging and universal basis for morality, nor does it mean that that basis is God, nor does it mean that claiming such a thing is coherent.
Stating your beliefs does not amount to demonstrating that your beliefs actually obtain in the real world, and as I've pointed out to you in the past, your beliefs regarding morality are incoherent.
Mann: You are certainly free to challenge my premise, but this isn’t the subject of this essay.
Fair enough, though you've brought it into the conversation by claiming that my approach to morality fails while yours succeeds.
Without trying to prove the existence of God, I am simply making observations about the Logical coherence of our two systems. You claim that your system can be objective and universal without God and therefore state:
Delete• I can appeal to values, and simply point out what follows from them. I can appeal to reasons why those values should be held.
You certainly can point out the consequences of particular values. However, you are unable to say or demonstrate that these consequences are objectively good or bad, just or unjust. In other words, your consequences are without any objective moral significance. They a just raw facts.
You might find certain consequences desirable, but others will not. And then who’s to decide which one of you is right without a higher standard by which to judge your opponent’s subjective moral stance. You might argue that a pain-free life is good, while the Buddhist would say that a pain-free life will merely contribute to the illusion. Once this happens, you have no way to coherently proceed.
Do you have an objective standard by which to demonstrate that Hitler was wrong? Can you even coherently state that human life is good? Meanwhile, some say that human population must be reduced – that there are just too many of us. He might therefore argue that the plague is good.
You might reject my system, but at least it’s logically coherent. I have an objective and absolute basis upon which I can decide such a question. Human life is sacred and must not be snuffed out. Without such a higher standard, you have no basis to impose yourself above Hitler’s judgment.
Mann: You claim that your system can be objective and universal without God
DeleteI'm not sure I'm making such a strong claim Daniel. I'm claiming that moral oughts can be objectively derived from values, can be deduced by reason, and said values can be supported by reason.
Mann: However, you are unable to say or demonstrate that these consequences are objectively good or bad, just or unjust.
In fact I can, since if you value X, and therefore ought to do Y, then Y is objectively good if you value X. I suspect you agree with this but are wanting something stronger, something more like a kantian categorical imperative. Unfortunately not only do I not advocate such things, but it seems to me you don't either.
Mann: In other words, your consequences are without any objective moral significance. They a just raw facts.
They are raw facts with moral significance to moral agents like ourselves. I don't see that we need anything further, nor do I see convincing arguments that there is anything further.
Mann: You might find certain consequences desirable, but others will not.
This does not differ from your position at all Daniel. You find that homosexuality is undesirable, while others do not.
Mann: And then who’s to decide which one of you is right without a higher standard by which to judge your opponent’s subjective moral stance.
Since my moral stance is informed by reason and appeal to objective facts, as you seem to admit above, it is a long way from a simple "subjective moral stance".
If I and someone else disagrees, then we could discuss our disagreement. If we share relevant values, then we could explore what actually follows from that, and try to find out whether either or both of us are mistaken. If we don't share relevant values, then we could try to convince each other to adopt some or all of our own values. If my opponent refuses to reason through his position, and simply asserts it, then I fail to see why this is a point against my position, since someone can just as easily disagree with you.
Mann: You might argue that a pain-free life is good, while the Buddhist would say that a pain-free life will merely contribute to the illusion. Once this happens, you have no way to coherently proceed.
Actually there is Daniel. The buddhist might appeal to things which are not in evidence, like an afterlife. Once they do this and refuse to actually justify their position, then they have abandoned reason and there position is shown to be unreasonable.
Mann: Do you have an objective standard by which to demonstrate that Hitler was wrong?
DeleteAs it happens, I do. Hitler was inconsistent in his moral stance, and was informed by his unreasonable anti-semetic Christian beliefs. Since Hitlers values in this regard are not supported by appeal to reasonable values, then he was wrong to advocate those positions.
Mann: Can you even coherently state that human life is good?
Why would it be bad Daniel?
Life seems obviously better than non-life, since it allows conscious experience, which is the only way one can in fact be a moral agent.
Mann: Meanwhile, some say that human population must be reduced – that there are just too many of us. He might therefore argue that the plague is good.
Well, since death through starvation and disease caused by over population is rampant in some parts of the world, I don't see any moral evil in claiming that the population should be reduced to a sustainable level, to reduce the overall suffering of people.
However, someone who would argue from there to claim that a plague is the best means of achieving this, or is even a reasonable option, would very likely be inconsitently applying reason to come to this conclusion, and therefore this conclusion would be deemed unreasonable.
Mann: You might reject my system, but at least it’s logically coherent.
Actually it isn't. You argue at times for intrinsic values - for X being good in it's own right - an criticise my position for not providing such things. And yet you also claim that intrinsic values do not exist, and that X is good only because it aligns with the nature or will of your unevidenced deity. You also do not engage with critiques of your position, showing that it may not be as you assert it to be - of which I have provided a number of examples to you in the past.
You also don't bother to try to address the ways in which our positions are similar - when it comes to pragmatic concerns of what is right and wrong "on the ground", you offer no means of figuring out whether your interpretation of your God's will is "more accurate" than that of another person.
Mann: I have an objective and absolute basis upon which I can decide such a question.
You assert this, but you do not have this. Occasionally you appear to be a moral platonist, arguing that X is good in it's own right, at others you argue for moral subjectivism, that X is good subject to the will/nature of your God. You switch between these two viewpoints in an ad-hoc fashion, depending on which serves you better at a particular time.
Mann: Human life is sacred and must not be snuffed out.
You provide no reason to suppose this is so, merely assert it.
Mann: Without such a higher standard, you have no basis to impose yourself above Hitler’s judgment.
There is no need for a higher standard, nor does there appear to be one. We should and must rely upon the tools we have, which are our reason, in order to figure out what we ought and ought not do. As I pointed out above, I do indeed have a basis to state that Hitler was wrong. You do not, howeber, since Hitler believed he was doing God's work and therefore can appeal to the exact same arguments and assertions as you yourself do in order to support his position.
In short, not only does your position suffer from some of the same shortcomings as mine, it is actually inferior, appealing as it does to mystery rather than reason. Also, your position appears to be incoherent, since you equivocate between 2 quite different meta-ethical positions.
I stated that only if you have an objective unchanging absolute moral standard can you pass moral judgment. However, you seem to indicate that such isn’t necessary:
Delete• “If I and someone else disagrees, then we could discuss our disagreement. If we share relevant values, then we could explore what actually follows from that, and try to find out whether either or both of us are mistaken.”
I agree that if two people share the same values, they don’t need to question the validity of these values. All they need to do is to determine whether or not their decisions or behaviors are consistent with these values. However, your answer constitutes a refusal to look at the more basic question: “Do your shared values have any objective, solid, unchanging basis or are they merely the reflection of a widely held cultural bias?”
You, however, touch on this deeper question with your next statement:
• “If we don't share relevant values, then we could try to convince each other to adopt some or all of our own values.”
However, you fail to see that if there are no moral absolutes, then there is no basis for argumentation. If there is no right mathematical or scientific answer, why even bother discussing the issue? You might instead try to shift the argument to an area of agreement and try to argue from your area of agreement to your area of disagreement. You might therefore argue, “You are in favor of adultery and other forms of sexual choice, as I do. How then can you maintain your stance against gay marriage?”
However, anchoring your argument on this area of agreement – adultery – is like anchoring your ship to a floating bottle. There is nothing of substance there. Instead, any valid moral argument has to be anchored to something unmovable.
You fault the Buddhist for appealing to an afterlife in support of their values and think that you can therefore dismiss their morality as groundless. However, you seem to not see that your position – no afterlife – is equally as groundless. (Of course, I don’t think that the theist position is groundless as I’ve written many times before.)
However, proving or disproving the afterlife is not central to our discussion. What is central at this point is whether our positions are logically coherent. I have argued that yours isn’t! While you make moral judgments upon others, you also seem to admit that you have no objective basis for doing so. This makes your endeavor logically incoherent.
Meanwhile, the theist position isn’t. It makes moral judgment because it claims that it has a standard by which to do so – a higher, unchanging, universal, authoritative truth. You might argue whether or not such a standard exists, but that’s another issue. At least, at this point, the theist is logically consistent!
I challenged you to justify your claim that human life is “good.” You responded:
Delete• Life seems obviously better than non-life, since it allows conscious experience, which is the only way one can in fact be a moral agent.
However, you merely passed the buck to an appeal to “conscious experience.” Why then is conscious experience a good thing, if it is only an accident of mindless forces? Again, you are illegitimately going from something that “is” (conscious experience) to something that “ought to be.” There is no necessary connection here. You have to establish it, but you haven’t.
Besides, how much “conscious experience” is a good thing? 10 billion people? What if 100 billion? Is that still a good thing for this planet? And what if some are more conscious than others? Does that make them more valuable? What even makes one more conscious than another? Than a cow or a dolphin? Why even use consciousness as a standard of value? You then wrote:
• I don't see any moral evil in claiming that the population should be reduced to a sustainable level, to reduce the overall suffering of people.
Do you have any absolute, objective standard by which to make such a judgment? Admittedly, you don’t, but nevertheless you are prepared to reduce the human population. You base this on “the overall suffering of people,” but you lack any objective standard by which you can plead that your assessment of “overall suffering” is an adequate moral basis by which to reduce the human population. You haven’t yet given any objective reason to support your claim that suffering is wrong.
You suggest that a plague might be a good thing but then reject the idea because it might be “inconsistently” applied. However, once again, you have failed to provide any objective reason why we shouldn’t be inconsistent. If there are no moral absolutes, then what can be wrong with being inconsistent!
You also allege that my position is inconsistent because I deny intrinsic value. Although I did assert that these values are intrinsic to the being of God, God has made them intrinsic to our nature, writing His laws on our heart. This explains that high level of agreement we share regarding moral issues and also why we are accountable before God. We know the truth. However, by rejecting God, you have also rejected the rational basis to live in harmony with the laws He has written on your heart.
Consequently, the atheist experience is schizoid. In your heart, you believe in moral absolutes – you know that genocide is wrong. However, in your mind you have adopted moral relativism. Bon Voyage!
Mann: You also allege that my position is inconsistent because I deny intrinsic value. Although I did assert that these values are intrinsic to the being of God, God has made them intrinsic to our nature, writing His laws on our heart.
DeleteDaniel, you do not understand what the term "intrinsic value" means.
If something has intrinsic value, then it has value regardless of anything else. If love is intrinsically valuelable, then regardless of whether God is loving, a monster, or non-existent, love has that value.
This is another example of your equivocation between different metaethical positions, and highlights the confused nature of your moral beliefs.
Mann: This explains that high level of agreement we share regarding moral issues and also why we are accountable before God.
This doesn't explain the high level of disagreement regarding moral issues.
Is slavery wrong? Today we say "yes", previous (and some current) cultures as well as your bible claim "no".
What you're actually doing is stealing from evolutionary biology (our evolved basic moral capacities) and reason (our ability to ponder and evaluate moral issues) and claiming them to be a part of your world view without argument - this is a base assertion.
Mann: We know the truth.
Another assertion without substance.
Mann: However, by rejecting God, you have also rejected the rational basis to live in harmony with the laws He has written on your heart.
Well, god doesn't exist, my basic capacity for morality evolved, and I rely upon my reason to inform my moral judgement. I don't need to appeal to your non-existent deity in order to justify my claims, and as I've made clear in this and other threads, my appeals to morality appear to not only be all that is required in order to support morality in a society, but actually appears to be pretty close to how morality actually works out in reality.
Mann: Consequently, the atheist experience is schizoid.
Daniel, you're the one who is claiming that intrinsic value is also extrinsic value at one and the same time. That's a pretty confused position to take.
Mann: In your heart, you believe in moral absolutes – you know that genocide is wrong.
Why is genocide wrong Daniel?
After all, according to your book Yahweh has ordered a few. It seems Genocide is not absolutely wrong in your view, and yet here you are claiming that it is. Your position is confused at best and incoherent at worst, and yet you refuse to even look at it in detail - you simply assume without sufficient warrant that it is correct.
Mann: However, in your mind you have adopted moral relativism. Bon Voyage!
As I've pointed out ad nauseum, non-theistic morality is not necessarily the naive moral relitavism you rail against. As I've pointed out, moral sentiments and judgments can flow objectively from values, and those values can be supported with reasoning.
I point out instances where you do not understand my position, but you completely fail to learn and continue to argue against a strawman of your own devising.
I see little point in continuing dialog if you're going to behave in this manner. If you can't be bothered to actually engage in this discussion then I'll simply assume that you have no reasonable arguments against my actualy position, not arguments to support your own position against my critiques, and that you're own beliefs are so horribly confused as to be worthless.
It's your call Daniel.
I think we’ve finally reached a point of agreement:
Delete• “I see little point in continuing dialog if you're going to behave in this manner. If you can't be bothered to actually engage in this discussion then I'll simply assume that you have no reasonable arguments against my actualy position”
Assume what you will! If the call in mine, then "goodbye!"
Mr. Mann,
ReplyDeleteAfter you abandoned secular materialism for becoming a follower and disciple of Christ, did your parents and siblings (if you had siblings) also become Christians?
Just curious.
Sadly, they didn't. Both of my parents have passed without giving any indication that they came to Christ. Both of my brothers remain agnostic or atheistic. Please pray for them.
DeleteMr. Mann,
ReplyDeleteI'm in a similar situation with my family. I've shared the Gospel of Jesus Christ with them, and so far, they are, in their minds and hearts, "happy" apart from knowing Christ as Lord and Savior.
Did you attempt to communicate the Gospel to your parents and brothers as part of the Great Commission? If so, how was it received?
Truth,
ReplyDeleteThey got tired of listening to me. So I just resorted to prayer after a while.
For most Jews, Christ is the enemy and becoming a "Gentile" is unthinkable.
Hi Havok,
ReplyDeleteAre there other Christian sites that you visit with which to engage and interact on the issue of atheism vs. Christian theism?
If not, I could offer some to you.
Truth, I do engage on some other Christian websites.
DeleteWhat other blogs/websites would you offer, and why?