Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Can Religion tell us anything important? (part 3)...

In part 2 of, Can Religion tell us anything important?, I argued that the notion of relative morality falls woefully short of explaining why acts of evil are indeed acts of evil (much less whether they are evil). So why do some people continue to hold to the proposition that morality is relative? I suspect it has something to do with how they view reality – i.e., their Worldview. Those who hold one particular worldview may find it extremely difficult to understand the arguments put forth by those who hold to another, competing worldview. How could this be so? In Ron Nash’ book, Faith and Reason, he outlines the concept of a worldview and how it relates to one’s personal philosophy. Nash describes the sum total of our knowledge experience as our noetic structure. Noetic is a term from the Greek verb noeo, which means “to understand” or “to think.” According to Nash, noetic structures have at least 4 identifiable features: 1. A person's noetic structure is the sum total of everything that person believes. A complete inventory of any person's noetic structure would include all the propositions that person believes (whether true or false). Such beliefs may differ greatly in significance or importance, and people may disagree about whether particular propositions are true or false. 2. A noetic structure is also characterized by the way its beliefs are related. Some beliefs are completely unrelated, while others are related logically. Sometimes the basis of a relationship may be more psychological than logical. Beliefs can also be broken down into basic and non-basic beliefs. 3. Another feature of a noetic structure includes the differing degrees of certainty, firmness, and conviction with which people hold their beliefs. 4. The beliefs that constitute any noetic structure will differ with regard to the kind of influence or control they have over the rest of the beliefs in that structure. Picturing a noetic structure as a building, the foundation is made up of basic beliefs that will count in a way not true of non-basic beliefs. One of Nash' basic unproven beliefs is that other people have minds. This belief controls the way in which he relates to other people. If he were to abandon this basic belief, it would have consequences on many other elements of his noetic structure. Our worldview is a smaller set of related beliefs that are found within our noetic structure. Nash’ definition of worldview is:
...a conceptual scheme by which we consciously or unconsciously place or fit everything we believe and by which we interpret and judge reality.
In this context one can see that Christianity is not simply a set of theological beliefs but, rather, a conceptual system by which we view all of reality. One can also see that a conceptual system such as Methodological / Philosophical Naturalism (M/PN) is also a worldview… a competing worldview. Nash states,
Because so many elements of a worldview are philosophical in nature, Christians need to become more conscious of the importance of philosophy. Though philosophy and religion often use different language and often arrive at different conclusions, they deal with the same questions, which include questions about what exists (metaphysics), how humans should live (ethics), and how human beings know (epistemology). Philosophy matters. It matters because the Christian worldview has an intrinsic connection to philosophy and the world of ideas. It matters because philosophy is related in a critically important way to life, culture, and religion. And it matters because the systems opposing Christianity use philosophical methods and arguments.
Nash lists five major elements of a worldview. They are: 1) Theology, 2) Metaphysics, 3) Epistemology, 4) Ethics, and 5) Anthropology:
Theology - A worldview will always include either a theology or an atheology. In fact, the most important element of any worldview is what it says or does not say about God. Metaphysics - A worldview also includes beliefs about ultimate reality, a subject often discussed under the label of metaphysics. Is there purpose in the universe? What is the ultimate nature of the universe? Is the universe a self-enclosed system in the sense that everything that happens is caused by other events within the system, or can a supernatural reality act causally within nature? Epistemology - A theory of knowledge. Is knowledge about the world possible? Can we trust our senses? Is truth relative, or must truth be the same for all rational beings? Is the scientific method the only method of knowledge? Is knowledge about God possible? How? Ethics - Most people are more aware of the ethical component of their worldview than of their metaphysical and epistemological beliefs. It is more than simply making moral judgments though. Ethics is more concerned with the question of why that action is wrong. Are there moral laws that govern human conduct? What are they? Are these moral laws the same for all human beings? Are moral laws discovered (in a way more or less similar to the way we discover that "seven times seven equals forty-nine"), or are they constructed by human beings (in a way more or less similar to what we call human mores)? Anthropology - the nature of human beings. Are human beings free, or are they merely pawns of deterministic forces? Are HUMAN BEINGS ONLY BODIES OR MATERIAL BEINGS? Does physical death end the existence of the human person?
A test for any worldview is to see how well it addresses the concerns and questions posed by each of these elements. With regards to theology, Christianity posits that there is only one true God who has revealed himself to mankind in both a general and special manner. The special revelation (i.e., the Bible) indicates that God has generally revealed Himself in the natural world – the natural world which He created, and over which He is Sovereign. If this is true then, as J. Budziszewski says in What We Can’t Not Know, those who claim to not know of the existence of God are only fooling themselves. Yet even if the Christian can provide convincing evidence for the existence of God, probably the most difficult question for Christianity remains: Why is there evil in the world? M/PN posits that God does not exist or, at least, that we have no way of knowing whether God exists. Regardless, we end up living in a world in which the existence of God becomes a non-issue. An interesting point to consider here is that the M/PN worldview has no way of demonstrating, within the confines of its self-declared methodology, that God does not exist. One of the most difficult questions for the atheological system to address is: Why should we even recognize evil as evil? To be continued… ref: Faith & Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith, by Ron Nash.

1 comment:

Rusty said...

"True, but how do you know if God actually exists if you mis-evaluate the evidence, and evidence evaluation is a function of your a priori worldview?"

A very valid question. But nothing to do with the subject. I claimed that saying "Does God exist?" is the most important question basically assumes that god exists - otherwise it's little more meaningful that asking if Santa exists. How I answer the question is a separate issue, and within that context your point is a good one. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's a good point.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.17.04 - 9:05 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I have explained how I differentiate between competing moralities - by personal preference. I appreciate you don't like that, but your assumption that I *must* have a different reason doesn't mean that I have to. I believe there is no absolute, so all that is left is personal preference. How do you choose between different things, like what to have for lunch, or what car to drive? There's no absolute morality to guide you there, yet I presume you manage. For me morality is the same - it is a personal choice, and part of that choice is that issues we consider to be moral ones are more important than cheese choices.

Once again, you are concerned that my standard is inconsistent with an absolute morality and therefore must be wrong, and that's the whole point.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.17.04 - 9:11 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The difference between the search for truth in physics and religious morality is that, assuming for simplicity that there is an absolute truth to be found in both, physicists can show progress (even if it's negative results) - each theory works a little better than the last one.

In contrast religious morality depends on what god says, yet we have no way to *know* what god says, we can only divine what we believe he says. And the history of religion shows that we're not good at that (e.g. slavery used to be OK, now it's not, but which was god's view?)
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.17.04 - 9:15 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul,

I'll respond more later when I have more time, but I'd like to address the final question in your previous post: slavery used to be OK, now it's not, but which was god's view?

To answer this question properly, you have to carefully distinguish between the principle of slavery and the expression of the principle.

We are all slaves to something. From the Christian POV, for example, we are either slaves to sin or slaves to Christ. Being a (voluntary) slave to Jesus is perfectly normal, proper, and good. Being a slave to sin is not -- which is why Jesus died and rose again. [cont...]
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 10:17 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[To Paul, part 2/2]

So, there is nothing wrong with slavery in principle; it can be wrong in practice. Two easy tests would be "does the practice fit loving my neighbor as myself" and correctly defining your neighbor (i.e. anyone). {Which, BTW, is why arguments for abortion that deny the humanity of the fetus are so reprehensible. In this case, denial of the humanity of the fetus is no different from the denail of the humanity of the slave.)
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 10:17 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I kill an entire extended family with the exception of one nubile female. I take her home and repeatedly rape her. When questioned by the authorities, I state that this is OK, it's moral, because God told me to do this. It wasn't my idea you understand, God commanded me to do it. He told me he's given these people plenty of opportunity to 'come around' (They were a family of Hindus) and he's out of patience. he told me to kill them except for any sexy babes and to take all their stuff. he told me if I didn't do it, he have me killed.
Is my act an example of absolute, or of relative, morality? Depends on whether or not you believe me doesn't it. And there's you fatal flaw in schemes of religious based morality. Your belief is relative. Thus, your alleged 'absolute God inspired morality' breaks down to relativism in each and every case.
DarkSyde | Email | 09.17.04 - 11:01 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DarkSyde,

There are two refutations to your scenario:

1) If it's relative, then it doesn't matter, for one man's evil is another man's good. Everytime you complain about supposed injustice (your posts on lieing by IDer's is a hoot, if moral relativity is indeed true), you either admit that there is more to personal opinion to morality, or that your personal opinion somehow counts more than anyone elses. Were I a moral relativist, I wouldn't care about your opinion. Furthermore, if you were going to act consistently with your beliefs, you wouldn't try to impose your opinon on others, because you have no grounds for claiming that your's is somehow "better".

2) You further make the flawed assumption that because there are many people who describe different gods, that the One True God (tm) doesn't exist and/or cannot make Him/Her/Itself known. But this deserves a full post in and of itself.
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 3:45 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul wrote:
Once again, you are concerned that my standard is inconsistent with an absolute morality and therefore must be wrong, and that's the whole point.

That's isn't what I have been arguing at all. I am saying that your standard is inconsistent with relative morality and therefore must be wrong.

Suppose there are three moral relativists: P (for Paul), Q (for the second person), and J (for Judge).

P says "it is not good for Q to kill P".
Q says, "it is good for Q to kill P".

How is J to judge between the two? He cannot say that the personal opinion of P is better or worse than Q. All he can do is decide based on his personal opinion.

Do you think this is good, or not?
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 3:51 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul wrote:

I claimed that saying "Does God exist?" is the most important question basically assumes that god exists - otherwise it's little more meaningful that asking if Santa exists.

A couple of points. First, your proposed most important question, "What is the ultimate nature of the universe?" likewise assumes that there is a universe. After all, what you see around you may not be real. It may not be likely, but it's still a possibility.

Second, asking if Santa exists is a meaninful question, to which there is a definite answer.
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 3:58 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is J to judge between the two? He cannot say that the personal opinion of P is better or worse than Q. All he can do is decide based on his personal opinion.

That's right.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.17.04 - 4:14 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's true, I do assume that there is a universe. I contend that's a safer assumption than there being a god, but it is just an assumption.

The reason I say it's a safer assumption is that most atheists assume there is a universe, and as god apparently created the universe I assume that most religious folk think there is one to. I could be wrong of course.

I agree on your analysis of the Santa question. But does that make it the most important question?
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.17.04 - 4:16 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul wrote:

wrf3 asked: How is J to judge between the two? He cannot say that the personal opinion of P is better or worse than Q. All he can do is decide based on his personal opinion.

Paul replied: That's right.

I know that's right. It has to be from atheistic principles (if one is to be consistent).

But you didn't answer the question: "Is this good or bad"?
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 6:35 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul wrote:
That's true, I do assume that there is a universe. I contend that's a safer assumption than there being a god, but it is just an assumption.

But you go farther than that. By lumping the question "does God exist" in the same class as "does Satan exist", you show that you've either proved the negative (which no atheist has ever done), or assumed the negative. By assuming the negative, you're no different from the "moon hoax" crowd who go out of their way to discount all evidence to the contrary. Epistomologically, that's very shaky ground.
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 6:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul asked:

I agree on your analysis of the Santa question. But does that make it the most important question?

You have to go from basic definitions. If you assume that God is a byproduct of the universe (as one example, merely the product of human imagination), then your question is more important. If you assume that God is transcendent and the creator of the universe, then my question is the most important.

What definition of God are you using?
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 6:43 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Typo a few messages back. "Santa", not "Satan".
wrf3 | 09.17.04 - 8:40 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrf3 - You asked if I think it's good or bad. On a personal level I think it's fine. On an absolute level it's neither good nor bad, it just is.

I don't presume the negative in this context, I just work from the most basic principles I can. Virtually everyone things there is a universe. Less people think there is a god. Therefore discussion about a universe makes for a more fundamental question. And it's more enlightening - if the answer to "what is the nature of the universe?" is "to enact the word of God" then we've learned a lot. If the answer to "Does god exist?" we still don't know if the universe exists.
(Incidentally, I don't think that god and santa are on the same level for the purpose of this debate, though the fact that you are assuming santa doesn't exist is disturbing)
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.18.04 - 4:41 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(sorry, just read down to your 'basic assumptions' comment, so I'll rephrase the above a little)

You are right about basic assumptions. Here are the two alternatives I see:

1. I am asking this person about their worldview. I assume there is some physical space within which we exist to consider these questions, hence I shall ask about the universe as the most fundamental question.

2. I am asking this person about their worldview. I assume there is a supreme being, hence I shall ask about god as the most fundamental question.

I contend that option 1 is most reasonable. I want to take into such a questioning session as few assumptions of my own as possible. If I don't know if god or the universe exist, I contend that it's easier to assume that the universe does.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.18.04 - 4:51 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrf I'm actually not complaining about IDC. Everyone can do something, and IDCists serve as an effective bad example. IDCists are entertaining as hell and I would have a big hole in my life without them to critique. In science, unlike matters of politics, personal opinions don't count for much, so you used a very poor examplar.
You're right though: Morality is mostly opinion, generally backed by a majority opinion, about what is, and what is not, acceptable behavior. Of course the origin of the morality is generally less conscious. What's interesting and revealing, is that in my opinionated subjective morality, genocide and rape are wrong, whereas in some religious interpretations of absolute morality, those same acts are the highest moral good. Bottom line; if you want to takew the moral high ground with a being who recommends rape and genocide, you'll need to at least demonstrate said sky pixie actually exists.
~DS~ | Email | 09.19.04 - 7:14 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~DS~

You wrote: if you want to takew the moral high ground with a being who recommends rape and genocide...

You're doing it again. You're writing as if your personal opinion is somehow better than anyone else's. You can't get there starting with atheism. You're an inconsistent atheist and, for someone who is allegedly concerned about reason, that's something you might want to work on.
wrf3 | 09.19.04 - 1:02 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paul,

Sorry for the delay. Let's go back to the question with P, Q, and J. (Paul, 2nd party, and Judge). I asked you if it's good or bad that J judges between the two of you based upon personal opinion. You replied, "I think it's fine". Just so we're very clear, is it good, bad, does it depend on whether or not J agrees with your personal opinion?
wrf3 | 09.19.04 - 1:08 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~DS~

You wrote, In science, unlike matters of politics, personal opinions don't count for much.

Tell that to the scientists who go off the deep end when a worldview other than naturalism is proposed.
wrf3 | 09.19.04 - 1:09 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell you what wrf, you go through an entire month without using 'naturalism' and I'll pay more attention to your religious concerns. For the next month, don't avail yourself of transportation, pray yourself to your job and to the grocery store. Or use teleportation. When your boss gives you an assignment, use no naturalistic means to accomplish it. If someone leaves an important message for a co-worker or a friend, count only on non-natural means to deliver it. Do that and I'll listen to your gum flapping about naturalism. Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite. In the meantime, what happened to our discusison on morality?
~DS~ | Email | 09.19.04 - 3:24 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My personal opinion doesn't matter as much as the law matters. However I don't know if the same can be said for your opinion. In anycase, you seem to be confusing personal opinion with consensus and law. Now again, how is your absolute morality ever going to be absolute if it's utterly dependant on whether or not people believe you? How can we distinguish Osama bin Laden's version of Divine morality with your own if the deity in question, or any deity for that matter, cannot be shown to exist?
~DS~ | Email | 09.19.04 - 3:29 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~ DS ~

Since Theism includes naturalism as a proper subset, I'll continue to use both, thank you. How that makes me a hypocrite is beyond me. Perhaps you can explain why?
wrf3 | 09.19.04 - 5:34 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

~DS~ wrote: My personal opinion doesn't matter as much as the law matters.

What makes the opinion of the group any more valid than the opinion of the individual? If you can answer that from an atheistic starting point, without introducing a contradiction, then I'd be really interested in hearing it.

You also asked, how is your absolute morality ever going to be absolute if it's utterly dependant on whether or not people believe you? It doesn't depend on whether or not people believe me. You won't have to answer to me.

Your last question, How can we distinguish Osama bin Laden's version of Divine morality with your own if the deity in question, or any deity for that matter, cannot be shown to exist? How do you convince a man blind from birth of the existence of rainbows?
wrf3 | 09.19.04 - 5:39 pm | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wrf, you asked: "is it good, bad, does it depend on whether or not J agrees with your personal opinion?"

No, it doesn't, because it is neither good nor bad. It just is. But something doesn't have to be good or bad to be immoral, it just has to be unacceptable to the majority.
Paul | Email | Homepage | 09.20.04 - 4:18 am | #

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What makes the opinion of the group more valid than the opinion of the individual?
Nothing in the absolute sense. Thus it's not a problem for moral relativism. "Good" or "bad" still exist in moral relativism, they're just not fixed by any deity based framework and they're more flexible, and in your case they're more humane.
Given your reply to the OBL Q, I'd suggest you stick with Paul for the remaninder of the thread. I have little patience for such crap.
And, I don't really find the morality question very interesting, and I feel the claims of divine morality are quite weak for reasons I've outlined. Until you can demonstrate that the deity actually exists and is willing to arbitrate among rival claims by it's followers, I'm simply not interested in your mythologically based fantasy on morality-outide of some kind of objective ethnological discussion.
DarkSyde | Email | 09.20.04 - 8:50 am