Posted by: nofaith ®
05/12/2003, 18:28:03
Author Profile Mail author
|
I wish I had been exposed to this kind of thing when I was a minor. It ultimately is Fred's choice, and if he thinks his parents would have a problem with it, then he can ask them. Judging from his reactions so far I doubt we'll have much effect on him.This is no different from Fred going to some other church or club or whatever and asking questions. Those people are under no obligation to watch what they say, and neither are we. It might be different if we had pursued him, rather than him showing up here, but still I think it would be our right to say what we believe. > At what point do you think Fred's right to know overrides his
> parent's right to teach him? If Fred seeks information, he is entitled to it, unless the organization prohibits him from receiving it (nc17 movies, for example). The "point" at which the parents have a right to restrict the information he receives is when the media through which he receives it is government sponsored or regulated, as all citizens are part of the government. This means they have a say in what he is taught in school, for example. In any other unregulated forum, such as this one, Fred is entitled to any information he might receive. His parents still have the right to restrict where he goes and what he does, but if they do not, it isn't some one else's job to keep information from him. > At what point do you think Fred's right to know overrides his
> parent's right to teach him? Legally, I would say the answer is probably "never," unless his parents were doing something illegal. His parents are not obligated to allow him access to any information they do not want him to have. There might be some exceptions with schooling, but I doubt there are many (especially with home schooling). However, I don't believe we need to invoke his "right to know" as the reason we tell him what we do; we are invoking OUR right to discuss whatever we want in this (mostly) unmoderated forum. If Fred's parents want to absolutely restrict his access to information, it is sad, but their right. I gather from Fred's comments that his father knows he seeks out this kind of information and doesn't disallow it. -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/12/2003, 18:41:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
your last sentence, Dan. You say "I gather from Fred's comments that his father knows he seeks out this kind of information and DOESN'T ALLOW IT". I have not read the post in which Fred refers to his Dad. I had two lengthy post responses written out for Fred when something just tightened up in me. On principle, it is my practice not to interfere with a parent's right to instruct a child in matters of religion. I, infact, have taken steps to make sure that this cannot happen in my workplace. Talk to me about it from this angle. Are you saying, perhaps, that since Fred's parents have (we think, unless he's posting from a friends house) supplied him with a computer and internet access and have not chosen to place controls on the site's he visits that they are essentially giving him permission to "go" where he wishes on the internet? Help me out here, I very much would like to offer him a believing perspective and I don't know if I can ethically square it. Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/12/2003, 18:53:21
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I gather from Fred's comments that his father knows he seeks out this kind of information and DOESN'T ALLOW IT".Should have been "and DOES allow it" -Dan
|
Posted by: Victoria! ®
05/12/2003, 19:00:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
Did you have to go back and read your post to make this second reply? LOL! I'm sorry I misquoted you.Victoria
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/12/2003, 19:02:44
Author Profile Mail author
|
Yes, at first I thought it was my mistake. Actually I was going to go back and put the correction in parenthesis, when I saw it was already correct.No harm done. :) -Dan
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/12/2003, 23:09:22
Author Profile Mail author
|
one doesn’t know what a post states beyond the words on the page....a comedy of errors Let's keep this "edit" feature all the same. :-) JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/12/2003, 23:02:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
What you stated (as it appears on my screen) was this:
“I gather from Fred's comments that his father knows he seeks out this kind of information and doesn't disallow it.”If his father does not disallow, then his father allows. Since you made no edit to your post, did you not say what you meant? JAK
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/12/2003, 23:24:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
I meant that his father seems to not prohibit it; it is correct. -Dan Doh, I made an error here, though.
Modified by nofaith at Tue, May 13, 2003, 00:37:28
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/12/2003, 23:45:13
Author Profile Mail author
|
That is exactly what you said. You said what you meant...yes! :-)I had not read the other posts prior to responding in your defense here. ...and this one was easy. Can we imagine what failed communications have occurred throughout the history of recorded history? :-) (I generally oppose redundancy, but repetition seems to recur frequently, and we say the same thing over and over.) JAK
|
Posted by: JAK ®
05/13/2003, 01:13:58
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan, you state:
“If Fred's parents want to absolutely restrict his access to information, it is sad, but their right.”I am not sure this is correct. But assuming it is, allowing him to have access to the Internet is hardly a way “to absolutely restrict his access to information...” If Fred has access to a computer and this forum (and the rest of what is available on the Internet), he is not being restricted. This is not a website which requires an age for participation. While parents have the capacity to indoctrinate their children, they cannot exclude much of anything if they allow their children to have a computer and access to the World Wide Web. JAK
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/13/2003, 03:21:41
Author Profile Mail author
|
I agree, and what I meant to convey is that if they want to restrict the information flow, then can. Clearly, they are not, so it is not our responsibility to do it for them.-Dan
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/12/2003, 18:32:12
Author Profile Mail author
|
I think we probably agree that the moral thing to do would be to remove the wool from his eyes, as his life would probably be much better as a non-Mormon. It may not be our place to step in and do this, but if his parents don't stop him from asking, I think we have a right and an obligation to tell him what we know.-Dan
|
Posted by: Boll Weevil ®
05/13/2003, 11:50:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan's attitude reminds me of the medieval priests who used to kidnap Jewish boys and raise them in monasteries to save their souls. Certainly, don't withhold truth, but neither should we teach from a stance of counter-indoctrination, as though we knew all truth and they knew nothing. There are plenty of believing Mormons who know everything Dan knows. And there are plenty of non-Mormon scholars who know as much, but who can discuss it all without expressing the slightest signs of bigotry. --Boll Weevil
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/13/2003, 21:01:47
Author Profile Mail author
|
Boll:Your comparison to kidnapping Jewish boys is misplaced, since I haven't made any efforts to coerce Fred at all; neither have I given him any advice. Vicki questioned whether it was "moral" to give Fred information that might conflict with his parent's teachings. As I said: > if his parents don't stop him from asking, I think we have a
> right and an obligation to tell him what we know There is a big difference between believing I have a "right and an obligation" to answer questions according to my knowledge and beliefs, and believing that to "save their souls" I should kidnap children and isolate them from the world to impose my beliefs on them. > as though we knew all truth and they knew nothing. I don't pretend this is the case; however, I do know quite a bit about Mormonism, and judging from many of Fred's naive comments he has a great deal to learn whether he remains Mormon or not. My statements were made in the context of Vicki asking whether it was ethical to prove "Fred's church isn't true." I pointed out that I personally have no ethical conflict; I think becoming non-Mormon would be beneficial to him. However, the information I gave was not intended to convert Fred, rather I gave it based on the questions he asked. As I stated as well, I doubt Fred would change his religion based on our comments anyway. -Dan
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/14/2003, 00:27:09
Author Profile Mail author
|
Dan's attitude reminds me of the medieval priests who used to kidnap Jewish boys and raise them in monasteries to save their souls.Well, that's a terrible analogy, starting from the fact that Fred's suffered nothing like counter-indoctrination here, and that . . . well, where should I begin? With the fact that your kind of analogy is stock and trade for ideologues? That it would be difficult to imagine Dan resorting to this sort of straightforwardly bad analogy for effect? I'm surprised that Dan marshalled on despite the abuse, taking your reasoning so seriously by offering a point-by-point response. In any case, that doesn't seem to reflect a cultist medieval kidnapping attitude, wouldn't you think? Actually, Dan seems scrupulous compared to you on this score. I'd trust my daughter with Dan's style of argument much more than with yours, no matter the subject. Cal
|
Posted by: Boll Weevil ®
05/15/2003, 23:11:20
Author Profile Mail author
|
But aren't you the one whose kids were Shanghaid by the evil Mormon elders? I'll grant that Dan acquitted himself admirably, but if you don't catch a trace of bigotry in the phrase "remove the wool from his eyes," or if you don't grasp a connection between the imagery of kidnapping Jewish boys in order to save them from a similar fate, I think it is because of some wool that needs to be removed from your eyes. When bigotry doth prosper, none dare call it bigotry. --BW
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/17/2003, 13:41:04
Author Profile Mail author
|
But aren't you the one whose kids were Shanghaid by the evil Mormon elders?Once again, it's hyperbole that you're trading in here. At any rate: No, I'm not the one whose kids met up with these mythical creatures. Don't even know what you're talking about. I even urge my daughter go to Sunday School when she stays with the grandparents. Actually, I myself was once one of those Mormon elders, spreading the gospel abroad in two personally satisfying years. I know firsthand that the elders aren't evil, and that their effects on converts aren't usually evil, but a mixed bag. I'd say that sometimes the effects are very good given the overall situation of some converts. Please, weevil, don't project your hyperbolic sense of things onto others. I'll grant that Dan acquitted himself admirably, but if you don't catch a trace of bigotry in the phrase "remove the wool from his eyes," or if you don't grasp a connection between the imagery of kidnapping Jewish boys in order to save them from a similar fate, I think it is because of some wool that needs to be removed from your eyes. When bigotry doth prosper, none dare call it bigotry That last sentence is inspiring, isn't it? But it doesn't save you from responsibility for the, once again, hyperbolic leap you take from Dan's post to the medieval imagery. Here are just two things that show the imagery in fact breaks down in ways crucial to making it work: 1. Who's suggesting kidnapping or indoctrination here? Dan's idea is to present the kid with evidence in a situation that's not one of compulsion. Even if the Church were true, the analogy would break down. 2. And saying that "some wool . . . needs to be removed from [a Mormon's] eyes" is just to say Mormons are wrong about core gospel claims, something, by the way, Mormons routinely say about disbelievers. (Was I like a medieval priest indoctrinating kidnapped Jewish boys when I gave the discussions? I don't think so. Perhaps you do.) As vivid and satisfying as it might be, and as much as it makes you feel you're crusading against a bigotry that none (save you, I suppose) dare speak, the fact is that it's just misleading and--dare I say it?--prejudicial.
|
Posted by: Boll Weevil ®
05/19/2003, 08:31:50
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, this is like trying to criticize Israeli policy at the synagogue, or to criticize LDS handling of dissidents in a Mormon Sunday School. Your reaction proves my case: to dare treat Mormonism as an acceptable religion--as a non cult, is taboo in this forum. Notice that, whereas you are willing to send your daughter to Sunday School (you don't tell us how old she is), Dan believes that Fred is better off without Mormonism. Would he or you say this of Methodism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, or Buddaism? Of all religion? I recall witnessing an LDS chemist at the Bureau of Mines try to talk a high school student out of becoming a priest, to prevent him from "going down the wrong path." With or without hyperbole, that does remind me of the medieval kidnappings of Jewish boys--in spirit, if not bodily hijacking. I remember the glowering of one of the nuns when I was on my mission, visiting a Catholic school and telling the young Bolivian girls about the Book of Mormon under the pretense of teaching them South American archeology. The nuns were clearly better Christians than I was. We thought it was OK to be disingenuous in the service of a higher cause. If anything can define a cult, it is the extent to which its adherents are urged to set aside morality for the immediate benefit of the cult. I'm afraid Mormonism has pretty much grown out of that mindset. They no longer break up marriages in order to build up Zion, unlike, say, Witnesses. Dan may have his reasons for thinking Fred is better off without, but he, we should not assume that this premise is to be accepted by all, without discussion, or that to engage in such discussion is...prejudicial. --BW
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/19/2003, 16:29:29
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Would he or you say this of Methodism, Catholicism, Judaism,
> Islam, or Buddaism? Of all religion?Definitely; I am an atheist. -Dan
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/19/2003, 20:01:48
Author Profile Mail author
|
If you add the sentence immediately prior to what you've cited from Weevil, it reads: Dan believes that Fred is better off without Mormonism. Would he or you say this of Methodism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, or Buddaism? Of all religion?Your answer ("Definitely; I am an atheist") suggests one can read off from the simple fact of someone's atheism that they would--should?--believe everyone, or at least Fred, is better off without any religion, monotheistic, Buddhist and so forth. Of course, my own posts, coming from an atheist, would belie the fact an atheist would necessarily believe that. Do you think an atheist should believe that? Below is an article that closely parallels my own thinking on the issue. I'm curious what you think of it. The author's a physicist who's just published a book offering a case for atheism, and who writes quite a lot in the genre of skeptical debunking. (Dan, please note: edited for clarification two hours after posting)
Related link: Taner Edis on atheists recommending irreligion to others
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 19, 2003, 21:03:27
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/19/2003, 23:07:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
> Your answer ("Definitely; I am an atheist") suggests one can
> read off from the simple fact of someone's atheism that they
> would--should?--believe everyone, or at least Fred, is better
> off without any religion, monotheistic, Buddhist and so forth.This wasn't precisely what I wanted to convey. In fact, I'm starting to regret my original statement, because I have in the past stated that I don't necessarily believe Mormons would be happier after leaving the Church. I typically say nothing to active Mormons unless they specifically ask me. I've even made a point here of telling new, obviously active Mormons, that they are not on an LDS message board. However, if there is any place I feel I should be able to share my opinions on religion, it is here. The reason I mentioned atheism was to explain that I don't discriminate against Mormonism because I feel it's an "invalid" religion (I consider it as valid as any religion); it's because I don't believe religion is generally a positive influence in people's lives. However, there are many other factors to consider, including the shock that such a changed world-view could cause. I do believe Fred would be better off without Mormonism (or religion in general), in many ways. Being an atheist contributes to this view; I think religion and the accompanying dogmatism hampers progress in several areas of life. This isn't to say there aren't benefits; there are--in Mormonism, and probably every religion. But I'm of the opinion that any of those benefits can be found elsewhere, without some of the less desireable "baggage" that religion frequently carries with it. I haven't read your article yet, but hopefully this clears up my views. -Dan
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/20/2003, 00:03:30
Author Profile Mail author
|
The reason I mentioned atheism was to explain that I don't discriminate against Mormonism because I feel it's an "invalid" religion (I consider it as valid as any religion);I think I understand that sentiment. The exmormon atheist like me hears from an evangelical that Mormonism's obviously wrong because the Bible clearly says that the Virgin Birth requires something different . . . and yet we're still left with a Virgin Birth and a host of other strange beliefs that're supposedly so obvious compared to the Mormon tale. A strange story "improves" on the obviously strange Mormon story. Mormonism's equally valid in some sense here to its religious competitors. At any rate, I'm very interested to see what you make of Edis' article.
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/20/2003, 05:38:56
Author Profile Mail author
|
As a Mormon I quickly learned to recognize the logical flaws in nearly every other religion. Somehow, I managed to go some time without seeing these flaws in Mormonism. In many ways, however, Mormonism is more easily disproven as it is a young religion with great specificity in its claims (similar to JWs).Once I stopped ignoring critcisms of Mormonism as slander, I quickly saw it had at least as many flaws as other religions. However, having independently "disproven" all those other religions, I wasn't interested in pursuing them either. I currently believe that in a normal environment I never would have had a tendency toward religion. The many tenets of Mormonism really only "made sense" because they had been part of my life for so long. A few years after my disillusionment, based on the more devastating facts of Mormonism, I can look back and realize what I believed was as foolish as what I then considered non-Mormon beliefs to be. But initially, I decided Mormonism wasn't true, while still feeling that many Mormon beliefs "made sense." For example, looking back, I can't believe I considered the "lost book of Lehi" story credible. At the time, however, I just cursed those who plotted against JS, and praised God for having predicted the loss. The same goes for the Anthon story: I wished fervently that the "authorization" had been preserved so that I could demonstrate the "truth" to my friends--but of course, all the best evidence was conveniently missing. Almost any justification I have for rejecting Mormonism would require me to reject nearly every other religion on the planet. This is due, in large part, to the fact that Mormonism gets many of its traits and doctrines from 19th century religions. I find it amusing when Christians try to discredit Mormonism based on its failure to meet Christian doctrine (as if that were some kind of well-known standard). Even more disturbing, however, are those who discredit it based on logical reasoning, yet fail to apply the same reasoning to their own beliefs (e.g., Tanners). However, I did the same as a Mormon, so I understand how easy it is to fall into that trap. In summary, Mormonism is logically unsound, but so are all religions. What really matters is the effect each has on the believers. I believe is what your article covers. However, I must sleep; I will read the article tomorrow. Cheers, Dan
|
Posted by: nofaith ®
05/21/2003, 05:09:33
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, this was quite an interesting article. The author makes many good points, some of which I'm happy to admit I hadn't really considered. I thought he made a particularly cogent argument regarding humanism's failure to surpass religion in developing a perfect morality.However, underneath all the rhetoric, I get the feeling that his general thrust is to say, "religion isn't totally useless." Of course, I would agree with this, and I'd even go as far as to say that certain people would be better off in a religious environment. Personally, I don't doubt that it would be disastrous to suddenly remove all religious influence from the earth. And I agree that one cannot carelessly recommend an areligious life to all. On the other hand, I think nearly all people would be better off if the majority of humans were raised without being immersed in a religious dogma. Some general beliefs about deity, prayer, and eternal repercussions seem to be fairly benign. But, as beliefs become more specific and hardened, they start to shape life in ways that are often harmful. Edis suggests that religion is a "kind" of rationality; I agree (I would explain it differently, however). It might seem that Edis is suggesting that religious rationality is as good as scientific rationality, although I think he believes otherwise. He just wants to make the point that religion is not totally lacking in rationality, or that it is not by nature irrational. I would say that all modes of thought have some degree of rationality. I happen to believe that nearly all religious schools of thought are less rational than nearly all scientific schools of thought. I would prefer that the majority made their decisions based on a more rational belief, obviously. Religion is not a horrible failure; however, I believe it is limited: far more limited than, say, physics, chemistry, or biology. I agree with Edis that religion is not equivalent to irrationality. However, I believe religion does breed much irrationality (through dogma). Although much of this backwards thinking is eradicated over time, it happens at a much less progressive pace than it does in sciencific circles. Therefore, although we should not dismiss religion as a useless body of thought which causes nothing but trouble, we also should be aware of what it can and cannot provide. It is not necessarily better to know the truth, or to avoid dogma. It is quite possible that we would all be happier if we were all believing Mormons (feel free to insert any other denomination here). However, this is unlikely to happen. Therefore, I feel the best way to promote happiness for all is through a philosophy that holds as its major tenet the right of others to believe and do as they like, to the extent that those actions don't harm others. To support such a philosophy, a strong logical and scientific background is needed to demonstrate which things actually do harm others. E.g., I am reminded of a public official who claimed he opposed "homosexual acts" because it was harmful to society, although I seriously doubt he could cite statistics that would prove it is harmful to society. I believe it is impossible to have such a philosophy as I described above with the dogmata being taught by many of the various religions of today. This is why, in spite of the good aspects I might find in religion, I generally oppose its progress. -Dan
Modified by nofaith at Wed, May 21, 2003, 05:11:05
|
Posted by: Artem ®
05/21/2003, 21:41:37
Author Profile Mail author
|
"Therefore, I feel the best way to promote happiness for all is through a philosophy that holds as its major tenet the right of others to believe and do as they like, to the extent that those actions don't harm others."I used to agree with this. But since we live in a democratic society I think it is inevitable that what others believe affects us (negatively as well as positively) when they support public policies based on whatever religious principles.
I'm in no way advocating forceful removal of all religion, or taking away someone's right to believe what they want. In fact that wouldn't get rid of the problem, since this blind faith could be replaced by another (cult of personality/pseudo-communism in USSR for example).
You can't legislate or force skepticism on people. But there must be a way to teach everyone how to make sound choices. Maybe some sort of education reform...
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/21/2003, 23:02:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Dan,Thanks for responding. I was looking forward to seeing what you'd think. At any rate, here's a preliminary gloss on one aspect of your response. Maybe you'll find it interesting. I thought he made a particularly cogent argument regarding humanism's failure to surpass religion in developing a perfect morality. I think he was saying something slightly different. He wasn't speaking of developing a "perfect" morality, but about the relatively sparse resources available to a thoroughgoing naturalist for providing overarching legitimation stories making sense of one's place of the cosmic order, one's obligations to others, and so forth. Remember, Edis is speaking of a kind of "pragmatic rationality" that involves balancing questions of identity, of what one should do in all kinds of practical settings, of one's place in the order of things, especially the local order of things, and so forth. The naturalistic picture doesn't offer much of real thick substance on this score, and naturalism itself is accordingly consistent with a wide variety of moral and political stances, so much so that, as Edis notes, naturalists can easily find themselves arrayed against fellow naturalists on all kinds of questions, with religious folk as their allies. It's hard to say what exactly follows from a naturalist's point of view when it comes to questions of morals and politics. I agree with Edis here sigficantly. But one could argue against him in part because much of the same goes for religious folk: Which religious morality shall I follow, an evangelical one, a Mormon one, an Orthodox Jewish one, a Buddhist one, some other one? From supernaturalist religiosity itself not much more follows on moral questions than would follow from a naturalistic conception of things. Edis says: "Since we are not constrained by a transcendent ideal, the nonreligious come with a wide diversity of moral and political views." Well, the religious, in spite of being constrained by their various transcendent ideals, also come with a wide diversity of moral and political views. Hence religious wars, the persecution of heretics, and, even in relatively tolerant societies like ours, tremendous disputes amongst the religious about how best to live. Closer to home: Think of SarahSue's conflict with her sister, or Joseph Smith's preoccupation with Universalism as reflected in the Book of Mormon. Still, I think Edis is really onto something, as reflected in a different line of argument. With atheistic naturalism: "Instead of the objective moral clarity of religious systems, we are left with different stable, successfully reproducing patterns of interests; there are better and worse ways to pursue our ends in the social realm but no overarching "oughtness" attaching to actions. Though morality remains essential, as an enterprise concerned with negotiating between competing interests, naturalists do not have the sort of facts which in and of themselves could legitimate a social order. Not that we haven't tried to invent them, what with wretched fantasies like Dialectical Materialism or Social Darwinism. We cannot, it appears, honestly beat religions at their own game. In that case, a society which lets naturalism loose in all aspects of life will deprive itself of a tried-and-true device for social legitimation." I myself would ignore his references to Social Darwinism and Dialectical Materialism. I think they're the low point of his otherwise excellent essay. But I do think he's right that a society where non-naturalistic modes of thinking utterly predominate would be deprived of "a tried-and-true device for social legitimation." And that a thoroughgoing naturalism lacks the resources sufficient to provide such a device, which, above all, is useful for folk trying to make sense of their place in the scheme of things. At any rate, a lot depends on how one understands the relation between rationality organized primarily for cognitive purposes and one with broader pragmatic interests. For me, personally, like Edis, the cognitive picture doesn't interfere with the broader pragmatic picture. For others, I can't say this is so. Please take your time in responding to this, if you want to at all. I am interested in what you have to say.
Modified by Cal at Wed, May 21, 2003, 23:24:41
|
Posted by: Artem ®
05/22/2003, 00:00:11
Author Profile Mail author
|
I'm not sure why naturalistic view (as opposed to religious view) fails to legitimize objective moral standards. Is it because among atheists there are many differing views on how morals should be structured? Or is it because none would claim (well some would, but really it isn't as impressive as God's commandments) to have the final authority? Is that what would "comfort the masses"? Or am I missing the point here?
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/22/2003, 00:44:42
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I'm not sure why naturalistic view (as opposed to religious view) fails to legitimize objective moral standards"Your question is good in both the ways I could read it. If you are saying, is objectivity possible in an atheist world? Absolutely, I don't think many theists who know what they are talking about would deny that (keep in mind, I personally don't believe in objective morality). If you are saying, that given competing theistic and atheist morality, can atheist morality be justified? If theists are right, obviously not. But the question really comes down to whether or not there is actually a god. "Is it because among atheists there are many differing views on how morals should be structured?" Plurality of moral criteria and ethical "systems" is a problem for both theists and atheist. "Or is it because none would claim (well some would, but really it isn't as impressive as God's commandments) to have the final authority?" Divine command theory is only one kind of "objective
morality". A lot of christians don't know that and would in fact argue it. The problem is language, "absolute", "objective", "divine"--all these terms sort of run together.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/22/2003, 00:44:52
Author Profile Mail author
|
"I'm not sure why naturalistic view (as opposed to religious view) fails to legitimize objective moral standards"Your question is good in both the ways I could read it. If you are saying, is objectivity possible in an atheist world? Absolutely, I don't think many theists who know what they are talking about would deny that (keep in mind, I personally don't believe in objective morality). If you are saying, that given competing theistic and atheist morality, can atheist morality be justified? If theists are right, obviously not. But the question really comes down to whether or not there is actually a god. "Is it because among atheists there are many differing views on how morals should be structured?" Plurality of moral criteria and ethical "systems" is a problem for both theists and atheist. "Or is it because none would claim (well some would, but really it isn't as impressive as God's commandments) to have the final authority?" Divine command theory is only one kind of "objective
morality". A lot of christians don't know that and would in fact argue it. The problem is language, "absolute", "objective", "divine"--all these terms sort of run together.
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/22/2003, 00:11:49
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal,I read the article from your earlier post. One of the problems I have with ethical discussions is that there seem to be so many misunderstandings (and this goes for myself too) about the words that go into discussions on morality or at least, divergences in how the words are used. Would you say that Edis is essentially a moral nihilist? That's what it seems like to me. And to that extent I agree with him. I have a hard time fathoming in what way morality could possibly be a matter of knowledge. I don't see "oughts" as existing in objective reality. While consequential ethics roughly describes me, and answers questions on a practical level, I don't see how it can be either compatible with realism or philosophically superior to theistic, platonic, kantian, or virtue ethics. In fact, it's really more description then anythings else, a matter of economics in the form of profit maximization and game theory? And in that context morality makes more sense to me. There don't seem to be any reasons we ought to survive or maximize utils that arn't self-referential--it's merely descriptive once we've decided on our criteria; it doesn't help us justify that criteria. All that reduces to essentially saying that I think Atheism and Theism fail equally when they try and ground morality because I believe morality is contrived, it's not a matter of knowledge. I think I disagree with him about the practicality of atheism. Or, lets say I'd agree with him that theism is more practical de facto only, but I don't think that's what he's saying. In the spirit of trying to keep the length down, I'd say that I don't think I'd have a more difficult time making sense of things, my place etc. as an atheist if I had been brought up that way. I think religion tilts the scale only due to social conditioning. To see where I'm coming from, take the idea of an afterlife, not all religions have offered it. The Old Testament people supposidly conquered in the name of Jehova for no eternal personal benefit with as much zealousness as any Al Queda recruit who is promised an eternity of sex with multiple women. What I'd be interested in, if Edis, or yourself for that matter, have some examples of religious ideas that seem inherently to provide better centering for people and their place then what atheism offers--or at least what the philosophies that go along with atheism offer.
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/23/2003, 21:36:07
Author Profile Mail author
|
Hey Fer,Maybe you're still too wedded to the way you thought when you were an absolutist? One of the problems I have with ethical discussions is that there seem to be so many misunderstandings (and this goes for myself too) about the words that go into discussions on morality or at least, divergences in how the words are used. Would you say that Edis is essentially a moral nihilist? Edis wouldn't call himself a "moral nihilist. That's a term used to describe someone else's metaethics. Error theorists, non-cognitivists and others who don't think there are "oughts" in some moral realm to which we're plugged in think there is something to the moral life, something important, even absent some such realm to ground it. Below I have a link to his review of Michael Martin's "Atheism, Morality and Meaning," where his views on naturalism and ethics get expressed more directly than in the other piece. He speaks of a "broad" sense in which a naturalist can be a "moral relativist," i.e., in arguing "different courses of action may legitimately appear sensible, even moral, to rational people who happen to care about different ends." I'd prefer the word "relativist" not be used at all in this context because it tends to obscure the fact that someone with his views understands the moral life through "wide reflective equilibrium," which would be the source of a kind of objectivity that, however partial, is nevertheless a kind of moral objectivity available to naturalists. I have a hard time fathoming in what way morality could possibly be a matter of knowledge. I don't see "oughts" as existing in objective reality. While consequential ethics roughly describes me, and answers questions on a practical level, I don't see how it can be either compatible with realism or philosophically superior to theistic, platonic, kantian, or virtue ethics. In fact, it's really more description then anythings else, a matter of economics in the form of profit maximization and game theory? And in that context morality makes more sense to me. There don't seem to be any reasons we ought to survive or maximize utils that arn't self-referential--it's merely descriptive once we've decided on our criteria; it doesn't help us justify that criteria. All that reduces to essentially saying that I think Atheism and Theism fail equally when they try and ground morality because I believe morality is contrived, it's not a matter of knowledge. 1. I don't see, no matter how illuminating game theory and so forth might be for our understanding of morals, how profit maximation would be sufficient or even crucial to the description of the moral life you're suggesting. The same may go for "utils," which may be a term helpful in economic research but which may not figure into the key elements of a description of the moral life at a basic level. 2. Perhaps more fundamentally, there's seems to be a key problem in this: "There don't seem to be any reasons we ought to survive or maximize utils that arn't self-referential--it's merely descriptive once we've decided on our criteria; it doesn't help us justify that criteria." With this you seem to be running two issues together here: (1) the descriptive-prescriptive gap; and (2) self-referentiality vs., well, what? "Other-referentiality", including a sense of justice incorporating "other-regarding" norms like fairness, altruism, and so forth? The rather uninformative psychological claim that everything we do is somehow bound to what matters to us shouldn't lead us to infer anything substantial about morals, e.g., that all moral life is just about our own egos. At any rate, I'd argue that the gap between description and prescription has little to do with this issue of "self-referentiality." The first is a genuine philosophical problem; the latter rests on a vulgar moral psychology. 3. "Atheism and Theism fail equally when they try and ground morality because I believe morality is contrived, it's not a matter of knowledge." Opposing morality as "contrived" to morals as "knowledge" cedes too much to folk who think moral nihilism must follow on abandoning some moral realm created, say, by God, or just there like a Platonist might think. Knowledge, or considered moral reflection, can enter into a naturalist's moral deliberations. That's the point, for example, of naturalists like Edis who refer to "wide reflective equilibrium" in speaking of the demands of rationality on morally concerned folk. Perhaps the sort of grounding of morals that some theists seek isn't available. It doesn't follow that knowledge is irrelevant nor that morality's therefore "contrived." Part of the problem may be that you're using such loaded terms to buttress a contrast between objectivists and nihilists. --- As for Edis' original article: I think I disagree with him about the practicality of atheism. Or, lets say I'd agree with him that theism is more practical de facto only, but I don't think that's what he's saying . . . I'd say that I don't think I'd have a more difficult time making sense of things, my place etc. as an atheist if I had been brought up that way. I think religion tilts the scale only due to social conditioning. To see where I'm coming from, take the idea of an afterlife, not all religions have offered it. The Old Testament people supposidly conquered in the name of Jehova for no eternal personal benefit with as much zealousness as any Al Queda recruit who is promised an eternity of sex with multiple women. What I'd be interested in, if Edis, or yourself for that matter, have some examples of religious ideas that seem inherently to provide better centering for people and their place then what atheism offers--or at least what the philosophies that go along with atheism offer. 1. The idea that "theism"--or supernaturalism--is often, as you put it, de facto more practical for many folk gets at the point Edis is trying to make. From his point of view all reflection on how people are best to live their lives is rooted in their de facto situation. Anyone's rational balancing of all their interests as a whole will at times not go well with a purely cognitive interest in how things work, and will always depend on where they live, who they love, the demands others have on them, and so forth. The point is that this balancing of interests isn't always strictly rooted in the cognitive aims that one would best pursue through a single-minded attention to the best available naturalistic, scientifically informed inquiry. And yet it's rational. 2. You ask about "religious ideas that seem inherently to provide better examples of entering for people and their place then what atheism offers--or at least what the philosophies that go along with atheism offer." Remember, one point of Edis is that, when it comes to a rationality that incorporates both cognitive and practical interests, one can't specify a unique answer for everyone when it comes to whether they're best off adopting a supernaturalist vs. naturalist views of things. The same goes for societies as well. He even suggests that whether supernaturalist religiosity is better than naturalism in general may be a question that's meaningless. If so, then a search for inherent reasons to prefer a religious over a naturalist point of view in anyone's life--or vice versa--lose their force. Deliberation on these questions always begins in medias res and can't yield answers of the kind of generality you seem to be hoping for. And yet rationality and a genuine sense of morals needn't go out the door. Well, there's one my longer posts ever. I hope you find it interesting. Regards, Cal
Related link: Edis on naturalism giving us objective morality
Modified by Cal at Sat, May 24, 2003, 02:20:28
|
Posted by: Fer-de-lance ®
05/24/2003, 12:58:24
Author Profile Mail author
|
Because of an emergency at work, I caught your post--so i copied it and I will read and respond after vacation. I'm sure I'll find it interesting...
|
Posted by: Boll Weevil ®
05/23/2003, 11:27:54
Author Profile Mail author
|
I get the feeling that believers and nonbelievers alike don't understand the extent to which their belief systems affect each other. Most have some idea how pagan Greek science influenced Roman science, which combined it with JudaeoChristianity. Few are aware of how superstitious medieval atheists were--magic was part of the science of the day. I suppose atheists would have been in the fore of stamping out human sacrifice, had they existed in sufficient numbers to make any difference, but it was the Hebrew prophets who accomplished it. Likewise, it was religious people who worked hardest to root out slavery. My point is, it is only in the last two or three centuries that we could realistically distinguish between science and religion. Galileo was surprised at the reaction of the Church to his publication--he warned them that they stood to lose authority once he was vindicated--it was something new in history for the Church to fight against science, but this attitude was exagerrated by religious adherents of Darwin's theory, assumed to have existed from the beginning.Just as the world view of modern Jews and Christians is more alike than that of either in ancient times, so is the world view of an atheist and Christian more alike than that of either in medieval times. Alchemy is out the window. Astrology persists among the superstitious of all stripes. Traditionalists recognize that it is much easier to promulgate moral authority by invoking God than Socrates. And of course, if one is certain there is a God, deriving morality through ethical reasoning is more of a check than a basis for belief. --BW
|
Posted by: Cal ®
05/19/2003, 19:31:05
Author Profile Mail author
|
Cal, this is like trying to criticize Israeli policy at the synagogue, or to criticize LDS handling of dissidents in a Mormon Sunday School. Your reaction proves my case: to dare treat Mormonism as an acceptable religion--as a non cult, is taboo in this forum.Find one thing in my reaction that actually suggests the only acceptable way to treat Mormonism is as if it were a cult. Where in my reaction is there anything to "prove your case"? Hell, I'm an ex-Mormon, so I'm not likely to think core gospel claims are true. But didn't you read it when I said that on the whole for a number of converts it could be a good thing to join the church given their overall situation? Is that how an outsider speaks about a cult? Again, don't project your hyperbolic sense of things onto others. Notice that, whereas you are willing to send your daughter to Sunday School (you don't tell us how old she is), Dan believes that Fred is better off without Mormonism. Would he or you say this of Methodism, Catholicism, Judaism, Islam, or Buddaism? Of all religion? 1. My daughter's in middle school, and she's gone to church when she's at her grandparents every summer since she was a preschooler. BTW, I think she is in fact better off not in the church. Not because she's avoiding a cult, but because the church has teachings about a number of things I think she'd be better off without. For starters, I wouldn't want her to absorb its teachings about women, nor those about gays and lesbians. Plus I think there are many better alternatives out there, some religious, some not. As her parent, I'm obligated to help her see those alternatives. This doesn't mean Mormonism is a cult, or a thoroughly unacceptable religion. I wouldn't beat my breasts in utter anguish were she to convert at some point in her life. 2. I myself don't know if Fred would be better off without Mormonism. But I would wager he'd be better off not granting credence to some of his visions (I think most bishops would agree). At any rate, I'm like Dan in this way: I would have preferred to have someone point some things out about the Church when I was younger, say, an intelligent friend or acquaintance. And if they did it in the spirit of Dan's online offer, no one would rightly have said they were guilty of any coercive imposition of belief on even a metaphorically kidnapped child. I recall witnessing an LDS chemist at the Bureau of Mines try to talk a high school student out of becoming a priest, to prevent him from "going down the wrong path." With or without hyperbole, that does remind me of the medieval kidnappings of Jewish boys--in spirit, if not bodily hijacking. I remember the glowering of one of the nuns when I was on my mission, visiting a Catholic school and telling the young Bolivian girls about the Book of Mormon under the pretense of teaching them South American archeology. The nuns were clearly better Christians than I was. We thought it was OK to be disingenuous in the service of a higher cause. Now that last trick more closely resembles your medieval kidnapping imagery than what Dan's done, though it would still be a bad analogy: The nuns are the ones who have a closer grip on them. You guys were more like ineffectual purveyors of the "noble lie" than kidnapping priests. In any case, you still haven't directly offered anything to rescue your imagery from the claim that it crucially fails, that it's irresponsible hyperbole. In fact, I don't see much awareness in you of what it would even mean to use an analogy well. Dan may have his reasons for thinking Fred is better off without, but he, we should not assume that this premise is to be accepted by all, without discussion, or that to engage in such discussion is...prejudicial. Wha? This whole thread is precisely the discussion you're looking for! (immediately edited for grammar and so forth)
Modified by Cal at Mon, May 19, 2003, 19:39:32
|
|
|
