Beleth - 2007-09-18 13:34:38
Hi, Tim and Bill - First off, I'd like to thank Tim for advertising this particular set of blog posts on a bboard he and I co-moderate. It is rare to find a conversation of this topic held at this high a caliber. I first came across Bill's main points (that everyone knows what is right and wrong, and that nobody actually does the right thing) when I read C.S. Lewis' _Mere_Christianity_ right after I graduated from college. I was in the same state of mind that I believe Tim is now - a Christian, satisfied for the most part with my belief system, but yearning to find out more from different sources than just the Bible and preachers. So I turned to scholarly types like Lewis. And he made a lot of sense. Yes, everyone knows what is right and wrong, and it's very hard to do what's right, and no other source nailed those two ideas down as well and as early as the Bible did. It just made sense that since the Bible got that part right, that it must have gotten nearly everything else right too. Over the intervening years, I've had a number of experiences that have changed my perception of that. One of the most recent involves the 6-year-old son of two good friends of mine. He's got ADHD, and has a lot of food allergies, and is awkwardly tall and strong for his age. Poor kid. Anyway, he sometimes has pretty bad temper tantrums. One day he had one in the schoolyard. I had already dropped my son off, and saw my friend and her son having an argument about going to school. He started running away from her, and she wasn't in a condition to run after him and catch him, so I did. I caught up to him (long strides still beat 6-year-old energy levels) and reached out for his arm. I miscalculated and we both went tumbling to the concrete. We were both fine, but his first reaction was to glare at me and say: "YOU BULLY!" While it's true that both he and I had a sense of what was right and what was wrong, we both had wildly *different* concepts of what constituted the right action and the wrong action. Over time, he will come to realize that what I did was actually the right thing to do, and what he did was the wrong thing to do, even though he had it backwards at the time. Which means that, societally speaking, right behavior and wrong behavior is learned, not instinctual. But is the concept of right and wrong learned or instinctual? I think the evidence is that that it is learned. Infants don't know right from wrong. They need to be taught in a way that is entirely different from how they know how to breathe or suck, which *are* instinctual. If you put three hungry toddlers in a room with only two bottles, I seriously doubt they'd share. They would try to take the bottles away from each other, but that's not sharing. As far as the Moral Law being multicultural, it's important to remember that all cultures sprang from the same prehistoric stock back in Mesopotamia however many years ago. Whatever societal codes of conduct they figured out there have been passed on, from parents to children, ever since. I disagree that the origins of Moral Law are beyond the scope of science. If it can be observed, it can me measured and tested. For each human, there is a time where humans exhibit no sign of comprehending Moral Law (infancy) and a later time where they do. We can therefore observe the origins of Moral Law, and we can therefore put it to the test. Now, just because I no longer believe that the only possible source of Moral Law is an omnipresent judge like the God of the New Testament doesn't mean that I don't think that the concept of such a Judge is a bad thing. Indeed, I think it's a good thing. I think that that concept has served humanity well over the years; it was probably what got those Mesopotamians to work together. In fact, it continues to be a good thing. To this day, there are people who say "if God doesn't exist, why aren't you out murdering and raping everyone?" And to them I say "if a belief in God is the only thing that keeps you from murdering and raping people, then by all means continue to believe in God. I personally am not out murdering and raping people for the same reasons I am not a professional septic tank cleaner: I find the prospect repugnant, and there are things I'd much rather do." But just because the *concept* of an Omnipresent Judge has brought benefits to humanity doesn't mean that there really *is* an Omnipresent Judge.
-------------------------------
Bill - 2007-09-22 10:24:09
Beleth, Thank you for responding. Tim and I have both put a lot of time into making this interesting and enlightening to read. Thanks for expressing your opinions and the evidence which led you to them. That�s what this discussion is all about. Unlike you, I never did much in college and never even came close to graduating. I am not well educated that way. Sometimes I wish I had continued my education because in the words of John Prine (one of my favorite songwriters): It�s clear as a bell I should have gone to school I�d be wise as an owl Instead of stubborn as a mule I remember the first time I really took a hard look at morality and its implications in my life. It was when a friend of mine and I were talking about being good people and why it was important. He asked me if I thought I was a good person and I, of course, said �yes�. He then asked me �To whom are you comparing yourself to?� He went on to say that when compared to some of our neighbors we don�t seem so bad and when compared to others we might even seem exceptional. But when compared to Christ we fail to meet the mark. His comments encouraged me to take a deeper look at myself and why I was not the person I thought I was or knew I should be. This deeper look at myself and my actions led to the realization that I expected decent behavior from others but did not always practice this philosophy myself. I wasn�t even close to doing it. This did not sit well with me because I felt hypocritical (saying one thing and doing another). So, to make a long story short, I found myself reading the bible and being completely knocked over by its truth. It spoke to me in ways I never thought possible. The bible somehow seemed to be alive, unlike anything else I had ever read, before or since. Next I started reading authors like C.S. Lewis, Norman Geisler, Josh McDowell, G.K. Chesterton and so on. They just seemed to confirm many of the things I had been feeling and their books, to this day, sit on my coffee table for reference. It�s kind of like the bible is the food that sustains me and the other books are the salt that gives the meal a little extra flavor. I don�t need the salt and too much of it will obscure the true flavor, but I, personally, like just a dash of it. Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and I look forward to your comments on our future discussions. God Bless.
-------------------------------
Mike - 2007-09-22 14:35:52
Thank you in advance for allowing me to comment on your discourse. While I am not a highly educated man nor a deep thinker such as yourselves, and after reading through the conversation a couple of times there are a few things that come to mind. I notice that there is a common thread among both Tim and Bill as well as all who have commented otherwise. There is a continuous use of words like; I think, I believe, some people believe, some have said, and so on. This leads me to conclude in no uncertain terms, that there must be, among all mankind everywhere, a measure of faith in the matter of �morality�. Especially when you consider that there is no exact scientific measurement of �morality� or it�s source thereof. No not even sociological studies can measure it as Dave suggests, after all how many times have we been told that such and such scientific study has proven something and then low and behold years later another study proves otherwise. (No Dave I�m not picking on you) Therefore, without getting too deep and prancing off into the theological arena, my question to all of you is: (please, there is no need to answer me nor am I looking for one.) After considering the fact, that there must be a measure of faith, concerning each of our positions on the �source of morality�, will your position stand the true test of time in the future and even beyond your days on this earth? P.S. Please excuse the sloppy English.
-------------------------------
Ed - 2007-09-23 19:28:44
Bill, a past real estate client, and now friend and brother has asked me to chime in. We have discussed many Christian topics through the years, and have read much of the same material. The source of morality is our Creator and is deposited into His premiere creation man. He has set eternity into our hearts. He has made man in His image. The testimony of scripture is that God is Holy. A cetain adherence to law of the being. He does not sin, not because He could not, but because he would not in actual demonstration of existence. Man, however, is in a fallen state, wherein he is depraved, marred and unable to get it right. Now proving my points becomes meaningless without first establishing premise. Evil, sin and brokeness are our starting points. Biology itself seems to suggest that we are not operating on the level of our design. We use maybe 10% of our brain -what's that? Is it not obvious that we are made to be more than what we can achieve. I saw the movie "Phenomonen," the other day where John Travolta's charachter George Mally contracts brain cancer that ultimately kills him, but before doing so stimulates much of the dormant aspects of his brain. He becomes telekenetic, reads with perfect comprhension, many books a day. He becomes off-the charts brillant! He seems to think we can all get there. I would suggest that we all were, and he was only coming back to it! Christ is the 2nd Adam, the only solution for our demise. We can only reach out for this solution if we see the need for it and can bear witness to our own desperation. How can one get up if one will not acknowledge a fall?
-------------------------------
Dan Riffell - 2007-11-18 00:28:35
First of all I want to say, �Thank you,� for posing the question and sharing your views. It�s not very often that you find honesty and truth on the internet. Except maybe on YouTube�it�s usually a sad, sad version of truth, but you get what you pay for. It is easy in discussions such as this to break down into personal attacks and arguments to gain emotional ground with the audience. I�m glad to see that you guys are able to keep it on a level that is educated and informative. I�m also glad to see that such foul language as �moral relativism, anti-realism, emotivism, absolutism, and divine command theory� haven�t been thrown into the mix yet. Not only is jargon like that elitist, it is boring as well. If you�ll permit, I�d like to hijack your thread momentarily. Hopefully my comments will serve to further this interesting discussion. In the interest of full disclosure I can be considered an agnostic so I tend to look at the issue of morality from a humanist/scientific point-of-view. So, to me, statements such as �The bible teaches�� immediately make me think, �The bible is an inanimate object and cannot teach anything. It must be read (not to mention written) and interpreted by people who (presumably) have moral values of their own.� So, in discussions about morality, I believe that although the beliefs of the people that wrote the bible have merit they must have gained those beliefs before writing the tome. It�s a bit of a cart-before-the-horse argument in my mind. I can�t engage in a discussion about the origins of morality without first stating what I believe morality is. So, what exactly is �morality�? In my mind morality refers to the concept of human ethics, which pertains to matters of right and wrong -- also referred to as good and evil. The are miles of people lined up in front of me who have had way more time on their hands to devote to the study of morality. Marx, Nietzche, Jung, Plato, Bill & Ted (be excellent to everyone) are just a few of those hopeless layabouts. The way I see it the ideas of what actions are good and what actions are evil are hopelessly entangled in the nature versus nurture argument. It seems to me that we cannot separate the moral compass instilled upon us by society and the biological traits that we have accumulated over time (or the traits that were stuffed into us when we were created out of a pile of dirt, depending on your belief set). If I were a ferrell human that managed to survive in the wilderness from infancy without any human or pack-animal contact would I believe that tax evasion, cutting in line, or watching Jerry Springer while I�m at work was morally wrong? For that matter would I even have morals? Some people might ask if I have them now, but that�s another story entirely. Societal influence on morality is undoubtedly heavily weighted. The idea of what is right and what is wrong can only be argued from the perspective of the cultural and geographical location of any individual at any point in time. It�s easy to say that human sacrifice, infanticide, spousal abuse, racism, mass marketing, and women�s basketball are morally wrong from the our perspective at this point in time and spot on the globe. However, we cannot impose our personal mores onto societies in other places and times. Is it wrong for me to slap my wife? The answer is obviously yes. Or it�s mostly yes. Well, it depends on my mood, really, but that�s getting a bit off track. Would it be wrong to deny her the right to vote, show her face in public, and walk beside me on the street? Again, it depends on my mood. Only joking of course, but you can see where I�m going with this. I look at my son as about a half-clean slate in regards to societal mores. His beliefs about what is right or wrong (although they will follow a distinct pattern of development) will be created in situ. At any rate it will be interesting to see how my son�s ideas will be influenced since the world is getting smaller and foreign traditions and values are immediately available to him through the media and worldwide connectivity. His generation will undoubtedly be screwed up, especially since they have us as parents. Just like my son, we all follow certain stages of moral development in our lives. Kohlberg tests this with his Heinz dilemma. The Heinz dilemma is stated as follows: A woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium that a pharmacist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the pharmacist was charging ten times what the drug cost him to produce. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together about $ 1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the pharmacist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the pharmacist said, "No, I discovered the drug and I'm going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should Heinz have broken into the laboratory to steal the drug for his wife? Why or why not? I first heard about the Heinz dilemma from an eighth-grade girl who�s science experiment I was judging�precocious bitch. It turns out that there are six categories of moral development that answers will fall into. I don�t want to get too deep into that (unless invited), but I�m curious what you guys think of this. Since we�re on the subject of progeny it seems like a good point to look the genetic origins of morality or the nature side of this conundrum. Simply stated humans are animals. We have the same zoological traits and drives as any other animal in the world: procreation, self-preservation, fashion, and hunger. We are top predators and, as such, we are lethal adversaries and have the potential to cause great physical harm, even death, ourselves and to each other. It would not do to have us (or any other top predator) going around maiming and killing one another as adults. It can be said that sometimes in nature infanticide (lions killing the young) occurs, but this is usually for lack of resources or preservation of a specific line of genes. Also, often, young animals kill one another in the battle for resources (birds eject their siblings from the nest). However, it is rare that adults kill one another, with the exception of humans, dolphins (of all creatures), and animals in captivity. In skirmishes over territory, mates, the remote or food large predators rarely kill one another, especially in socialized animals such as wolves, lions, primates, etc. It wouldn�t make sense to remove a healthy adult that can aid in protecting, hunting, gathering, tending to the young, etc., especially since so many resources have been wasted on growing that individual into an adult. So a seeming paradox occurs in dangerous animals. We have the tools to trap, kill and consume our prey, but we have a strong genetic aversion to expending the energy to kill one another. So we socialized animals must necessarily have aversions to theft, deceit, and murder; without these aversions we would not get very far, raping and murdering each other. Since we humans are so dangerous we have even extended our vulnerability by remaining nude (hairless) throughout or lives. We need each other to survive. I guess to sum up I believe that the origins of morality along with the definition of what is right or wrong are rooted not only in our environment and upbringing, but at the same time they are bolstered by an innate genetic component. This line of thinking is very close to the anthropic principle of physics. We observe the universe that way that it is because we exist. Meaning that everything in the universe has to be how it is in order for us to even exist. A little one way or another and POOF no Judge Judy on weekdays, no Laffy Taffy, and no morality. Anyway, thanks for the interesting, informative and frank discussion, and thanks for letting me chime in. I hope that my comments will spur more thought not just hate mail.
-------------------------------
Bill - 2007-11-21 13:32:13
Hi Dan. Thank you for your comments. You articulate your points rather well. I understand what you are saying about the phrase �The Bible teaches�� and I know that I used it a couple of times in the Morality discussion. But please don�t let that be a hindrance to my point. I am a novice writer and don�t really think of such things. Now, having said that, I do believe that the Bible is God Breathed or inspired by God. So maybe I should use the phrase �God teaches�� or �The Bible reads�� instead. Anyway, if I do use �The Bible teaches�� in future discussions you�ll know where I�m coming from. Just chalk it up to semantics. As far as society and social mores are concerned, there is no doubt that many of the rights and wrongs we agree upon today were developed and passed down by our ancestors. But the curious thing about it is that it seems like all societies throughout history have had the idea of �Do unto others� to some degree. In other words, they all have their standards of integrity to uphold. I definitely understand your point on this matter but I just see it a different way. It just seems curious to me that the overwhelming majority of people, throughout history, want to act in a way that is fair and kind. The evolution of social morality may be able to able to answer why we do some of the things we do but it does not answer, at least to my satisfaction, why we have this strong feeling of what we ought to do. Now, in regard to imposing our personal mores on other societies, I agree and disagree. Should we go around forcing other societies to allow women (or men for that matter) to vote, or deny them the right to watch Jerry Springer and things like that? No. Societies have to make those decisions for themselves and no doubt many have. On the other hand, should we step in when there are things like mass killing and genocide going on? I think we should try to stop those kinds of things. Bill Clinton was asked the question �What presidential decision do you regret the most?� He remarked that he wished he had made an effort to stop the genocide in Rwanda. As a result, 800,000 people were slaughtered. This weighs heavy on his mind to this day. The Kohlberg scenario is interesting but not very complicated. I have heard of this and I think it is used to see how people (mostly children) reach the conclusion of whether or not it is ok to steal the medicine. Would I steal it? Probably. Would I expect punishment if I did? Yes. I would hope that the jury was in an understanding mood when I went to trial but I would not expect easy treatment. As far as God is concerned, His commandment is �Thou shalt not steal�. He�s quite clear. Stealing is sin and sin is death. The 10 Commandments are absolute. No one can abide by them all. We all will break some of them eventually. See, the thing about the 10 commandments is that they only point out our sin. They merely show us how sinful we are. God is clear on the fact that we are not saved from His judgment because we try to keep the 10 Commandments. Rather, we are saved by God�s grace though Jesus Christ. If we believe in, and accept that grace, then we are saved. Not a moment sooner. Ok, moving on. Now, to your point about morality being the product of �upbringing� and an �innate genetic component�. I agree that we have the instincts you mentioned (just like animals) and that those instincts compel us to act in certain ways but that logic, at least to me, seems to fall very short when it comes to the idea of kindness, compassion and feeling that we ought to treat others as we ourselves wish to be treated. Moving on. The Anthropic Principle is something that I have studied a little and find very interesting. I will do some more research on it and I�m sure it will come up in our future discussions. Well, again I want to thank you for your input and I look forward hearing your comments in the future. And no, you will not get hate mail from me. That gets us nowhere. I believe in discussions, not shouting matches.
-------------------------------
Dan Riffell - 2007-12-03 00:42:30
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I was half waiting for Tim to chime in, and the other half was all of the holiday nonsense. But I�m here now, so let�s jump in with both feet. First of all, I want to say thanks again for letting me hijack your thread. This is an excellent topic. Secondly, let me just throw it out there that I understand that religion has formative aspects when speaking about morality. It is unavoidable for something that is as ingrained into society to as religion to have huge influence on daily life and human interaction. However, when it comes to morality I believe that religion and religious beliefs are factors in what can be termed cultural evolution. I will get back to that in a moment. While we are on the topic of religion, I want to take a brief look at the ten commandments. On inspection it seems that they essentially fall into two categories. I�ll call them religious commandments and non-religious commandments. The first four commandments are the religious commandments (no other gods, no idolatry, don�t take the lords name in vain, and rest on the Sabbath). The last six can be considered essentially non-religious (honor mom and pop, don�t kill, steal, cheat, lie or covet). It seems like the first group are there to present an authority figure and compete for ground with other religions � marketing and indoctrination. They essentially say I�m the man, and if you don�t follow my rules I�ll put a pox on your family for four generations. Oh, by the way, you get Sundays off. It�s interesting that these are the first of the commandments. I would think that killing and stealing would top the list, but I�m not big on authority figures. The last six of the commandments are what I would consider the meat of the list. These are the behaviors that affect our lives and interactions. I believe that these items are statements of boundaries that are deeply ingrained into any social animal�s psyche. Don�t kill, steal, cheat, lie, or covet because it will upset the delicate balance that we have worked so hard for over the last 1000 generations, and honor mom and pop because you don�t want them to write you out of their will. Bill, you said that you have a hard time with believing that science can explain why we have this strong feeling of what we ought to do. Evolutionarily speaking human emotions (or, if you like, the human brain) came about more easily than the adaptations that are required for walking upright, but they are no less necessary for human societies to function properly than having erect posture. So why do we have these feelings? My belief is that they are tied to what is called �altruism.� Biological altruism is a bit of a strange beast. It can be seen in many animals besides humans. Prairie dogs, woodpeckers, primates, and bees as well as many, many others will call an alarm in the presence of a predator. Why would an animal put itself in harm�s way for the benefit of another, especially one that is not related? This is just one on a multitude of ways that species act to benefit a social group. It turns out that altruists who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of those with shared traits may have low selective value as individuals (check out www.darwinawards.com), but a population bearing such altruistic individuals will have higher reproductive values than one without them. Conversely, social parasites that increase their frequency at the expense of others in a population may have high individual selective value, but they will depress the reproductive fitness of the population. Natural selection will increase altruistic genes if individuals that benefit from the unselfish acts are themselves also carrying those genes for altruism. Natural selection is often described as the survival of the fittest, which implies and in my mind would better be called the destruction of the weak. If nature progresses through the destruction of the weak, societies and social animals progress through the protection of the weak (altruism). These emotions and feelings that we are talking about are set in us in the same way that opposable thumbs and our circulatory system are � they help us survive. Now, back to cultural evolution for a bit. The information humans gather from ancestors and contemporaries can be purposefully changed to provide improved utility for themselves, their offspring, and others. The speed with which these purposeful modifications take place and the consequent speed of cultural change are limited primarily by human inventiveness. A cultural or technological improvement can now be proposed in one part of the world and implemented in another part with the speed of the communication. Genetic evolution is slow since it must await fortuitous accidental genetic changes in DNA before it can proceed, and each change may take a considerable number of generations before it can be incorporated into the population. It seems obvious that many profound social and cultural changes, such as those involved in the transition from slavery to feudalism, or from feudalism to capitalism, or from low tech to hi tech, are far too rapid to be caused by genetic changes. This disparity in speed between cultural and biological evolution indicates that they evolve on separate methodological tracks, yet the biological equipment needed to transmit and utilize cultural information (memory, perception, language, etc.) still connects them both. It is clear that, since they can be consciously selected, social goals can be directed towards almost any objective that humans choose for themselves, such as wealth, poverty, chastity, obedience, revolution, and so on. So when we talk about the origins of morality it seems, to me at least, that our biology sets the framework, and we use our intellect make conscious decisions that affect the direction of societal beliefs. I guess that�s the crux of what I believe about morality summed up in one sentence. Could have saved us all a lot of time if I just said that in the beginning�Thanks again for letting me join in. I hope I�ve shed a little light on the subject anyway.
-------------------------------
Dan - 2010-03-30 17:50:48
I just stumbled across this, and I thought it was fitting: http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
-------------------------------