posted
The moral principles are unchanging and well-defined. Our ability to discern them and apply them (especially the latter) is imperfect.
This imperfection certainly derives from the frailties of language. This weakness would probably apply to both secular and non-secular moral frameworks.
Many religious frameworks also carry with them some idea akin to the Fall that humanity lost a special grace or knowledge that also impedes its ability to discern and apply them.
Edit: And I'm definitely applying some Platonic reasoning to this. This is at the heart of the discussion about not knowing if very early abortions are the taking of human life. The idea that there is a right answer, but we don't know it.
I don't think the human imperfections in description or application reduce the validity or eternal nature of this type of moral framework.
posted
So we can all be wrong, regardless of whether we follow a secular or non-secular moral framework. The important difference is that a non-secular moral theory assumes the existence of moral principles not defined by humans, even though we cannot really know exactly what they are. But the fact that they are there is what is important, even if we do not know them.
Yes?
(Not setting you up, just trying to understand. )
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes. In other words, there is a higher authority than human opinion or belief as to whether or not a given act in specific circumstances is wrong.
But the only "copy" of that we have access to is, to some extent, filtered through human opinion and belief.
posted
Dag, This poor painter is stuggling to understand some of the precepts being discussed in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that every situation has a pre-defined (not by humans) right and wrong. If that is what you are indicating I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll certainly give it some thought. Perhaps (if your theory is correct) grace is achieved when one grasps the moral framework completely?
Posts: 2022 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(We are cross-posting, but we seem to be coming to an understanding. )
quote:I don't think the human imperfections in description or application reduce the validity or eternal nature of this type of moral framework.
I think I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that non-secular precepts (the rules we convey to others and understand ourselves) are not human-defined. But this is not what you are saying, is it? You are saying that the rules we all guide our lives by, be they secular or non-secular in derivation, are by their nature rules that are human-defined.
It's just that in the non-secular case, the human-defined set of rules is an approximation of non-human-defined principles which we can never fully know or be sure of while we are still mortals.
Yes?
[ September 15, 2004, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dag, This poor painter is stuggling to understand some of the precepts being discussed in this thread. Correct me if I'm wrong but you are saying that every situation has a pre-defined (not by humans) right and wrong. If that is what you are indicating I'm not sure how I feel about that. I'll certainly give it some thought. Perhaps (if your theory is correct) grace is achieved when one grasps the moral framework completely?
Yes, I am saying that. But, I’m defining situation specifically enough that every single circumstance surrounding that situation is taken into account, to the extent that there are few, if any duplicate situations throughout all human history.
quote:I think I have trouble wrapping my head around the notion that non-secular precepts (the rules we convey to others and understand ourselves) are not human-defined. But this is not what you are saying, is it? You are saying that the rules we all guide our lives by, be they secular or non-secular in derivation, are by their nature rules that are human-defined.
It's just that in the non-secular case, the human-defined set of rules is an approximation of non-human-defined principles which we can never fully know or be sure of while we are still mortals.
Yes?
I would say that people really only attempt to follow human-defined rulesets, but that the “correctness” of such sets of rules could be measured by comparing them to the “absolute” Platonic moral ruleset, if we truly new it.
All such human rulesets will be both over- and under-inclusive. That is, they will prohibit conduct that is truly good, and allow conduct that is truly bad.
And law is even one more step removed, as most people agree not all immorality should be made criminal.
quote: As for the secular distinction, I'm having a hard time thinking of a non-secular moral theory that would fit into the human-defined category, but I'm not prepared to say such could not exist.
posted
Let me run something up the flagpole for review, Dagonee. What do you think of this, as far as whether it captures your propositions?
Moral systems, as we can see and experience them here on earth, are represented by precepts which are humanly defined, and thus imperfect. But "good" moral systems are the ones for which those precepts are understood to be an imperfect characterization of a set of perfect and eternal principles (although we cannot have direct and certain knowledge of those eternal principles while we are still mortal).
Thus, to be a "good" moral system, the humanly defined precepts must be based on eternal principles of which the comparison to, if we could know them directly, we would see to be unchanging. We can thus (awkwardly ) distinguish between two kinds of systems: those which are eternal-principle-based and those which are non-eternal-principle-based, although our understanding of either would necessarily involve human definitions.
Of note, most (if not all) non-secular moral systems are eternal-principle-based, as are some secular ones, although there are many examples of secular systems which are non-eternal-principle-based.
So, the most important fundamental distinction for you (I take it), when judging systems as they are presented to you in this world, is whether or not a moral system is based on eternal principles or not. And you wouldn't call the moral system (as it is see-able and judgable in this life, in the form of precepts) as eternal, but rather you characterize the imperfectly knowable basis of it as eternal.
Moreover, being eternal-rule-based is a necessary characteristic for a "good" moral system, but not a sufficient one. That is, in trying to approximate eternal principles which we cannot be sure of, we may (inadvertantly) choose the wrong principles. But the matter of how we know which (imperfectly known) principles are the correct ones is beyond the scope of this discussion.
[And law is even one more step removed, as most people agree not all immorality should be made criminal.]
Yes? Comments, corrections?
Go, Hoos.
[ September 15, 2004, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, well thought out! I can't think of any way that I disagree with what you have explained.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's the Hoos part, beverly, that really makes it fly.
I'm also thinking that (if this isn't too touchy a subject, let me know if it is) that you just were not aware of moral systems which intrinsically presume the existence of eternal principles but do not presume the existance of God (or a god, or gods, or Gods). Yes?
[ September 15, 2004, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, before I go into this, I need to know what you mean by "good" moral systems.
Are you using them to represent the moray systems I placed in my "absolute" category (remembering the highly qualified use I made of the term absolute)?
In other words, are we now comparing the relative worth of moral frameworks or are we still trying to categorize them?
posted
Dagonee, I especially like your point that morally identical situations may never, in fact, happen and that all pertinent aspects of each situation must be taken into account. Very wise.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure. I'm taking "absolute" (in your tightly defined sense) systems to be what you would posit as "good" systems.
(Do you advocate that "absolute" (in the tightly defined sense) systems are better than non-absolute ones? Or are you just interested in making a distinction based on natural kinds? I'm trying to understand you, so I'll defer to your interpretation. We can just make the distinction, or we can give the distinction moral weight -- no matter to me. )
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I (as you've probably guessed) think "absolute" systems are far superior. I just wanted to make sure you'd moved on to discussing their attributes specifically, and no longer to merely differentiate them from the other type.
Unfortunately, I have to go to an interview, so I'll type up something a little later.
Dagonee P.S., I'm enjoying this immensely. I'm also moving into new territory for me as of the next post, so I reserve the right to be wrong the first time out. Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I misunderstood what you were saying, Dagonee.
I normally stay out of these discussions of absolute versus relative morality, since the debate seems to me to be less about morality than about finding proof for the existence of God, which is just not a productive discussion for me since, as someone in this thread already noted, it's impossible to divorce the observer from what he observes.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Threads morph into pleasant surprises all the time. Amazing.
And sure, throw whatever out as a proposition. No need to presume a vested interest in promoting it yet -- we can just see where it falls.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Storm - I'm definitely using a non-standard version of the word "absolute." I haven't been careful about qualifying it in every use of the term.
posted
A Platonic-ideal set of moral rules does not strike me as a particularly useful concept. From a secular perspective, we are never going to learn what these rules are. Therefore, we cannot measure acts against them. We can only measure acts against our own real-world concepts of morality. Suppose the two sets disagree on the morality of some act; we will never know about it, and will therefore be unable to act on the difference. And a difference that makes no difference, is no difference.
It reminds me of that hypothetical elementary particle, the unicorn. Unicorns pervade every corner of the Universe, including the hypothesized extra dimensions, if any. However, they do not interact with our kind of matter, and are therefore totally undetectable.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Let me run something up the flagpole for review, Dagonee. What do you think of this, as far as whether it captures your propositions?
Per our earlier clarification, I’m treating your use of the word “good” as a synonym for my use of the word “absolute.”
To clarify for those who haven’t followed this entire discussion, I’ve postulated that the set of all moral frameworks can be divided into two categories: Those which are based on human-defined principles, and those which are based on “absolute” or extrinsic first principles which declare that specific conduct in specific circumstances is wrong. I am not using absolute to say that the circumstances surrounding a moral choice are irrelevant. At this point in the conversation, Sara is exploring a particular attribute of the second category (hereinafter called “absolute” moral frameworks, but in Sara’s quotations called “good”). This attribute is based on the fact that the moral framework, as actually expressed by humans, must be influenced by human belief, opinion, and language.
quote:Moral systems, as we can see and experience them here on earth, are represented by precepts which are humanly defined, and thus imperfect. But "good" moral systems are the ones for which those precepts are understood to be an imperfect characterization of a set of perfect and eternal principles (although we cannot have direct and certain knowledge of those eternal principles while we are still mortal).
Further, within a given “absolute” framework, a particular human-defined ruleset’s validity is based on how accurately it reflects these eternal principles.
quote:Thus, to be a "good" moral system, the humanly defined precepts must be based on eternal principles of which the comparison to, if we could know them directly, we would see to be unchanging. We can thus (awkwardly ) distinguish between two kinds of systems: those which are eternal-principle-based and those which are non-eternal-principle-based, although our understanding of either would necessarily involve human definitions.
Correct. But those who claim to be operating under similar eternal-based principles are much more likely to be able to reach common ground when trying to reconcile their individual human-defined rulesets. For example, if person A says action X is immoral, and person B disagrees, it is possible for one to convince the other by relating action X to principles each agree on. But those operating under different eternal-based principles cannot fully reconcile their human-defined rulesets.
quote:Of note, most (if not all) non-secular moral systems are eternal-principle-based, as are some secular ones, although there are many examples of secular systems which are non-eternal-principle based.
As best I can tell.
quote:So, the most important fundamental distinction for you (I take it), when judging systems as they are presented to you in this world, is whether or not a moral system is based on eternal principles or not. And you wouldn't call the moral system (as it is see-able and judgable in this life, in the form of precepts) as eternal, but rather you would call the imperfectly knowable basis as eternal.
I wouldn’t say the most important, because it’s fully possible that a non-eternal-principle based system could be closer to particular human-defined ruleset version of an eternal-principal based system than the second is to a different particular human-defined ruleset version of an eternal-principal based system. But I think the distinction is a primary distinction.
When trying to reach an accord on moral questions, the first question that needs to be answered is whether each party is operating from an eternal-based system or not. If each is, then they can investigate the first principles, as best each understands them, to attempt to reach common ground or to discover early on that they cannot reach an accord. If one or both are using non-eternal-based principles, then it’s not possible to reach an accord based on anything other than coincidence of belief.
quote:Moreover, being eternal-rule-based is a necessary characteristic for a "good" moral system, but not a sufficient one. That is, in trying to approximate eternal principles which we cannot be sure of, we may (inadvertantly) choose the wrong principles.
Yes. The difficulties can come from failing to acknowledge a principle, from acknowledging an invalid principle, or from failing to correctly prioritize two or more principles with potentially conflicting results in a specific situation.
quote:But the matter of how we know which (imperfectly known) principles are the correct ones is beyond the scope of this discussion.
Yes, definitely beyond the scope of this discussion.
quote:Yes? Comments, corrections?
I think everything I’ve added is an expansion; you seemed to catch the idea fully. What are your thoughts on it?
posted
Well, as long as we beat the Hokies, the season won't be a complete loss.
(You realize that, for me, this is like speaking Sumerian phonetically, right? )
As for the theory, I will sleep on it and invite inspiration for articulateness. I'm not sure the implications above are exactly the same ones I would draw (for reasons yet to be pieced through here -- foreshadowing, a sign of quality literature), although I think the distinctions made above can be useful in furthering the discussion.
But I'm also kind of groggy and everything looks a bit like something I don't quite understand right now. Even Spider Solitaire is proving elusive.
I'll write more tomorrow. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I have one thing to say. And forgive me, I have been too busy with school and tennis to get on until now, so I had no idea what was going on.
I'm very sorry if I offended anyone with my earlier comment/s. I did not mean to insinuate that ANY of you are stupid, because you're not! I just wasn't having a good day and I sometimes get rather fired up. Sorry. (everyone)
posted
First, I've been away from this thread for a couple of days, and it has gotten away from me a bit. I made the mistake of assigning an essay to my AP Bio students. Now I have to grade them. There is no time to respond to everyone I'd like. However, there is one question I simply can't resist.
Scott R wrote
quote:How would a die-hard Creationist go about accepting evolutionary principles?
The first step would be to learn what evolution actually is. Too often, I see creationists attack misunderstandings of evolution. It is very easy to disbelieve a nonsensical misunderstanding of evolution. My older brother is in this camp.
What is evolution? In a general sense, it is the idea that populations of organisms change over time. We can examine this on a number of levels.
The lowest unit that can evolve is the population. At the population level, evolution can be defined as a change in the relative frequency of alleles in a population over time.
Simply stated, it is the change in frequencies of alleles (different copies of genes) in a population over time. Does this happen? Absolutely. It has been documented countless times in the literature. I'll give references in the primary literature if you want. A good book which is accessible to the lay person and is also a good read is The Beak of the Finch. Evolution at the population level is called "microevolution".
Macroevolution, is usually defined as evolution at the species level and above. If you want to test the question "can one species evolve into two", you first have to define what a species is. Although there is debate about how exactly to define species, a good functional definition is that two organisms are different species if they are incapable of interbreeding. In fact, speciation events have been observed many times. The most dramatic one I have read about is a species of flower called O. lamarckiana. In a garden of this flower, the scientist observed an individual which was taller and had larger flowers. This individual was found to be incapable of being crossed with its parents. when selfed (crossed with itself), the plant produced offspring which were viable and capable of forming new offspring with each other. In a single generation, one species became two. The new species was named O. gigas. Analysis of the chromosomes of the plants revealed that the original O. lamarckiana plants had half the number of chromosomes as O. gigas. Apparently, the chromosomes of O. lamarckiana did not segregate (separate) when the eggs and pollen were formed. The result was a doubling of the chromosome number. Crosses between O. gigas and O. lamarckiana have 3 sets of each chromosome and are not viable.
If there are any curious die-hard creationists on this forum who are willing, I'd be happy to explain any aspect of evolution you'd like. If you take the time to understand what evolution actually is, at the very least you will be able to reject a proper understanding of it rather than a straw man.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It just seems to be the natural outcome when religious people explain things that other people have never experienced.
I see what you are saying. I really don't think it is confined to non-religious/religious differences. People can be knee-jerk rude over lots of issues.
quote:I'm very sorry, skeptic. I didn't mean to write that in a way that seemed like a personal attack.
Thanks for clarifying. Re-reading your post, I can see that you might not have been referring directly to me, but to a potential trap.
You life certainly does seem blessed. I won't attempt to explain these away. I think it's fair to say that you do not approach life with much skepticism.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:We are left with no choice but to look at the situation and say, "We don't fully understand the nature of the universe".
And the more we understand the universe, the more obvious it is that there is so much more to it than we thought originally, that it is fair to say that we never will. Just because we haven't figured out how to connect quantum mechanics with relativity doesn't mean it can't be done. Lack of understanding on our part is not evidence of a creator. In fact, adding a creator on top of our lack of understanding simply adds something else to explain rather than simplifying the situation.
Icarus wrote:
quote:What I am objecting to is specifically trying to test the validity of faith using scientific (not merely rational) principals. If this can even be done, it seems to risk invalidating the very point of faith--believing even in the absence of proof.
You are absolutely right. Beverly has done better with this question than anyone I have known, but ultimately my need for verifyable proof is directly at odds with faith.
It is interesting that one of Beverly's tests is honesty. I have followed that virtue as well as I can. It is what my skepticism is based on and it has forced me to accept things that I would rather not believe.
Posts: 57 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skeptic, I think it's safe to say that if you ever do acquire faith, the experience will not be one which would provide "proof" to anyone else. It also won't be one which would provide "proof" sufficient to your current requirements.
I think that's true of everyone, by the way. Not just you.
posted
I don't think it's fair to say faith is "irrational." The limitation of the "rational" to that which can be scientifically proven is not an advance for human thought.
posted
No, because most people have faith based on reasons. They're just not reasons that would necessarily convince someone else. And although the starting assumptions may be unprovable, the progression of most faith relies heavily on logic and reasoning.
For example, someone who believes that God spoke to Moses from the burning bush is relying at least partly on their confidence in the writings that report it.
posted
So, I take you don't subscribe to Kierkegaard's analysis of the "leap of faith"?
(Not debating, just curious/clarifying. My own thoughts on this are currently melded with my thoughts on sports, and it isn't a jumble I'd expect anyone else to pull apart with me. But I'm still interested in understanding you.)
[ September 16, 2004, 12:35 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I do believe in that. But the gap is narrowed by towers of reason and logic at both ends. And the strength of the leap is augmented by more reason and logic.
quote: I think it's fair to say that you do not approach life with much skepticism.
Well, that's not really true, actually. I'm generally very skeptical about everything. I'm even skeptical about what I wrote about tithing. I just don't usually mention my skepticism on every topic, because it's hard enough arguing with other people without having to argue with myself.
To be honest, I have always considered myself a person that approaches religious beliefs "rationally" in that I believe in God because I think it's logical, and not because of any particular child-like faith. I often *wish* I had that kind of faith. To me it just "makes sense" that there's a God and the Christian one appeals to me more than others. Also I have found that the promises made to believers in the Bible happen to me in my own life, so I see results from being a Christian.
Near the beginning of my Christianity I often struggled with my belief, in that I was extremely skeptical about everything that happened. The first couple of times that tithing deal that I mentioned happened I kept thinking to myself "It's just a coincidence. It doesn't mean anything." I would actually get mad at myself for being "too rational".
But as time goes on and the words prove themselves again and again, it gets harder to fight.
BTW: I think I assumed I was going to get backed into a corner because your name is skeptic. That's just asking for it. Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sara, if you haven’t read it already, I think you might enjoy Paul Tillich’s Dynamics of Faith. It’s a short little book, and gives a slightly different twist to all this.
(And I have a soft spot in my heart for it, since the first grad-school lecture I gave was on Tillich, so I couldn't miss a chance to recommend him. )
posted
Skeptic: I hope you don't feel that I was making any sort of comment on whether I thought you were an honest person. I figure we all can find room for improvement on just about any part of our own moral codes. The test could apply to any person.
I was trying to restrict myself to the 10 commandments because they are pretty basic and most people can agree on them, and that one seemed like a relatively easy one to experiment on. It is more of an external act (as opposed to "Thou shalt not covet" which is more internal.) Most of us don't kill, steal, or commit adultery. The first 5 commandments are more faith-based and take longer to see results.
PSI: I really appreciated what you shared on tithing.
quote: But as time goes on and the words prove themselves again and again, it gets harder to fight.
I also like this. It seems that like any other rational thought process, as the evidence continues to mount and is found to be repeatable and consistent, the conclusion seems more and more likely. We do this with many things in life, not just whether or not we think there is a God. We couldn't survive without it.
I also like what Dagonee said that the evidence is such that it only applies to your specific life and situation. It is too subjective to be useful for someone else. But so much of our paradigms are formed exactly this way.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, there is a major difference between giving an academic lecture and preaching (and I do both, so I should know).
My lecture on Tillich would have been perfectly appropriate for a public school. Well, not age-appropriate, but certainly no church-state problems. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott, there is a major difference between giving an academic lecture and preaching (and I do both, so I should know).
Depends on which side of the podium you're on. From out here, they are both good soundtracks to fall asleep to.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alexa, I can't give you an example of validating faith at all, because I don't have faith.
What I was trying to get at was divorcing the words "rational" and "scientific," because Beverly was interpreting my objection to applying scientific standards of proof as on objection to applying logic to faith at all, and I wanted to clarify that this was not my stance.
Now,
quote:I thought faith was not rational.
I disagree. I define faith as belief in the absence of proof. However, the absence of proof for a proposition is not proof against it. So we can prove neither the existence nor the nonexistence of God. Therefore, faith is no less rational than lack of faith. You may come to believe for rational reasons. They may not be conclusive for anybody else, and they may not sway anybody else, but that doesn't make them irrational. For instance, I do tend to believe in a creator of some sort. It's the entire Christian mythos (and by mythos, I do not mean "fiction" so please don't jump down my throat) that I cannot be comfortable with. However, the hhuge complexity of the universe makes me tend to believe that there was some sort of design behind it. This is hardly conclusive. In this thread, people have pointed out that this is not proof of the existence of God, and I agree. However, it is a perfectly rational reason for choosing to believe. That is as close as I can come to addressing your specific question, that of "validating" faith.
Now, regarding the larger question of whether faith is not rational (I sense you avoided "irrational" on purpose, and therefore so will I), go read some Aquinas. In other words, once you have decided to make the leap of faith, you don't turn your rational mind off. In deciding the specifics of your beliefs, [depending on your denomination ] you will still analyze things with a rational mind. Whether it's a matter of deciding how the words of scripture apply to stuff that didn't even exist back when it was written/collected, or whatever . . . if faith is not rational, then I wasted a whole lot of years in theology classes!)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You’d probably never hear one even if I did, seeing as you’re a non-meeting kind of Hatracker and all. Unless I converted and happened to move to your ward, which seems kind of unlikely. But thanks for asking. Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
