tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post7361617869995575227..comments2023-10-21T03:54:12.029-04:00Comments on A Gift Universe: 7qt: faith and rulesSheilahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-37890548670842882252014-12-26T21:47:44.580-05:002014-12-26T21:47:44.580-05:00Sorry to take so long responding. I went on a tri...Sorry to take so long responding. I went on a trip to NYC for an atheist Solstice celebration, because the holidays get rather lonely otherwise. Then I got sick from staying up too late talking to people, because apparently every time I stay up past 2:00 I get sick. And now I'm probably alright again, mostly.<br /><br />I thought that was a good summary of places whence we get morality--particularly the identification of reason as merely something that can tell us that particular means are effective in getting to particular goals, but doesn't tell us the goals... Hume also said that.<br /><br />And I don't know if I should argue about torture, or what the Church says, because at this point I don't know if I'm really a moral realist. I'm glad the Church shaped people's guts against torture, in any event, if it was the Church who did it. But I don't really know what I mean when I say "X is wrong," or what other people mean when they say that, if that makes sense. So I think I'll be quiet.<br /><br />On a slightly different topic: Ever since you said that there are no atheist Mother Teresas, I've been thinking about it. I'm probably sometime going to write a blog post on the topic, if you don't mind, titled "Atheist Mother Teresas" or some such. The issue shouldn't actually bother me, because atheism or Christianity are true or false regardless of whether they cause people to be charitable or not--but it's an interesting point, and one that's seized my attention.SeekingOmnisciencehttp://seekingomniscience.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-16321580357525892092014-12-16T09:46:04.098-05:002014-12-16T09:46:04.098-05:00Yep. Luckily for Michael, he's kind of a brui...Yep. Luckily for Michael, he's kind of a bruiser and very good at advocating for himself (aka grabbing WAY more than his share of toys). So more often I am defending Marko against his little brother than vice versa.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-63904769230657263112014-12-15T20:29:24.446-05:002014-12-15T20:29:24.446-05:00I'm going to ignore all the theological discus...I'm going to ignore all the theological discussion and just say that Marko's idea of division cracks me up. That poor middle child always gets the shaft, huh? :DThe Sojournerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04559244806125834569noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-10976831176643469802014-12-15T15:38:32.279-05:002014-12-15T15:38:32.279-05:00However, little as most people like to admit it, o...However, little as most people like to admit it, our gut sense may be wrong and is not universal. That's what makes it unreliable as an ultimate judge of morality. After all, conscience comes from three places:<br />1. Empathy, or the altruistic impulse -- the set of emotional reactions that lead us to put the good of the group over our own good (this is stronger in some people than in others, but I think we all do have it)<br />2. Upbringing -- the things our parents taught us were right and wrong<br />3. Reason . . . which can't tell us the goal we should strive for, but which can tell us if certain actions are or are not consistent with the goal. For instance, reason can tell us if a certain action respects human dignity, if we already believe in human dignity, or whether it is likely to result in the greatest good for the greatest number, if that is what we want.<br /><br />Point #2 varies greatly throughout time. Socrates' upbringing was very different from mine, and as a result our gut instinct about right and wrong might not always coincide. And one of us must be right. If only we had an objective standard by which I can prove that I am right and that Socrates is wrong! (Because, after all, that's what I want, right? I'm not going to admit that it's okay for Athenians to have sex with young boys.)<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Church isn't going to be able to do that any more than anybody else. Even though our consciences are incompatible and some of us must be wrong, no one is willing to be the one to admit it's us that's wrong, and change. The most the Church can do is encourage small changes in people, or encourage some of us to adopt a moral standard that we don't actually believe in, but which doesn't contradict our gut. (Birth control is like this for a lot of people -- they don't see why it should be wrong, but they're willing to take it on faith because their gut doesn't *require* birth control. But I, having been raised Catholic, have a sense of emotional revulsion at the very idea, even though I can't explain why.) If it pushes too hard for change, people will either explain away the part they don't like, or leave the Church.<br /><br />It seems to me an unavoidable limitation in the power of religion to teach anything. Perhaps the slight inconsistencies in the Church's teachings and practices over time is an effect of this -- since, after all, the Church is made up of people.<br /><br />But I think the general consensus of people worldwide that torture is a bad thing -- to the point that we have global treaties on it and such, and that this CIA thing is such a scandal -- is a result of a progression of understanding that starts with Jesus. When Jesus says that people have intrinsic worth, that we must return evil for good, that we should love our enemies (aka treat everyone as ingroup), and people actually take this to heart and gradually change, the ripples of effect go beyond Christians and into the surrounding culture (since most of us were raised by Christians, or our parents were) to the point that more and more people's gut impulse believes these general ideas and subsequently is repelled by the very idea of torture. So I could say that many atheists are adopting Christian ideas, while some Catholics are stuck in ancient Romans ones, because the gut of some non-Christians has been shaped more by Jesus' teachings than that of some Christians.<br /><br />tl;dr -- I'm right and everybody else is wrong, QED.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-83190717473937437662014-12-15T15:38:13.018-05:002014-12-15T15:38:13.018-05:00I don't mind a bit. My feeling is that if the...I don't mind a bit. My feeling is that if the words of someone who disagrees with me land me in the middle of a crisis of belief, it's probably a crisis I needed to have and would have eventually anyway.<br /><br />I think we're back to your word "gut-ist." People trust their gut more than they trust the Church. So it's all about trying to get the Church to square with their gut -- something I try to do rather honestly, and which (it seems to me) some people do kind of hypocritically. That is, when the Church says something they personally don't like, they reinterpret it to square with their gut, but if other people don't like something, they tell them, "Just have faith, don't question this teaching." Everyone likes the Church as a tool for telling *others* what to do -- no one likes it when it tells *them* what to do!<br /><br />And yet I feel there must be some objective truth here. Either torture is okay in some cases, or not. (I think not.) I think what sets Catholics apart, more than anything, is the feeling that for every question, there must be some objectively right answer. The Church is just not useful unless it can tell us what that objective answer is! And yet, like you point out, it doesn't always. Even if you reject your gut altogether, and agree you will accept whatever the Church says about everything, sometimes you will come upon multiple possibilities. In the Middle Ages, no one would have dreamed that the Catholic Church would ban torture!<br /><br />So you have a few options. One is the Church followed the culture at all times, first by adopting the Roman custom of torturing anyone accused of a crime, and in modern times forbidding torture, but both times affected by people's gut sense of right and wrong--which has evolved over time. The other is that the Church only *really* holds one view or the other -- that, for instance, it really is banning it now, and its condoning torture previously was simply a lack of reflection on the topic, or on the other hand, it isn't *really* banning it now.<br /><br />My feeling is that the Church has been developing over time, as more and more of Jesus' message has been adopted and applied to more things, and most of all as people's gut sense has adapted to a Christian world (by having been taught these ideas at a young age and seeing them reflected in the surrounding culture). So the Church has actually learned over time that torture is bad, and people have finally come around to the point where our gut sense (at least, most people's gut sense) can understand that torture is wrong.Sheilahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10853868724554947854noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2464977109229359349.post-17985161270902316092014-12-14T10:10:45.854-05:002014-12-14T10:10:45.854-05:00So you don't mind if an atheist puts generaliz...So you don't mind if an atheist puts generalized epistemological quibbles in your comment section every now and then? I wondered if they're welcome or not.<br /><br />The torture thing is odd, and tough. I think it tends to illustrate something about how humans approach moral issues, though. You remember how, in the Republic, one of the first definition of justice is something like "Give people what they are owed." And then they say "Hey, but then we would have to give a friend weapons that he had lent us, even if he was at that moment insane. And it seems just to not give him them." So they decide that can't be the definition of justice. And they kind of bounce around like this--first someone proposes a definition, then someone proposes a problem, the definition is refined to avoid the problem, then the process repeats.<br /><br />But the problem is that after you come up with some particular definition of justice, some particular philosophy, by doing this back-and-forth and back-and-forth bouncing between words and your intuitions ("Is this it?" "No" "Is this it?" "Closer, but what about X case?" "Is this it?" "Almost, but what about Z case?" etc) then you take this as the canonical definition--<i>this</i> is what justice is. And so you can then bash someone over the head with it--when someone wants to do X, but X contradicts your definition, you say "Ah, but X is unjust. See, here's my definition of justice, so you know it's unjust." But if course, earlier you rejected other particular definitions because they contradicted your intuitions--but now you (inconsistently) expect others to abandon their intuitions because of your definition. And this becomes more evident when, later, someone points out a case where your intuitions contradict your accepted definition, people usually just modify the definition rather than change their intuitions.<br /><br />This is all moral philosophy, not the teaching of the Church. But something similar happens, I think, in how people bounce back and forth between particular interpretations of Church doctrines and their intuitions which is basically analogous to the above. After all, <i>everything</i> can be interpreted, if you try hard enough; almost everyone seems to selectively apply <i>really</i> rigorous argumentative standards to positions they disagree with, and very lax ones to those they agree with. (A while back, I was having a conversation with a Protestant, giving a generalized sort of "You need the Church because the Bible is ambiguous" argument. She pointed out that, well, that just pushes the interpretation forward another level. I think she was probably right about that being a cruddy argument for Catholicism vis-a-vis Protestantism.)SeekingOmnisciencehttp://www.seekingomniscience.comnoreply@blogger.com