Pluralism

The principles of pluralism and tolerance as practiced today make moral judgments impossible.  Yet moral judgment is fundamental to social reform - judging some practices wrong and other good.  Here's a clever anecdote that illustrates the point well.

The British general Charles James Napier assigned to British-run India was informed that he just didn't understand Indian customs.  He couldn't ban the practice of wife-burning, he was told, because it was an ancient and valued tradition in India.  He said he understood and appreciated that.  It was just that "my country also has a custom." he explained.  "We hang people who burn women."  His custom won out.

Some things are obviously evil, yet modern tolerance doesn't permit us to make judgments.  The only way social ills and evils can be reformed, is to make a moral judgment that it's wrong and must be changed.

Comments

[alan aronson]

Napier's political views were on the radical side and led him to properly oppose the Indian social conservatives who wished to burn widows. Traditional religious views on marriage are usually short-sighted, petty and wrong, unless, of course, they are simply evil.

BTW, Jonah wil have his head handed to him. Also his chronicling of British decline is simply silly; he should have used Blair's willingness to be George's poodle as an example. Their handling of the Iran situation demonstrates that the adults may be back in charge.

Sullivan references this 1941 essay by George Orwell:

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/essays/lion-and-unicorn1.htm

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/england_my_engl.html

[Mo]

Alan, I am not even sure what your comments have to do with what was posted. Why not deal with the substance of the post/quote?

But if the subject must be changed, the way Britain handled that situation was absolutely shameful. It's like these people have lost the will to exist. It was humiliating to see military men and woman behaving the way they did, and their government being of no use either.

But I don't say this with any sort of pride. I am afraid that if it had been Americans, the result would've been exactly the same.

Iran continues to bully and threaten the entire free world, and no one does (or even says!) a thing about it.

[Daniel]

What I find so interesting is that if Iranians aboard an Iranian military ship had entered U.S. waters then we would have immediately seized them and everyone in the U.S. would have felt we were justified in doing so but, why is there a double standard when it's another country violating Iran's right to control their borders? Do they not have just as much right to protect their borders just as we do? From what I have read in the papers and various other news sources there was no foul play involved at all. Maybe I'm missing something here?

[alan aronson]

Hi Mo, read the linked Corner post by JG; it all ties in.

Really though, you got to get a grip here. Iran a threat to the "entire free world"? Really? You really feel threaten by Iran? If what you are reading and listening to has led you to believe that, you now know what to stop reading and listening to.

The biggest threat to the free world leaves office on January 20, 2008. Meanwhile we need to keep a grip.

What would you have done with the hostage thing? Newtie would have given us $200 oil.

As for the topic. Well here's a judgement. Going to war when your military is broken and you can't win is wrong and stupid. Throwing the world into a depression by running oil up is sort of self-defeating. The war parties in Iran and the United states lost and the British sailors are alive and well.

You might want to look up how Napier handled the Chartists.

[alan aronson]

Oops, s/b January 20, 2009.

[Amy]

Daniel, the British were not in Iranian waters. Iran gave the coordinates for where they claimed they picked up the British troops. When the British pointed out that the named location was not in Iranian territory, the Iranians gave a new location. Doesn't sound very trustworthy, does it? Regardless, the British dispute both sets of coordinates. The troops were 1.7 nautical miles within Iraqi waters, so this was not a question of Iran protecting its borders.

[Mo]

Alan -
When I am dealing with someone who believes the President of the United States is more of a danger to the world than the President of Iran - a regime that has sworn to destroy Israel and is working on nuclear weapons to do just that - there's not much more than can be said.

We have left the realm of fact and rationality, and I will not be drawn into it.

[Mark Christianson]

Alan,

Adults don't allow children to run the household. Maybe the Brits need Super Nanny as Prime Minister.

[John Willis]

Mo wrote: "We have left the realm of fact and rationality, and I will not be drawn into it."

And that's exactly where the myth of moral neutrality leads us. We have nukes...."why shouldn't Iran?"...somehow the common sense fact of why we give cops the guns and confiscate them from criminals is lost in this fanciful worldview where no one is a threat except the USA.

Alan - While you have the right to dissent and object to anything this current administration does, no one is compelled to consider your moral view seriously when it is not applied to other administrations on the world stage.

Regards,
John

[Mo]

John -

Well, I meant in this conversation. But looking at world events it applies on a broader scale as well!

[alan aronson]

Mo, John read the transcript of the Gen. Odom interview on Hugh's site and then get back to me.

http://hughhewitt.townhall.com/Transcript_Page.aspx?ContentGuid=d7f52e21-cf46-4115-b397-ed1dc70fcdab

The President of Iran is an internally unpopular nut with little real power. The current President of the United States has discredited the United States diplomatically and weakened us militarily. Iran is likely years from a nuclear presence while the destruction of the United states military is happening now.

Read this and follow the links.
http://www.intel-dump.com/posts/1176248542.shtml

Hi John, the above is not a good thing so please lose the canned responses. Reagan, Bush and Clinton all left our nation is a strong position in terms of both soft and hard power. Bush ii has weaken us and that is dangerous for the world.

[John]

The UK world has changed. The treatment of the 11 and 14 year olds that Goldberg mentions sounds pretty juvenile.

[Robert Casteline]

"Throwing the world into a depression by running oil up is sort of self-defeating."

Alan, it has been pretty well established that the price of oil has little to nothing to do with the Iraq conflict and just about everything to do with the incresed demand from China & India.

[william wilcox]

This thread has gone off topic and is following Alan's political agenda.

I believe the concepts of pluralism and tolerance as preached in many areas of our society today, work against moral judgement, particularly our traditional Christian moral view. Yet when you object to the tolerance agenda you get moral judgment thrown back at you! The tolerance agenda self destructs because it is not grounded in moral truth.

Is moral judgement, establishing right from wrong, essential to combat evils? If so, rather than discuss the politics of the British empire or GWB tell me how you establish the moral judgement that will then allow a reasoned discussion of these topics.

I ground moral truth in the infinite, living God who has revealed himself to us through Christ, the Bible and creation.

[Bryan Y]

After reading all the moral judgements in the comments section for this post, I strongly agree with Melindas point that moral judgements are fundamental to social reform.

[alan aronson]

Hi Robert, I wasn't referring to Iraq (atthough cheap oil was part of the pre war speculation) but to the likely results of a war with Iran.

Hi William, I will agree that some concepts of pluralism and tolerance will create a bias against some traditional moral views. That is a good thing, the sooner we are rid of them the better.

"I ground moral truth in the infinite, living God who has revealed himself to us through Christ, the Bible and creation."

What value is this grounding when those that do so have shown a greater propensity to accept institutionalized torture, denial of due process, authoritarian government, unnecessary wars, incompetence and mendacity?

Doing so may make you feel better but I can see no advantage. Help me here. "Grounding" seems to be not as important as you would make it out to be.

I know enough history to sort of figure out what works and what doesn't. That tells me that war should be a last resort, liberty and the rule of law is good, authoritarian government and intsitutionalized torture is bad, competence is important and corrupt, ignorant and unbalanced rulers are going to take you off a cliff. What else do I need to know?

[John Willis]

Alan wrote: "Hi John, the above is not a good thing so please lose the canned responses. Reagan, Bush and Clinton all left our nation is a strong position in terms of both soft and hard power. Bush ii has weaken us and that is dangerous for the world."

While I disagree with your assertion that follows after your opinion of what kind of a response I offerred you, my response still applies. (In fact, from our view of history now, a rather convincing case can be made that the problems GWB faces today are a result of past international policy failures of the the Clinton and to a lesser degree GWB's father's administration.)

But we're not even there yet. You still have a lot of work to do. If GWB is "the" enemy, then the burden remains squarely on your shoulders to show why.

And I think Mr. Wilcox has articulated clearly where your case needs to start. It's not that I'm convinced with absolute certainty that your political opinion is wrong, it's just that you haven't constructed any compelling arguments why you are right. And before we even get to the political view, which is essentially applied justice, you need to show why there even is such a thing "as justice" given your professed worldview. Becaue right now you're asserting things that can only be supported by arguments that presuppose a theistic worldview.

Now, once you get there, your political argument may not work. Your argument would have to deal with facts of recent history and facts of the current situation and be better then someone else's political argument. But surely you can't expect anyone to accept that a political argument can even been made if we also are expected to accept political arguments are ultimately grounded in the view that we are just shuffling around socially acceptable paradigms and not necessarily talking about anything "real". Real in the sense that morality is something objective, that applies to everyone.

So let's start there....Why does your moral opinion apply to anyone else but yourself? Curiously, you seem to be arguing as though it should apply to us too. I mean you even ask me to "stop using canned responses (your word) because this (referring to someone else's political opinion) is not a good thing". You may be right politically. I don't know. But what do you mean by "good"? And why does your notion of "good" apply to me...a bag of random chemicals we call a human being floating on a rock circling a star, in an absolute purposeless universe on my way to sure death either today or sometime in the next 60 years? Why should I not assume your worldview and respond with - "Says you!!"?

Rick Warren raised a similar point recently...."If life is just random chance, then nothing really does matter and there is no morality—it's survival of the fittest. If survival of the fittest means me killing you to survive, so be it. For years, atheists have said there is no God, but they want to live like God exists."

Regards,
John

[alan aronson]

Hi John, was reference about losing the canned responses was to this:

"And that's exactly where the myth of moral neutrality leads us. We have nukes...."why shouldn't Iran?"...somehow the common sense fact of why we give cops the guns and confiscate them from criminals is lost in this fanciful worldview where no one is a threat except the USA."

Now, on to grounding. William asserts the importance of "grounding". I respond that this "grounding" doesn't necessarily seem to lead to good decision making and you respond with more assertions about the importance of "grounding".

We are beyond that. We are in a free fall; your concern for "grounding" seems to prevent you from even seeing that simple fact. Consider that a morality originally derived from thesistic concepts may ultimately not depend on those concepts for their continued acceptance.

Meanwhile we don't have the luxury of abstract speculation. If you had a friend who worked out a system for roulette and proceeded to make a series of bad bets, your first advice might be to stop betting as there seems to be a problem. One can figure out the problem later; just stop for now.

If your concern for "grounding" has led to blindness and bad decisions, why focus on grounding?

[John Willis]

Alan,

Thank you for your reply.

You wrote: "I respond that this "grounding" doesn't necessarily seem to lead to good decision making and you respond with more assertions about the importance of "grounding"."

I think you are wrong.

By the way that ^ sentence is an "assertion." My "argument" that I presented in the last post (stripped down to syllogistic form) is this:

P1. Alan Aronson is an atheist.
P2. Atheism denies the existence of the God of the bible.
P3. The God of the bible is revealed (or described, depending on your position) as an objective Law Maker.
C1. Without an objective Law Maker, there isn't any such thing as an objective moral law, objective moral concepts or categories.

P4. Alan Aronson is asserting political opinions as objectively true.
P5. Political opinions are expressions of justice.
P6. Justice is a moral concept.
P7. We know from C1 that Alan Aronson's moral viewpoint cannot be objective.
C2. Therefore Alan Aronson's political view does not apply to anyone but himself.

Again - your political opinion may be right. I don't think it is. But the saying goes.."even a broken clock is right twice a day." Put yourself in my shoes for a moment - why should I rely on a broken clock to tell them me the time? A working clock may be wrong too, but if I had my choice and I recognize one clock as broken and one is moving which is the more reasonable choice? In other words, if you are appealing that we should accept your political opinons that stem from your worldview on faith alone, then why is your worldview off limits for consideration?..especially since your worldview - your presuppositions - significantly impact the reasoning that was supposedly used to reach your political conclusions?

Regards,
John

[William Wilcox]

Alan,

I think John was pretty clear on the critical point. Your opinion of good judgements, bad bets, blindness and bad decisions etc. are nothing other than your personal opinion at this moment of the discussion.

Why does your opinion of what works or what is good apply to anyone else?

Why should we care what you think?

Of course, I believe that John and I do care and we have a good reason to care, since we believe that you have value by being created in the image of God.

Can you extend the same care to us? If so, on what grounds?

[Tom]

You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."

This account says it was a "delegation of Hindu locals". I've also heard the story told where it was one person specifically that Napier was addressing, but still a "leader" of the community.

The question is "What was their response?" or if it was a single person who led the people that Napier was addressing, "What was his response?"

Melinda merely mentions that Napiers customs won out and that is true. But how did they win out, why did they win out.

I think that they must have recognized in Napier a superior morality. They must have looked at his stance, his resolve, his confidence, and admired him as having something that they did not posess.

It was like Martin Luther King Jr who stood up against another community until they saw in him a superior example of morality and making him into an object of admiration.

I'm sure the new morality did not spread over night. But over time more and more people saw the new ways as better than their old ways.

[Tom]

John said...
P3. The God of the bible is revealed (or described, depending on your position) as an objective Law Maker.
C1. Without an objective Law Maker, there isn't any such thing as an objective moral law, objective moral concepts or categories.

And Alan said..
Consider that a morality originally derived from thesistic concepts may ultimately not depend on those concepts for their continued acceptance.

Note.
John made mention of an "objective Law Maker" or sometimes called "Law Giver" or "Moral Law Giver" referring to the god Yahweh who supposedly handed Moses a set of rules or Laws to live by. Presumably the Jews were acting morally before they were handed the rules.

But what is often regarded as "evidence" of an "objective moral law" is evidence from our own experience, the experience of our consciences "telling" us what the right thing to do is.

Now John would also assume that his "conscience" is linked with the same god Yahweh who supposedly gave written rules to the Hebrews. He also thinks that everyone is privy to the same experience of our "consciences" telling us what the right thing to do is.

Now according to John's book, what he calls "God" is the same as the moral lawgiver Yahweh (who was also a genocidal war god who instructed them to slay innocent women and children, and even killed a few innocent children himself in the "passover").

John does not ground his "morality" in the "Yahweh" of the bible because he is "good", or even ideal goodness like Plato's "The Good", but he grounds his morality in Yahweh because Yahweh is also a creator god, and supposedly created "everything". It is as the "creator" that Yahweh is allowed to kill innocent children because "he created them".

But the tradition gets confused along the way with Plato, and Yahweh gets confused with an "omnibenevolent" god who wouldn't hurt anyone, who is said to be "love" itself (like Plato), and confused once more once "free will" enters the picture around the time of Descartes and the enlightenment. By now "God" respects our "free will", but Yahweh does not respect innocent children enough to keep from killing them (for someone elses offense!).

This god offends our modern sense of justice. So Alan's point is validated. We certainly drop Yahweh as a valid "law-giver" by virtue of the fact that he killed innocent children. We also drop the notion of "capital punishment" for minor offenses such as "coveting" where no action was taken against anyone. To say that this god demands our death for such a "sin" again offends our modern notion of justice, or "goodness", or whatever you want to call it.

Now why believe the Hebrew creation story and not some other ancient religion? Well that is tied up with the fact that John thinks Jesus was also god, part of the same god, etc. I often wonder why the Catholics retained the Hebrew scriptures, whether it was just kept for the messiah tradition or what. And I think they kept it to because of the Creator God story it represented. The concept of creator god gives them ultimate authority.

Now our moral behavior certainly depends on others. And our moral behavior certainly depends on our practices. Some would say our "beliefs" or "moral values" determine our practices but I think it is the other way around. (Technically they inform each other)

So we get the famous exchange with Napier, who encountered another culture with another "morality". You might say they had a different "conscience". Their "conscience" did not tell them that burning women on pyres was wrong. (maybe it did for some, but not enough to revolutionize their practices)

Then they met Napier. And I like to imagine the chief of the delegation standing next to Napier as he spoke, and saw in him a "better example" of dignity. And he orders his people to change their ways.

Is Napier's transfer of his morality to the indian people a matter of showing that his god created everything? Did he have to break out the history lessons? No, the indian people saw his "morality" in the way he acted, and they sought to immitate it because they recognized it as "superior".

Now imagine the chief takes offense to what Napier is saying and kills Napier on the spot? What kept this from happening? I don't think there is an answer to that. I think it is about as random as a kid from the "hood", say in the gang life, who sees the goodness of the other way, and does not keep to his old ways. Sometimes this happens, sometimes it doesn't. There are always stories of individuals who change when they see a "superior morality" and others who don't. It's pretty random, you can't predict who will emerge from the ghetto, and you couldn't predict what the natives would do to Napier. Luckily they agreed, and their culture accept the new practices. Now it is "objective" since it is available to all, or "believed" by all.

[John Willis]

Tom wrote: "Now John would also assume that his "conscience" is linked with the same god Yahweh who supposedly gave written rules to the Hebrews. He also thinks that everyone is privy to the same experience of our "consciences" telling us what the right thing to do is."

Not exactly how I would put it, but if we're playing "worldview chess" here you just moved into "check"....so be my guest - please continue...

Tom also wrote...."Now according to John's book, what he calls "God" is the same as the moral lawgiver Yahweh (who was also a genocidal war god who instructed them to slay innocent women and children, and even killed a few innocent children himself in the "passover")".

And Tom makes a moral judgement!! - thereby confirming my strong, strong, suspicion that when other people exhibit moral motions they are making moral judgements. CHECKMATE.

Now, I think your moral judgement is in error here Tom. But it is a moral motion none the less. Your moral judgement is wrong here because you are wrong about the facts of the matter, not because you wrong on moral principle. The facts of the matter are these:
1. You and I are human beings.
2. It is wrong for you and I to take the life of innocent human beings because we are human beings.
3. God is not a human being.

Now, because ou have fashioned God in your own image it follows in your worldview that the moral obligations that apply to you and I also apply to God.

This is just silly, because whether the God of the bible exists or not He is not presented in the text like us at all.

Tom - if I am wrong, tell me why I am morally obligated to NOT go home right now and throw my old patio table (that I made) on the curb for the trash truck tomorrow.

[Tom]

It is not wrong to kill innocent human beings "because we are human beings."

It is wrong to kill innocent human beings period.

And wherever I derive my morality it is not from this horrible god.

And it is important to say that I don't believe YHWH is "the creator".

That does not mean that I am immediately an atheist, and subsribe to the naturalist view that "evolution and chance" created all this.

I can believe in a "creator" and not believe that YHWH, the one in Hebrew scripture, is NOT IT.

You will be hard pressed to convince me that you know YHWH is "the creator".

Now if you just presuppose the bible, or think you have proved other sections of the bible to your historical satisfaction, and extend that confidence to accept the creation account as an accurate historical account, then you make a mistake, and are automatically allied with the creator god YWHW who is NOT the god of Christianity,and thereby allied with the text that you think gives you the best description of what happened when the universe came into being.

It is because this god was given to war that we have so much war among the monotheisms.

[John Willis]

Tom wrote:

"I'm sure the new morality did not spread over night. But over time more and more people saw the new ways as better than their old ways."

This is a great example! Read this again Tom. ...."more people saw the new ways as better then their old ways". If that isn't most succinct description of objective morality in action I have seen written here in a while I don't know what is.

Think about it my friend..because you really know more then you give yourself credit for. Let's break this down because I don't want you to miss this...

"they (the wife burning Indians) saw the new ways (Napier's custom)"....

....as better.... (moral judgement)

....then their old ways (the Indian custom).

In order for the Indians to even make this distinction they would have to be comparing their custom and Napier's custom to some other Standard.....noticing that Napier's custom was better - they adopted it.

Great example my friend.

[Tom]

...because throwing a table away is not the same as killing an innocent child...

That should be obvious.

[Tom]

No John...they only need to compare their old custom to Napier's custom.

That's entirely my point.

And Napier's customs were not the Ancient Jewish customs who worshipped the babykiller wargod YHWH. They had changed several times through several epochs in our history, as cultures came into contact.

The biggest example is when Western culture came in contact with Greek culture. Christian culture was a blend of Greek and Hebrew. The Christian god has undergone several moral "upgrades" by incorporating the "better" customs of democracy, sport, theatre, philosophy, etc. What resulted was a christianity more inclined to "think" like Greeks.

Now if you mean that when two groups agree to the same set of moral practices then the practices are called "objective"...then I would agree. It is objective insofar as they all agree and have the same experience. But there could come a long a better morality, one that does not worship a babykilling god who does not respect free will and sentences capital punishment for being born.

I think moral progress need not always be forward but can also "regress" or it can split, where in one sense the new view is progress, while in another sense it is a regress.

Nietzsche said "What has overcome christianity is christian morality itself". Now we know that our modern legal system is a "better" system of justice than the old Jewish, or even Medieval Christian, understanding of "justice". Now we know that killing baby's is wrong, especially innocent ones.

We have a "higher" standard that does not defer to the genocidal creator god YWHW. And so did Napier.

[John Willis]

Tom - regarding the table.....I can do with it what I please because I made it. It's my table. I do not have a moral obligation to check with you before modifying it or destroying it. This analogy is obviously limited, but there is a similar relationship to us as created beings and God the creator that your moral viewpoint does not account for. When you're talking about God and you apply moral obligations to Him, as though there is a law that even God must obey, we are no longer talking about God, but a created being of your imagination that behaves according to your moral law.

Again, when we come unhinged from the facts of the real world, we can make this stuff up as we go along. If God really exists, if He is a Person, uncreated by the human mind, then He must reveal Himself to us for us to know what He is like. We could not hope to discover what He is like by merely contemplating ourselves and then imagining a being one order greater...merely projecting our inadequacies on a larger scale.

[John Willis]

Tom wrote: "No John...they only need to compare their old custom to Napier's custom.

That's entirely my point."

I understand that's your point, but you're doing a better job of making mine. What are the Indians doing when they are comparing their custom to Napier's? They're making a moral judgment right?. The custom, or the cultural ethic of burning or hanging cannot be the moral judgment itself, because the moral judgement is the thing that chooses between the two customs.

Further, if morality is not objective, only subjective, then there would never, ever be a reason to change our moral viewpoints. Why change them? Think about it Tom...what would we be changing them in for?....a better moral viewpoint! Right? If Napier's moral viewpoint isn't BETTER then the Indian's moral viewpoint why would they change it?

[Paul A]

Tom wrote: "It is wrong to kill innocent human beings period."

Is a virus immoral if it kills an "innocent" human being? Is a bear immoral for killing an "innocent" human being?

I thought we danced to this tune before -- it isn't enough to say "a human died, therefore the agent that took its life is immoral."

"You will be hard pressed to convince me that you know YHWH is 'the creator'."

Of this I have no doubt, but it's not due to inferior evidence or arguments. With all due respect, I don't think you have demonstrated an openness to changing (any of) your beliefs.

[Paul A]

If morals are subjective, I'd like to hear what obligates anyone to believe that killing babies is immoral. Seems as though it should be up to a culture to decide that it's okay (which, by the way, is exactly what has happened in our society, since it has bought this "subjective morality" nonsense - hook, line, and sinker).

[alan aronson]

More later guys, but Tom. they still burn womwn in India and Pakistan over marriage issues. Akbar also tried to stop widow burning. They probably didn't try to kill Napier because trying to kill a British General was not a god idea if one wished to go on living and he was successful to the extent he was, because he was serious about the hanging thing.

Because they see themselves as possessing the truth, traditional, socially conservative societies are resistant to change be it over burning widows or gays getting hitched.

[Aaron Snell]

>>Because they see themselves as possessing the truth, traditional, socially conservative societies are resistant to change be it over burning widows or gays getting hitched.

And liberal, progressive societies DONT'T see themselves as possessing the truth? If you don't think your social views are true, why do you hold them, Alan?

[alan aronson]

"A working clock may be wrong too, but if I had my choice and I recognize one clock as broken and one is moving which is the more reasonable choice?"

Hi John, Perhaps this is the root of the problem. Another answer is neither, and both should either be fixed or ignored or maybe I'd poke a stake in the ground and start using the sun. Too often we restrict ourselves by viewing things as dichotomous and binary.

Both of your syllogisms are wrong. i am not an atheist, I am an agnostic and P3 is properly a C, one for which you provide no evidence.

P4 is too general to form a proper statement. I will be happy to deal issue by issue if you wish. I also will allow that I can be wrong from time to time.

Hi William, you should care because i can give you a rational argument provided we share certain values. As long as we share the value, how each of us got there is irrelevant for political discussion; that is the only way a pluralistic society can operate.

For Example, I assume you want the United States to have a strong military, I certainly do. I see signs that the U. S. military is approaching a broken condition. At this point you need to deal with the evidence, not with how I got to the value.

"I ground moral truth in the infinite, living God who has revealed himself to us through Christ, the Bible and creation."

There is no way to get from that belief to voting for Gore or Bush, and Kerry or Bush without some intervening process. At this point it should be clear that there is something very wrong with that process. The grounding is besides the point.

How do people who hold to your grounding statement support authoritarian governance, denial of due process, torture, incompetence and corruption?

I see a lot of evidence on this blog that "grounding" seems to facilitate denial. This isn't 1999; we know the fruits of the process. Again, help me out here.

[alan aronson]

Hi Aaron, it's the certainty relative to the evidence that makes the difference. I know our health care system needs fixing because our outcomes relative to other industrialized nations are too poor.

To assert that we should do something because that is the way it has always been done, or that something should be done because of how someone interprets a few lines in an ancient text, isn't enough.

[Aaron Snell]

Thanks for the clarification, Alan. I actually agree with your last sentence, though I don't agree those two things are all the conservative side has to offer as far as arguments go.

I was just objecting to your characterization - it is a little over-simplified to say that, because they think they possess the truth, traditional, socially conservative societies are resistant to change. The bit about "possessing the truth" is a non-starter - my point was, both sides think they possess the truth. It would be a similar over-simplification if I were to say, "Because they see themselves as possessing the truth, progressivel, socially liberal societies push for change be it over burning widows or gays getting hitched."

I've been wondering - would a progressive, liberal society exist without its traditional, conservative counterpart? I seems to me at first blush that you could have a self-existent form of the latter, but not of the former. It needs a foil, I think.

[William Wilcox]

We are not talking politics just yet. First things first.

Alan said: "you should care because i can give you a rational argument provided we share certain values. As long as we share the value, how each of us got there is irrelevant for political discussion"

It seems you think when we agree everything is fine. But when we disagree, then what?

I see nothing here to explain why I should care if you share my values or why I should respect a rational argument. When you say "should" what do you mean?

Alan also said: "There is no way to get from that belief to voting for Gore or Bush, and Kerry or Bush without some intervening process"

Perhaps the only necessary process would be human decision guided by the Holy Spirit, in fidelity to the special revelation of the Bible.

[Tom]

You can't just say that if you are making moral judgements you are using our god to do it.

It is as if you have taken over the whole category of moral judgements and defined it as YHWH.

But that is not how this works. I'm familiar with this tactic, but it leaves no room for debate.

All I can say is that something tells me YHWH killing innocent children is wrong. "Where" these ideas "come from" is mysterious, but I don't have to believe that it is YWHW giving me this idea.

It would seem that if the all moral judgements come from YHWH, that is the possiblity of making moral judgements comes from YHWH, then how could I think killing innocent children is wront. I should say "I don't see any problem with YHWH killing innocent children at all." That is why I force the issue and make all of you guys defend babykilling, so you will get that pang, that twinge, that says, no I think what YHWH did was unjust.

Also, the Christian god developed into a model of goodness, some would say "goodness" itself (and abstract The Father into abstract goodness like Plato-Plotinus via Augustine). And you just can't have it both ways. You can't say "God is Love" and "God is morality" and "God killed innocent children." Its one or the other.

You also can't use the "free will defense" anymore. By the time the enlightenment rolled around, reasoned autonomy became very important. It became very important to "choose" for themselves. So Christians defended the charge on their god having created evil by saying that evil only results from evil people choosing to do evil things for themselves. YWHW-The Father is not responsible because he respects "free will". Well, it seems to me that these egyptian kids didn't even have a chance.

YHWH would rather kill egyptian babies than Satan, who is the father of all evil, and actually committed bad acts (so the story goes). Presumably these kids didn't DO ANYTHING WRONG.

In fact, God's respect for "free will" is what grounds our notion of his goodness. It is because God is a good god that he respects our free will. God didn't kill Satan because he didn't want "the universe" to make their own "independent moral judgement" (however that is possible on your view that we receive our moral instructions directly from YWHW whenever we make a moral decision) and "worship God out of fear". God would rather us "freely worship" him than "worship him out of fear of destruction". So God didn't kill Satan.

Then he turns around and kills some kids for Pharoah's crime! WHAT?! Is this the same God? Ans. No.

And then you immediately switch from defending YHWH on the grounds of his "goodness" to defending YHWH on the grounds of his Creator status, and since he created everything he can destroy everything. It is a constant shell game.

But as I said, we haven't even establised YHWH as the Creator. What created all this? I don't know. But that doesn't mean it is YHWH. You are never going to "independently" verify that YHWH is the creator of the physical universe. Do you think scientists examining a particle see a little name tag "Property of YWHW" on everything? No.

So you buy the ancient Hebrew creation account and then think its alright to kill innocent children, at least for your examplar of morality, the god of "love", to kill innocent children. No wonder we're in the shape we're in. Everybody's god thinks its OK to kill everybody else.

[Tom]

Paul I don't know if the terms "subjective" and "objective" apply when discussing our moral behavior.

How is my behavior NOT subjective?

Unless you mean by "objective" that "everyone" recognizes the same ways of acting as appropriate in any given general situation, even though they are always in their own "subjective" specific situations in life.

[Tom]

I could give a Heideggerian response here...

Every group exhibits "group behavior". Therefore it is safe to say they also "experience" group behavior.

These groups range in size and include: the family, the community, the state, the nation, the "civilization".

The outer boundary of any "civilization" is which gods they possess. That is the first thing that identifies you in your culture. Then you identify with your family, then your nation.

That is how you can say you are an American Christian.

That means there are behaviors that you get from the group, and they and other people you respect, will show you how to act.

Our "conscience" tells us what is acceptable behavior or unnacceptable behavior first from our gods, then from our parents, friends and family.

I can't honestly attempt to be an 15th century Japanese Samuri "in good conscience" in my current culture.

We are "constituted" by "society", which is also another word for "culture" or "group". (See Emile Durkheim)

It is also how we know what behavior is appropriate for our age, and compare our social development to others.

[John Willis]

Tom wrote: "You can't just say that if you are making moral judgements you are using our god to do it."

That's a strawman Tom. That is not the argument. Everyone regardless of thier professed worldview makes moral judgements. That is the common ground, the common experience in the discussion. The rub is this discussion lies in the differing presuppositions that make such judgements possible.

Tom wrote: "It is as if you have taken over the whole category of moral judgements and defined it as YHWH."

I smell more straw burning.

Tom wrote: "But that is not how this works. I'm familiar with this tactic, but it leaves no room for debate. "

It's exactly the opposite my friend. We are only taking your professed worldview to it's logical conclusions. I mean who are we to say you're wrong about what you believe about god Tom? Maybe you're right. Maybe the creator god you believe in really does exist and we're wrong. Maybe god really does behave exactly as you would like him too...maybe god's thoughts are Tom's thoughts....maybe god's moral judgements are exactly like your moral judgements with regards to every single moral problem you face.

It's possible. But it's so highly unlikely that it doesn't deserve much more thought. Especially since you are militantly reluctant to presenting any facts supporting an argument in favor of your NOT Yahweh creator theory.

Ok...so god's moral judgements are your moral judgements. So what? How do you suggest we verify this Tom? Why hasn't this god revealed himself to anyone but you? Why isn't he speaking to me or William or Paul? Why does he only speak to Tom? What the heck is wrong with this god Tom? What did you do to earn his favor, such that he now thinks exactly like you do?

[Tom]

John...

Is your presupposition that it is YHWH that makes moral judgements possible?

I think you would say "yes, by virtue of the fact that he is the creator of the universe, and therefore the creator of everything".

Is it your belief in the book of Genesis that informs your belief that YHWH is the creator god?

Or is he the "source of our conscience" no matter where or when we lived on earth, in possession of Hebrew Scriptures or not?

It is my presupposition that I can't conclude the identity of the creator from ancient Hebrew texts alone. It is my presupposition that "something else" created all this. But I do not presume to know who or what it is.

[John Willis]

Alan wrote:

"" John wrote:A working clock may be wrong too, but if I had my choice and I recognize one clock as broken and one is moving which is the more reasonable choice?""

Hi John, Perhaps this is the root of the problem. Another answer is neither, and both should either be fixed or ignored or maybe I'd poke a stake in the ground and start using the sun. Too often we restrict ourselves by viewing things as dichotomous and binary."

You're arguing the analogy and the analogy is not the argument. The analogy illustrates the point of contention that your political view may be right or may be wrong, but that to even make such a judgement presupposes something your worldview denies.

Alan wrote: "Both of your syllogisms are wrong. i am not an atheist, I am an agnostic and P3 is properly a C, one for which you provide no evidence.

P4 is too general to form a proper statement. I will be happy to deal issue by issue if you wish. I also will allow that I can be wrong from time to time."

As am I. Obviously I got P1 wrong! ....my apologies.

Sincere question for you Alan....as an agnostic, how could anyone tell when you are 51% a believer that God exists one day and 49% non-believer? I'm honestly asking because I just don't think it's possible for anyone to hold the view that God exists and he doesn't exist....you may still be considering the evidence, but there has got to be days, the God hypothesis seems more likely then it doesn't - right? So on days like yesterday when you're proclaiming moral judgement about GWB's administration, is it safe to assume that yesterday was a 51% day? Do you see my point? You may say you're an agnostic, but you're behaving like a thiest...as though God does exist. Logically, a non-theist wouldn't even make a moral judgement because moral judgements are impossible. For the true non-theist, the person who really lives as though God doesn't exist, there is no such thing as a moral category...there is no "should" or "ought" there only "is".

Do you see what I mean?

John

[John Willis]

Tom queried: "Is it your belief in the book of Genesis that informs your belief that YHWH is the creator god?

Or is he the "source of our conscience" no matter where or when we lived on earth, in possession of Hebrew Scriptures or not?"

Both. And I have good reasons to believe the book of Genesis is an inspired text.

Tom wrote: "It is my presupposition that "something else" created all this. But I do not presume to know who or what it is."

That's fair. You have every right to presume whatever position you'd like. It's just dangerous (in my opinion) to choose our religion based on preference and not on what is reasonably true.

Reality is rather unforgiving. Ideas have consequences and false ideas and beliefs come with a price tag that we may not always be prepared to pay. We never, ever really "break" any rules of an ordered universe Tom - moral or otherwise. We can't jump up and expect not to be pulled back down to earth by the law of gravity, anymore then we can expect to break the moral law and not be punished....maybe not now, maybe not today - but justice delayed is not justice denied. Soberly, I urge you to consider the comments of another str blog reader...

Adiel Corchado wrote: "Sin is transgression of God's law, a law which He has written in our hearts with out conscience also bearing witness. We all know its wrong to lie, steal, murder, commit adultery, misuse God's name etc. Yet even though we know this, we all have transgressed this law and for that reason made ourselves worthy of Gods judgment and punishment.

For example, have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen or lusted after a woman? Have you ever cursed with God's name? If you have that makes you a lying thieving blaspheming adulterer at heart and worthy of hell because of it." (Ref: http://str.typepad.com/weblog/2007/04/our_certificate.html)

[Tom]

John said...For the true non-theist, the person who really lives as though God doesn't exist, there is no such thing as a moral category...there is no "should" or "ought" there only "is".

That is what I mean by taking over the entire categoy of "possible moral judgement" and suggesting that without acknowledging the ancient Hebrew creation story, you can make no moral judgements.

How could I argue for another "source" for our morality other than YWHW?

[Tom]

John said..."For example, have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen or lusted after a woman? Have you ever cursed with God's name? If you have that makes you a lying thieving blaspheming adulterer at heart and worthy of hell because of it."

You see...its the "worthy of hell because of it" part that I object to.

You would sentence someone to death or "eternal punishment" lying or lusting? These aren't even crimes, much last "capital" crimes in our current justice system.

Lusting is hormonal and very hard to control at times. Does that mean I am to be charged and executed for it?

What if I lie to save a Jew during the holocaust, or steal to feed my starving family?

Am I still sentenced to death by your "just" God?

[Tom]

John said..."Both. And I have good reasons to believe the book of Genesis is an inspired text."

What is your evidence that Genesis is "absolutely true"?

[Tom]

John said..."It's just dangerous (in my opinion) to choose our religion based on preference"

Choosing your religion is always a matter of your personal preference.

[Tom]

John...

How can you make the "source of our conscience" claim independent of the Creator claim?

I think you need the Creation story to recognize YWHW as the "source".

[Tom]

What if a 10 y/o child lies about his baseball breaking the neighbor's window? Would your god kill him?