What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
That he’s certain they’re wrong, and that much more wrong for being certain about their wrongness.
Are you sure that’s a problem?

Are you sure that’s a problem?

Well, it becomes a problem very quickly when you realize that many religions are mutually exclusive from each other, are unable to show that one is that much better than another from a moral standpoint, and finally, they make claims about the world we live in that are demonstrably false.

That should put a pretty strong limitation on anyone’s degree of certainty in their religion, if they are truly being intellectually honest with themselves about their beliefs.

Joe sees certainty as a virtue, and that’s fine by me. The problem though, is that his degree of certainty has outstripped his ability to support it at such a high level. In other words, Joe seems to be often blinded by his faith (see his periodic postings about the “superior” moral foundation of Christianity as an example). Generally, I’m willing to let such things slide except for when they lead to conclusions that clearly contradict things that we know to a much higher degree of certainty than Joe can really claim for his faith. At that point, it’s time to concede to logic and reason, after all, those traits are in fact God given gifts as well…

Ex-preacher,
What would you say to a Muslim or Mormon (or atheist) who has the same total certainty in their religious views that you do in yours?
No need to get all hypothetical; I’m a certain atheist. I have no doubt that there is no God or that our natural life in the here and now is all that we get.
I’m willing to entertain other possibilities in theory. But I’ve seen evidence for those possibilities time and time again, and it’s always come up short. And the evidence for my belief seems (to me) close to irrefutable.
I think that’s why I like Joe and appreciate him. I think we’re theological soulmates who landed on opposite sides of the fence. The only material difference between us when it comes to faith is that I like to entertain doubt and opposing points of view as much as possible, whereas Joe seems to get personally offended by doubt when it is applied to his faith.
I can always entertain the possibility, at least hypothetically, that I’m wrong about atheism and theism. But theism and Christianity seem so fantastic to me that emotionally I regard it as a species of impossible science fiction or fantasy.
That is not to say that I find religious belief to be ridiculous or irrational. I was raised a Christian, so I understand Joe’s faith and respect it to a large extent. I know where Joe is coming from.
But I’ve explored that view of the cosmos and of life, to the best of my abilities, and I have rejected it as firmly as I can reject anything.
I don’t think it is a bad thing to be “plagued” by certainty. But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There’s something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.
It’s something I’ve noticed in myself and in others, this defensive certainty. One of the biggest challenges in life is to recognize when you’re flat-out wrong about something important, and revise your beliefs accordingly.
When a belief becomes part of your personality or part of your identity, it is very hard, sometimes even impossible, to let it go. When evidence lands outside one’s comfort zone, it can be easier to ignore it or rationalize it and rearrange reality according to one’s beliefs, rather than rearrange one’s beliefs according to reality. It seems to be part of human nature, including my own.

Mathew says:
“No need to get all hypothetical; I’m a certain atheist. I have no doubt that there is no God or that our natural life in the here and now is all that we get….”
And then later adds:
“But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There’s something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.”
OK, but wouldn’t that suggest that a wise person should conclude that that Matthew is “totally wrong” about his atheism? And that his own expression of certitude about God’s non-existence is reflective of his own tendency to “repress doubt and contrary evidence” when it comes to his “cherished” atheistic beliefs!
Sorta like, “suppressing the truth” (See Rom. 1)?

ucfengr:
But that has to do with something completely internal to you and therefore subjective. For external things, everything from whether there is a couch in your living room or whether God exists, wouldn’t the standard of proof be the same for everyone?

But that has to do with something completely internal to you and therefore subjective. For external things, everything from whether there is a couch in your living room or whether God exists, wouldn’t the standard of proof be the same for everyone?
Obviously not or we would never have “hung juries”.

I was certain that removing a couple of statements would fix your layout problem. So I tested it locally and got a working but wrong result. The reliability was high and I was justified in my belief, but I was still wrong.
So I did more analysis and it appears that your web server is generating the DIVs improperly. If you outline a web page you’ll see how it is failing. I’m certain of it. Almost.
Hire me and I’ll fix it. ;-)

Keith,
… there does seem to be a rather blatant contradiction in Matthew’s claim to certainty (a person such as God does not exist) and his simultaneous claim that those who claim certainty are likely to be deceived.
I don’t think that certainty always leads to falsehood. I’m not even sure that certainty leads to falsehood most of the time. But I do think that certainty raises a red flag.
When one is certain, one is more susceptible to fooling oneself. Certainty is a signal that one should be treading carefully and compensating for the biases that certainty is known to foster in our minds.
My exact words were:
But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about. There’s something about human psychology that seems to repress doubt and contrary evidence when it comes to our most cherished beliefs.
So if you would like to apply that to me, then for sure, that would imply that there is a good possibility that I am fooling myself about atheism. But since I am aware of my capability for self-delusion, I do go to great lengths to test the beliefs that I have the most faith in, or at least I try to.
For example, when it comes to atheism, I have, as I said above, explored my beliefs from every angle I know of. Of course, I still know that I could be wrong, but at least my wrong-headedness has a very solid basis :)
And I can imagine various scenarios where I could be partially or totally wrong about things. I don’t think those scenarios are actually possible, but not because I have faith or certainty, but rather because those scenarios are very highly implausible based upon everything I have learned to be true about reality. My faith is not based upon the stipulations of an outside authority or revelation, but upon a hard-earned accumulation of knowledge over four decades.
Even so, I like to think that if I were presented with evidence that I am wrong, I would be honest and strong enough to look at it uncritically and change my mind if it were warranted.

“But it is wise to realize that people are often most certain about things they are totally wrong about.” Why is this wise? This is an assertion and is most likely verifiable. I just don’t buy it. Those things about which I am certain (the love of my husband, the love of God to me) are verifiable to me and to those who seek to know me. I can make an argument for God’s love toward me and others, but at the end of the day, having evaluated the evidence, it is when I believe that I see. Yes it is mystical, and beyond science and logical, watertight proofs, but it is the realm of the heart and the soul, not the laboratory. It is the certainty of hope and certainty is one attitude that is today very much out of style. In the culture of 2008, skeptics reign. You can be sure of only the fact that you do not know, nothing more.
I am not a skeptic about God, I am sure. Go Joe!

Barbara:

My question to you: Why do think the skeptics reign in 2008? I think may I disagree with you on this point depending on exactly what you mean.

As someone that is well versed in the sciences, skepticism is in my nature, but my skepticism is not absolute. I do think that we know a lot of things from both a factual and moral stand point that are indeed “certain.” Meaning that the likelihood of this knowledge being wrong is too small to be worth sweating over. But this is also why I must reject your mysticism.

Richard Feynman (amoung others) have said that science is way of trying not to fool yourself. Mysticism is diametrically opposed to that kind of thinking. How do you know you have a soul? How do you know that God loves you? How do you know that God even exists? I have no doubt that you are certain of your answers, but how can you be sure that you are not fooling yourself when drawing those conclusions? How can you be certain that the conclusions that you have come to are not just culturally derived? Or wishful thinking? Or something else entirely? Mysticism does not provide a satisfying answer to these questions.

Phasespace,
How do you know you have a soul? How do you know that God loves you? How do you know that God even exists?
I think that these are important questions, and it sounds like we have similar answers to them.
But I don’t think these are the most important questions. I think the most important questions are: How should you treat other people? How do you treat other people? How should you treat yourself?
Of course, my questions are related to and entangled in your questions; but it makes a difference which questions you make a priority.
Mysticism is unreliable. Mysticism can lead to wildly divergent faith experiences and beliefs. Mysticism is not very amenable to experimental methods and logic. But mysticism does exist, and it would be a mistake to ignore it and discount it out of hand.
Richard Feynman was right about science, but science is not the best tool for answering every question. Science has a restricted domain in that sense. I wholeheartedly agree with you that mysticism does not always, or even consistently, provide satisfying answers. But perhaps mysticism offers clues in domains where science can be a bit of a stretch.

Well, let’s take the evolution “debate,” for example.

What exactly is the evolution “debate” anyway? What kind of scientist is going to say that evidence for evolution is air tight? That’s such a vague statement that it hardly says anything. It certainly doesn’t contribute anything to a debate. How many scientists have actually witnessed and documented one genus branching from another as it happened in real time?

Michael said:
“I don’t think that certainty always leads to falsehood. I’m not even sure that certainty leads to falsehood most of the time. But I do think that certainty raises a red flag.”
Ok, then that would mean that your own certainty about your atheism (about which you have claimed certainty) should raise a “red flag.” Does it raise a red flag for you? And if I tell you, “your certainty about your atheism raises a ‘red flag’ for me,” does this mean that you have to admit that I am right to be skeptical of YOUR certainty?

I’m with you Joe. I have absolute certainty about my faith. It comes as a result of having made such a mess of my life that my only hope was to call on God. He came and though I didn’t see Him physically (not surprising as He’s a spirit), I was able to perceive His arrival and His power. I feel like I belong somewhere between Thomas who Jesus told blessed are you to have seen and believed and the people who were blessed for believing and not seeing that He mentioned next. I know that God has spoken to me through the bible and I have had answered prayer that I could see His hand on and I think to some degree true of all Christians. Sadly, though I can tell you many incidents in great detail, the experience doesn’t transfer with the information. So, may all the unbelievers reading this fall into circumstances so dire and hopeless that only God could deal with them.

“So, may all the unbelievers reading this fall into circumstances so dire and hopeless that only God could deal with them.”
I know that you think this would be a blessing in disguise, but, speaking as an unbeliever, it sounds like a curse to me.

So, I debated whether or not I would comment on this this morning. After all, you’re the guy who is certain. But you’re also the guy with the wife who is having anxiety attacks because of “that voice”.
And I’ve also heard that voice. And I’m also having anxiety attacks.
I finally decided not to write. I don’t know why. I didn’t feel like sharing, perhaps?
Anyway. Tonight I went to Bible study. And what was the topic? Doubts.
Figures.
I didn’t share then, either. Not everything, anyway. I shared some questions I had, but I mostly stayed silent. The last thing I wanted to do was drag the other people in the group down.
But on the way home, I decided I’d write and let you know that I appreciate this post. Because No one in my personal life knows the doubts I have. And, quite frankly, I don’t know of anyone who has been/ professes to be a Christian who has them. And I’m very glad I’m not alone.

My thesis is that being certain is considered offensive in a pluralistic society that holds to relative truth, moreso if Christians are certain, and espouse their certainty in the Public Square.
Because when Christians are certain, then it simply follows that they believe in Absolute Objective Truth, and the simple corollary is that other faith-traditions must, by logical necessity, be utterly wrong. According to the value grid of the false idol called Political Correctness, claiming exclusive Absolute Objective Truth is the sin against society that must be shouted down, dismissed, scorned, name-called, and hissed at.
The certainty possessed by many Christians is then translated as backwards fundamentalistic dogma by the popular media and culture. Thus, for many Christians, usually the nominal ones, they prefer not to express their faith as being Absolute Truth, much less being certain of Absolute Truth, and very much less in speaking in public about their certainty in Absolute Truth. I wish Christians were more bold in proclaiming their Lord and Savior. The privatizing of faith is not a good thing.
Going back to how certainty by Christians is offensive in polite secular pluralistic society. It now clarifies for me why secular liberals are joined at the hip with Islamic fundamentalists. Secular liberals and Islamic fundamentalists have a common enemy… Christians! Secular liberals dislike Christians because Christians believe in Absolute Truth and that this Truth will judge them. Plus Absolute Truth declares that secular liberals are sinners! Islamicists dislike Christians for all the usual reasons.
Then you have the old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” And since secular libs and Islamic fundamentalists regard Christians as the enemy, they then become allies against Christians and their certainty in Jesus Christ.

Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left by David Horowitz
http://www.amazon.com/dp/089526076X/?tag=evangeoutpos-20
Rob, I’m glad that you’re a secular liberal who’s not aligned with Islamic fundamentalists.

Mathew, I don’t really consider the first two questions valid objections to evolution, even on religious grounds. Note to smmtheory, I’m not scoffing at these questions, I just don’t think they are scientifically addressable.

Regarding souls. Before science could even begin to address this question, we would need evidence that souls exist in the first place. Then, and only then, could we begin to address what creatures have souls, and what do not. Until such time as that happens, it is strictly a question for theologians, and it really has nothing to do with science in general or evolution in particular.

The divinity of Jesus also doesn’t seem to be addressable either, nor is the virgin birth (and what’s more, there does seem to be some legitimate controversy even over that but that’s beside the point). If God stepped in at this point for whatever reason, then he did it. I don’t see how this can be used as an objection to evolution, even on on theological grounds. From a religious standpoint, a miracle is still a miracle regardless of any scientific theory.

Regarding the evolution of self awareness… Now that is good scientific question, and the answer is…. We don’t know. We have some plausible ideas for how it *might* happen, but they are pretty much nothing more than speculation. We don’t know, and we may never know for sure. I suppose that makes a lot of people uncomfortable, and it goes right back Joe’s issue of certainty vs. uncertainty.

The truth is, we live in a world of uncertainty. As much as we know, and as much as we have learned, we still can not say for certain what will happen tomorrow, and I think this is the biggest appeal that religion has. It provides certainty in an uncertain world….and as I said before, I have no problem with that until that certainty causes people to draw false conclusions. The difference between Joe and myself is that I am comfortable with that uncertainty, or at least I’ve made peace with it. I probably wouldn’t be a scientist if I was truly comfortable with it. I realize and understand that there are things both big and small that I will never know. Facing that truth, I have only two options, create an illusion of certainty around myself (which works for some, but as Joe has experienced with his wife, it doesn’t work for everyone), or I can accept that there are just things that I don’t know, and never will. I chose the latter option because I think it is the more intellectually honest position.

As for your last question… I made a statement in passing that alluded to a distinction between facts and morality, and that distinction applies here. I don’t think that science can be used to determine morality. I do think that science (or at least reason and rationality if not formal science) can potentially tell us why we think certain acts are moral and others are not. I also think that science informs our morality (in that we definitely make moral decisions based on what science tells us), however I do not think that science by itself determines our morality. So Feynman shouldn’t be faulted for his involvement in the Manhattan project any more than Smith and Wesson should be faulted for manufacturing firearms.

John W writes: “David Horowitz? There’s no need to even read that article.”
This is a classic example of the ad hominem fallacy. Thanks for demonstrating it so well John W.
Incidentally, it’s not an article. It’s a book.

Joe:
I think you may be mistaking hubris for faith. Humility is the quality not of doubt but of teachability. That you know so much as to not be teachable is not faith but hubris.
Faith is only evident, is only proved upon testing. As my style of Christianity likes to say, faith only comes into play when it’s possible to doubt. Most Christians “faith” is limited to their post death destination and as a result their faith is usually only tested when death is imminent. The same can be said for the atheists faith. There’s a reason for the expression, there are no atheists in fox holes.
With respect to your not fearing death, I’m not afraid of being mugged in Central Park either. This may have something to do with the fact that I live 3000 miles away from Central Park. All soldiers are full of courage on the parade ground but it is only enemy fire that reveals their courage. All Christians are full of faith while singing hymns in church, while the certainty of death seems anything but. Only the real possibility of death reveals their faith.
If your wife’s fear is a serious problem I suggest that she spend some time each morning and evening meditating on scriptures which promise us eternal life. She should read them out loud to herself. Murrmurring them as she thinks about their meaning. Scriptures like these (2 Corinthians 5:1-8, John 14:1-3, Philippians 1:21-26, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17. Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

Greg,
I very much like your definition of “hubris”: a state of non-teachability. That’s a pithy way of explaining what I was trying to explain about certainty sometimes leading to error.
I have a question about the relationship between faith and doubt. If true faith can only be tested in doubtful situations, then can certainty ever be justified? If yes, than how can certainty be justified?

Happy Substitutionary Atonement day folks!!
Looking forward to Resurrection Day here in North Georgia on Sunday.
God bless you all!!

If your reaction to the list is that you think I am scoffing at the ideas of souls and divinity, then it seems to me that you are being defensive. Why should an unbeliever talking about religion be considered scoffing?
A Christian should be happy that two unbelievers are respectfully discussing and probing religious ideas, but that seems to be something you’re a little hostile towards.

Matthew,
If what I said led you to believe that I was thinking that you were scoffing then I’m not the one being defensive, and I’m certainly not being hostile. A person who specifically rejects the existence of the supernatural (of which souls and divinity and God are part and parcel) trying to compose reasoning as if they understand the mindset of a believer? You can attempt to argue from a religious perspective as a non-believer if you want, I just think it’s not going to sound very convincing, even to a believer.
But what I was getting at was that when arguing about evolution with a non-religious person who rejects the supernatural, it is too easy for a rebuttal to sound mocking and condescending. So let’s talk about physical evidence. Are you (or any other person arguing pro-evolution with an ounce of certitude) saying that of every type and species of creature to ever exist on the face of the earth, all or nearly all of them have been captured in fossilized form? Is it really wise to assume that because we don’t currently have a fossilized record of every current species that exists that no fossilized forms of them exists? Perhaps they do, but nobody has found them yet? Perhaps they existed but have been destroyed by the onslaught of civilization?
Those are only just a handful of questions that raise doubts about evolution within my curious mind… and yet, I’m accused of rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural.

Hello again, Smm,
If what I said led you to believe that I was thinking that you were scoffing then I’m not the one being defensive, and I’m certainly not being hostile.
I had the impression that you thought that I was scoffing because that it what you said in comment 33:
[Matthew said:] “Three religious objections to evolution:”
“1) How did souls evolve? Do chimps and orangutans have souls? Do bacteria and moss have souls? Where along the line do souls kick in, and how?”
“2) Jesus was fully human and fully divine. So how could evolution lead to Mary’s giving birth to God the Son? Something else was going on here, at least this one time.”
[Smmtheory replies:] Matthew,
That is part of the reason why I do not argue about evolution from a religious perspective. It is too easy for non-believers to scoff at religious notions of souls, and divinity.
If I am wrong, and you didn’t think I was scoffing, then you didn’t write what you meant to say.
But what I was getting at was that when arguing about evolution with a non-religious person who rejects the supernatural, it is too easy for a rebuttal to sound mocking and condescending.
I agree. It’s therefore important to write consistently in good faith, and that’s why we both usually make an effort to do that.
Are you (or any other person arguing pro-evolution with an ounce of certitude) saying that of every type and species of creature to ever exist on the face of the earth, all or nearly all of them have been captured in fossilized form?
No, absolutely not. Not even close to a complete record.
Is it really wise to assume that because we don’t currently have a fossilized record of every current species that exists that no fossilized forms of them exists?
Fossil-hunters don’t assume anything when they go looking for fossils. A paleontologist would kill to find a fossil that would upset some consensual timeline of species-branching.
But scientific theories are based on the evidence we have, not on the evidence we might have if the evidence were different. That’s not a question of wisdom versus foolishness. It’s simply the only possible way of dealing with evidence.
Perhaps [fossils of current species] do [exist], but nobody has found them yet? Perhaps they existed but have been destroyed by the onslaught of civilization?
And perhaps God has edited my newspaper to trick me into thinking that Gov. Spitzer has resigned when he actually hasn’t resigned. But I won’t believe that unless someone tells me how he knows it. And you shouldn’t expect me to believe your hypothetical about fossils unless there is some reason to believe it.
Those are only just a handful of questions that raise doubts about evolution within my curious mind… and yet, I’m accused of rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural.
Well, I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “accuse”, but you are, in fact, rejecting evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs about the supernatural.
And I’m not sure why you want to deny it. If evolution wasn’t in conflict with your beliefs, you would say, “Yeah, sure, evolution” and not give it a second thought. It doesn’t mean you’re stupid or stubborn, you’re just unwilling to accept something at face value that seems inconsistent with what you already believe.
It means your brain is awake and functioning, so you noticed that evolution raises some questions, and you, in turn, want to raise some questions about evolution. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Greg,
Thank you very much for your response.
Although you weren’t sure what I meant by asking if certainty could be justified, you were able to answer my question anyway.
I have heard your definition of faith elsewhere, but it is not the most common one, and I don’t know if Joe would use it himself. If Joe is still paying attention to this comment thread, I would invite him to comment on your way of experiencing faith.
I think your notion of faith is very similar to the distinction Phasespace makes between the realms of science and theology. So maybe I was wrong when I said to Phasespace that his distinction didn’t seem to resolve anything.
I cannot personally accept your faculty of faith for myself, because it is too intimately bound to the revelation of God, and I do not accept that revelation. But thank you again for explaining what faith means and how it can lead to certainty.
Cheers,
Matthew

“Now secular liberals and culturally conservative Muslims are united in their intense opposition to Bush’s policies at home and abroad, especially in the Middle East.”
From: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1558227,00.html
————–
“The issue is why the left is so passive, reluctant, and even oppositional in its stance in the American war on terrorism. My answer is that the cultural left opposes the war against the radical Muslims because it wants them to succeed in defeating President Bush in particular and American foreign policy in general. Far from seeking to destroy the movement that Bin Laden and the Islamic radicals represent, the amazing fact is that the American left is secretly allied with that [Islamic] movement to undermine the Bush administration and American foreign policy. The left would like nothing better than to see America in general, and President Bush in particular, forced out of Iraq. Although such an outcome would plunge Iraq into further chaos and represent a catastrophic loss for American foreign policy, it would represent a huge win for the cultural left, in fact the left’s greatest foreign policy victory since the Vietnam War.
The notion that the American left seeks victory for Islamic radicals in Iraq may at first glance seem implausible. One person who does not think so, however, is Bin Laden. In his October 30, 2004 videotaped message, apparently timed to precede the presidential election, Bin Laden drew liberally from themes in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 911 to condemn the Bush administration. Bin Laden denounced Bush for election-rigging in Florida, for going to war to enrich oil companies and defense contracts like Halliburton, for curtailing civil liberties under the Patriot Act, and for reading stories to school-children while the World Trade Center burned. Apart from the rhetorical flourishes of “Praise be to Allah,” Bin Laden sounds exactly like Michael Moore. And why not? In opposing President Bush and American foreign policy, they are both on the same side.
Moreover, several leading figures on the left are very candid about what they are fighting for. Moore writes, “The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not ‘insurgents’ or ‘terrorists’ or ‘the enemy.’ They are the Revolution, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow—and they will win.” Author James Carroll commends the insurgents for exemplifying “the simple stubbornness of human beings who refuse to be told what to think and feel.” Writing in salon.com, Joe Conason calls on Bush to enter into a “negotiated settlement” with the Iraqi insurgents, an outcome Conason concedes would be a “defeat for the United States and a perceived victory for Al Qaeda and its allies.” Gwyne Dyer states in a recent book, “The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq.” Activist Arundhati Roy declares on behalf of the left, “We must consider ourselves at war.” What she means is that the left is fighting a political battle not against Al Qaeda or Islamic fundamentalism but rather against the Bush administration.
From: http://dineshdsouza.com/books/enemy-intro.html

So let’s talk about physical evidence.

Let’s not talk about the physical evidence, because the physical evidence is irrelevant to you, and you know it. The objections that you are listing have been refuted and rebutted repeatedly on numerous occasions.

ucfenger made a post a while back that I didn’t get around to responding to where he said that the religious don’t reject science out of hand. What they reject (and I would say what they are really afraid of) is materialism. I would agree with that assessment. However, that also means that all the frustration with science in general and evolution in particular is sorely misplaced. Christians are using science as a scapegoat because it’s an easier and much more visible target than materialism itself. Indeed, tackling materialism has a number of uncomfortable implications that I don’t think theologians want to deal with, like what is the connection between the material and spiritual, and how does God interact materially? Just to name two off the top of my head.

The issue is not about the science, the issue is about some Christian’s inability to reconcile their theology with the findings of science. Nothing more, and nothing less. These objections are the intellectual equivalent of grabbing at straws under the pretense that such objections give this brand of theology a measure of protection from dealing with the harder questions. They don’t. Yeah, I’m getting snarky, but I think its justified.

Rank your #1 choice for your Final Appeal to Authority among these 3 selections:
(1) Human Reason (eg. Science)
(2) Human Experience (eg. Feelings, emotions, intuition)
(3) The Bible (66 books – Canon of the Reformers)
———-
FWIW, I put the Divinely Inspired Word of God as #1.

The objections that you are listing have been refuted and rebutted repeatedly on numerous occasions.

phasespace,
Objections? Questions I say, and perhaps they have already been refuted and rebutted repeatedly on numerous occasions, but I haven’t had a lot of time to read every little bit there is that might have. So when I ask these questions, all I get is snark. That leads me to believe that maybe they haven’t been refuted and rebutted well enough, they just make you uncomfortable because you don’t have the answers. Then when you get uncomfortable, you blame me and become condescending. And you say things like physical evidence is irrelevant to me. But I’m a doubting Thomas with respect to science theory. Physical evidence is relevant and important to me. I don’t have it in front of me. I don’t have a good explanation of it in front of me either, so here I am having somebody tell me I should just accept it because he believes it.

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily use the word “accuse”, but you are, in fact, rejecting evolution because it conflicts with your beliefs about the supernatural.
And I’m not sure why you want to deny it. If evolution wasn’t in conflict with your beliefs, you would say, “Yeah, sure, evolution” and not give it a second thought. It doesn’t mean you’re stupid or stubborn, you’re just unwilling to accept something at face value that seems inconsistent with what you already believe.

No, I am not rejecting evolution because it conflicts with my beliefs about the supernatural. What I am rejecting is the certitude that it is not just a theory. I’ve already told you how I’ve reconciled my beliefs of the supernatural and evolution. As I’ve said before, evolution may indeed be the tool God used to create us, but until I can say for sure that is true… evolution is JUST a theory. Why is that such a big deal to people that they have to tell me that I’m denying or rejecting evolution?

Smmtheory,
If I say, it’s possible that gravity is a universal inverse-square law between masses, but I’m not sure, then I could also say I’m not rejecting the fact of gravity, I just consider it an unproven theory.
However, that doesn’t really make any sense from a scientist’s point of view. The law of gravity is a proven fact of nature, not just a theory. If I consider it to be an “unproven theory”, I’m just revealing my ignorance about what the law of gravity really is.
Likewise with your dismissal of evolution as an unproven theory, as opposed to a fact.
On the other hand, if you wanted to dismiss the theory of evolution through natural selection as unproven, you would be on firmer ground. A scientist would probably still think you’re hopelessly ignorant, but he wouldn’t necessarily think you’re confused about what a scientific theory, as opposed to a scientific fact, is.
And the truth is, you’re skeptical about evolution because of your religious beliefs. If evolution had nothing to do with religion, you’d have no reason to bother thinking about it other than as in interesting fact about nature.
The reason I’m stubborn about this point is because evolution is so well established, you might as well be arguing against gravity, or the evaporation of water, or the theory of electric currents. Sometimes it really is possible to be just plain wrong about something, and you’ve succeeded in doing so.
Respectfully,
Matthew

Indeed, tackling materialism has a number of uncomfortable implications that I don’t think theologians want to deal with, like what is the connection between the material and spiritual, and how does God interact materially? Just to name two off the top of my head.
Try as a I might, I just don’t see this as a problem for Christian theologians. I can’t speak for other religions, but the story of Christianity is how God interacts with Man. I really think this is a bigger problem for materialists, because materialists act is if there is an objective morality, but one can’t exist in a strictly material world.
The issue is not about the science, the issue is about some Christian’s inability to reconcile their theology with the findings of science.
I can’t speak for other Christians but my problem with materialism is not that I can’t reconcile the science, I have no problem with it. What I can’t reconcile is the existence of any sort of objective morality in a strictly material world.

Ucfengr,
I would like to address your objection to materialism on the grounds of a lack of objective morality.
Unfortunately, I don’t have time this weekend to give a full response due, ironically, to the Easter holiday. (We celebrate pagan/atheistic versions of Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, and so on in our home. “Saint” Patrick’s Day we celebrate as a kind of Irish wake for the demise of traditional Celtic/Druidic folkways.)
Very short answer: morality is the only logical way to deal with other people, and that is true due both to objective logic and objective facts about people and our world.
Now logic will never be good enough for some people, so the logical moralists will need to enforce their morality on those who, for various reasons, decline to comply or participate, but that is not an insurmountable problem.
Happy Easter, friend and sensei!

Try as a I might, I just don’t see this as a problem for Christian theologians.

Its a problem when they claim that God is materially provable. If you don’t hold to that, then this isn’t a problem for you, like I said, there are different camps on this issue, and I admitted that I oversimplified it for the sake of brevity. I realize there is a lot more nuance to this, than what can be but in a relatively short post.

I can’t speak for other Christians but my problem with materialism is not that I can’t reconcile the science, I have no problem with it. What I can’t reconcile is the existence of any sort of objective morality in a strictly material world.

Hey, that’s ok. We can agree to disagree on that point. But, for many Christians it goes further than that. They submit that God’s works be visible, and that they must be distinguishable from materialist observation (what the difference is between a materialist and non-materialist observation is lost me, but that seems to be the position that is held).

Ucfengr,
Well, I’m not sure why it doesn’t address your objection. You’ll have to expand on that a little.
But assuming you are correct, and that I have not addressed your objection, then it might be the case that materialism cannot supply an objective morality by your definition of objective morality.
If that is the case, then the only way I know to reply to your objection is to assert the truth of materialism, and the falsity of non-materialism. Which means that any “objective morality” which is based on non-materialism is also false.
And if that means, in your view, that no objective morality is possible, than so be it. We don’t get to create the world according to our preferences, we need to accept it as it is or live in denial.
Of course, the other possibility is that I could be wrong about materialism, so of course feel free to pick that option :)
All the best,
Matthew

Who claims that?

Creationists do. That’s what the whole evolution/creationism debate is about. What’s more, when these folks are really being honest, they even admit that they think they can better spread their faith if they can get those pesky scientists out of the way that are trying to force them to follow the ground rules of science. The invention of ID is predicated on the idea that they can jimmy the rules in order to allow their brand of theology into the scientific process without any critical inquiry.

When I came to Christ, I had faith that He was who He said He was, and that the Bible was the inspired word of God. As I walked with Him, I became certain of those things. They no longer are just articles of faith, but I am certain of their truth.
I, too, have no fear of death, as God says that things will be good in heaven, and I believe that whatever heaven holds for me will be more than enough. What I do sometimes fear, though, is the PROCESS of dying. But that is all in God’s hands. He will not give me more than He gives me the grace to handle.

Creationists do.
You really need to be more specific.
What’s more, when these folks are really being honest, they even admit that they think they can better spread their faith if they can get those pesky scientists out of the way that are trying to force them to follow the ground rules of science.
How about naming some names here, maybe providing some quotes. I am not going to say these people don’t exist, but I have been a Christian for 20+ years and attended several different churches in several states and I have yet to meet anyone like this. In my experience this is one of those things more militant atheists like to believe because it allows them to more easily dismiss religious believers as nuts and cranks.

How can you tell the difference between behaving as if there were an objective morality and behaving as if one was raised in a society with norms, rules, laws, etc.?
All societies have norms, rules, and laws, but many don’t agree with yours. Not to pick on Muslims, but in Muslim societies, even ones in the West it is moral, and even legal to kill a daughter whose has brought “dishonor” on her family, by dating outside the religion, dating the wrong person, or leaving Islam. Do you have a problem with that? If you do, you must appeal to an authority other than man, because men created both standards.

Certainty does not necessarily equal truth, but truth when believed will exhibit certainty

Matthew Goggin: “Best authority: a weighted amalgam of all available authorities.
…
For example, I would put the U.S. Constitution and associated jurisprudence on the list below human experience and above the Bible.”
Matthew, thanks for responding in #57. Actually, your best authority is still human reasoning. You elevate your decision-making faculties, human reasoning, to the top in deciding which ultimate authority to use for final appeal.
Also, I don’t mind where you put the Bible in your ranking list. I appreciate the honesty.
I put the Bible #1. And if my reasoning or my experience contradicts Scripture, then I submit to Scripture.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.” – Bertrand Russell
Russell went on to add that he was uncertain as to the truth of his statement but that it sounded good and would be useful in stilted arguments against “the stupid who believe all things said with a British accent.” He was reasonably certain of that last bit.

“It’s the outrage that is the tip off.”
Let’s try another scenario: I awaken and walk to the crib of my infant daughter to find that my boa constrictor has escaped from his cage and crushed the child. He is now trying to get his jaws around her head. If you saw my response to this sight, you would swear it was moral outrage. If you saw me take the snake to the tub and cut it into little pieces, you would be certain I felt that the snake had done wrong. Of course that would not be the case. What you would be witnessing is my response to the horror of the situation. I would be angry at the snake, but my anger would be irrational and more properly directed at myself for not providing a safer environment for my infant daughter (don’t worry–I have neither snake nor baby these days).
Outrage is not always moral outrage; it can be a reaction to horror.
In the case of the Muslim honor killing, it would be both horror and moral outrage. When we are taught our morals, our parents don’t say “Some people think that killing one’s chaild is wrong.” They are presented to us as truths, like the existence of God or that Jesus died for our sins. I think it is understandable if people act as if that is the case even when they do not believe that to be the case.
When I feel strongly that something is wrong, it is often hard for me to believe that another human being does not. I instinctively feel a high dgree of commonality in the human experience: we all laugh and cry at the same things, more or less.
There is an objective component to morality, as Matthew occasionally points out with his usual grace and precision. Still, I feel that morality can only be seen as subjective, since I feel objectivity denotes something more than social evolution and shared values.
Have a nice Easter, everyone; I’m off to see Mom and Dad.

TUD:
No, you don’t. You have, on this thread, shown yourself to be unworthy of further response.

Rob,
Your response was expected and predictable.

“The narrow-mindedness, not the violent murder of another human being bothers you more?”
Re-read my comment. The manifestation of narrow-mindedness, the murder, is what I call horrible. “Narrow-mindedness” is just an object of a preposition, not the subject.
I hope you really missed that and aren’t trying to suggest that I am more horrified by narrow-mindedness than murder.

I didn’t say my morals were superior. I said, “Of course I think my morals are superior. So do you. So does every person. If we thought otherwise, we would change them.” See? The word “think” signals that I am expressing an OPINION.
So, if I understand you, you are admitting that you have no rational basis for your belief in your own moral superiority, which has been my argument all along. Atheists claim not to believe in an objective morality, but behave as if there is one. In other words, you appeal to an authority that you don’t believe in. You are like the the young bride who cut the end off the ham; doing things without understanding why.

Another heads up:
I’ve written another comment that is being held for moderation.

Phase, I don’t know who Duane Gish is; as to Dembski and Johnson, I think their influence among the Christian community is overstated. News outlets like to cover conflict and shows like “Crossfire” (is that show still on) and “Hannity and Colmes” thrive on exactly this type of conflict, so they probably get a lot more airplay than is representative of the actual impact they have. Those shows also like to provide strong contrasts, so while the real issues are probably more nuanced, you wouldn’t get that from watching them.

Now, presumably, you consider everyone, yourself included, to be a hopeless sinner.
True. The only distinction is whether one hopeless sinner is forgiven by repenting of his/her sins, accepting the shed blood of Jesus Christ and receiving Jesus as his/her Lord and Savior, while the other one has not.
Let’s assume that you are correct to assume that Rob, specifically, is a sinner. Well, how you do know that he is unrepentant?
Well, I would be quite happy to be wrong on that score. I hope he is repentant of his sins and has come to a saving faith and trust in Jesus as his Lord and Savior.
I would assume just the opposite. I would assume that whenever Rob sins, he would regret it and make whatever amends that would be appropriate under the circumstances.
I don’t know the basis you have for making that assumption. Let’s ask him. Rob, do you know what sin is according to the Bible? If so, do you admit that you’re a sinner according to the Bible? Do you regret your sins? Have you made amends for your sins that are appropriate for the circumstances?
I think you are using rude language when you describe him as an “unrepentant sinner”, and you are not justified in doing so.
I humbly disagree. If telling the truth is considered rude in today’s postmodern society, then so be it, I am a rude truth-teller.
Now I guess you could say that not believing in God is a sin against God, and Rob does not repent [of] that particular sin. But in the context of the discussion, the inference you are making is much stronger than that.
I’m unclear as to what you’re stating.
So if you did indeed just mean to say he is unrepentant in his unbelief, then you either being dishonest or sloppy in your choice of words. In either case, you are still being impolite.
False antithesis. I am honest and precise. Regardless of a subjective perception that I am being impolite, the objective truth remains.
I think you would agree that Rob is a good guy and a worthy debater.
Preliminary data shows otherwise.
He deserves better.
He deserves the Truth. The Living Truth loves him and desires that Rob and all others not currently following Him, to become disciples of His.

They don’t question these supposed authority figures enought to realize what these people are pushing.
Your characterization of “these people” as liars, charlatans, and peddlers of misinformation without giving specific examples of these “lies” reeks of demagoguery.

I wrote a response to you but I need to edit it heavily because I didn’t read your exchanges with Rob. So I’m going to have to beg off again for a while.
Sorry! Later again, sir.
Sorry to make you do double work, Matt.

Other article on atheism and morality can be found here:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/nontheism/atheism/ground-morality.html
Atheists and many philosophers in general are split on whether objective morality exists. Although I believe in objective morality, even those who claim that morality is subjective have convincing arguments regarding norms for ethical behavior in human society.
Question for ucfengr: Is torture an objective moral wrong? How do you know?

Is torture an objective moral wrong? How do you know?
I think you are confusing “moral absolutism” with “moral objectivism”. Moral objectivism allows for context, moral absolutism doesn’t, so a moral objectivist could allow for torture to be morally acceptable under certain circumstances (i.e. the ticking bomb scenario), while an absolutist would take a position that it is always wrong no matter what the circumstances.

Under what situations is torture (or causing pain with no resulting benefit to that person) acceptable? You seem to be saying that it is acceptable only when it prevents pain to others. Is that right?
I don’t know that I accept your definition of torture, the definition of pain is pretty broad and covers quite a lot. For example I would consider listening to an entire Helen Reddy CD quite painful;). Accepting your definition for the moment, I probably wouldn’t go that far, but I can see where it could be acceptable to save innocent lives, i.e. preventing a terrorist from carrying out an attack or attacks. I guess you could call me a “graded absolutist” in that I believe protecting innocent human life is the highest moral calling. So while I believe that torture is wrong in most cases, I have a moral obligation to use it if it were to come into conflict with the higher moral calling of protecting innocent life.

“I believe protecting innocent human life is the highest moral calling”
So would you have obeyed Joshua’s command to kill with the sword all the men, women and children of a Canaanite village?

I know that infants and children (including unborn children) are usually considered innocent, even by Christians.

No, I am not admitting any such thing. “Rational” is not the same thing as “objective”. Do you mean to imply that opinions cannot have a rational basis?
You haven’t given any indication that your’s do, Rob. You have made two main arguments regarding your morals, one is that you think your’s are superior because everybody thinks their’s are superior. That’s nice, but it isn’t really rational. Didn’t your mother caution you against jumping off a bridge, just because all your friends did? The second argument is that you have your morals because those are the morals that your society conditioned you to have. That doesn’t seem to indicate you have put any thoughts into your morals; you merely accept them because your parents (or your society, or your culture) told you to. Again, I refer you to the story of the lady and the ham. You are doing the same thing, following the morals of your ancestors without ever putting any thought into whether the situation still applies.
I know that infants and children (including unborn children) are usually considered innocent, even by Christians.
Yes, they usually are. So, given my understanding of the “nature of God”, I must assume that there is more to the story than what we read in Joshua. Why didn’t God see fit to include that in the story, you might ask? I don’t know.

This is for Believers. God is awesome. He makes correct judgments. It is his nature. IF he calls something bad it is. We don’t have that right. God who demonstrated his love through the incarnation and everything that follows is the only Judge of guilt. What happen in Canaan if decided by me would have been wrong. I don’t have enough of anything to make that decision. As the children in Narnia said he is not a tame Lion, but he is good. The nature of evil is so black that we can not comprehend its fruit, but Canaan had arrived at some awful place that judgment was the only plan for the whole culture.
Unbelievers: Since the human heart is as the Bible says then these people forming their own conclusions about ethics are deceiving themselves and acting like there is no Judge. They best seek Mercy at the foot of the cross while they can with the rest of us.

You blog was just recommended to me by a friend and I wanted to tell you how much I’ve enjoyed your posts. I look forward to diving into the conversation.
While I’m not as “certain” about some aspects of my beliefs, and as a pastor believe it’s healthy to share those feelings with those I serve, I am encouraged by your perspective. Thanks for sharing.
Brian Jones
http://www.brianjones.com

Truth U.& D.,
Rob is someone you don’t know. You have described him as an unrepentant sinner. I brought this to your attention, and I mentioned that I thought this was both unfair and rude. Your response was to taunt Rob and challenge him again in even stronger terms.
You said that the only way he can repent is through acknowledging Jesus as his Saviour, even though he denies that Jesus is God or that God even exists.
I disagree very strongly with your insistence that he acknowledge Jesus as his Lord and Saviour.
Let’s say I meet you in a dark alley and I hold a gun to your head and say, “I love you, I am your Saviour, worship me or suffer the consequences.” What should your response be?
I strongly hope that you would try to frustrate me by any means possible, and, naturally, I certainly expect that you would.
If you didn’t do that – if instead you submitted to my will and started to worship me – then I would not say your biggest problem is that you are an unrepentant sinner who needs my redemption. I would say your biggest problem is that you are easily intimidated into going against your better judgement.
However, if you want to relate to Jesus in that way, it’s not really any of my business. Just leave Rob out of it, please. He was just trying to engage you in a civil debate. If he offended you, then perhaps you could just agree to disagree and be done with it.
Perhaps this is not the most diplomatic stand I could have about all this, but I don’t like the way you’ve treated Rob, and it’s not fair to him to pretend you didn’t disrespect him. And more to the point, by claiming you need Jesus’ saving grace to live a good life, it seems to me that you are disrespecting yourself.
If the Bible and your church lend you valuable spiritual support, then more power to them and to you. But I hope you can find a way to make your religion work without demeaning yourself in the same way that you demeaned Rob. If Jesus saved you, it’s because you are worth saving, not because you are unworthy of it without him.
At least, that’s how I see it. If you want to avoid sin and do good works, please try to understand that you have the strength and the character to do that. Because it is true, whether you realize it or not.
Cheers,
Matthew
Smmtheory,
You raise good questions about evolution and about the fossil record. If I had enough time, I would be inclined to answer them all in great detail and try to help you understand why evolution is true.
Since I don’t have enough time, I will pass. If you are interested in the answers, however, you could do research on them yourself by surfing the internet for about an hour or so. Let me know what you find if you do.
Ucfengr,
As you point out, materialists experience outrage, and shame and guilt for that matter, as if they believed in a higher moral order.
Rob points out that this is a psychological or reflexive response more than a thought-out intellectual stand. You point out that without some objective way to weigh rival moral claims, we have de facto moral anarchy and no way of honestly asserting the superiority of one claim over another.
Outrage is an emotional response that says, “Pay attention to my moral claim, right now!” Guilt is an emotional response that says we have neglected the moral claim of another person or persons. And shame is an emotional response that mixes guilt with embarassment. None of these feelings are entirely rational, unless we have a way of judging one person’s moral claims against another’s.
(Note: Christians themselves are often guilty of emotions that would appear to be somewhat irrational in a world ruled by an all-benevolent, omnipotent God. Two examples would be fear of death, or any kind of despair.)
So, in a materialistic world, is there a way to adjudicate competing moral claims or beliefs?
I would say, yes, very much so.
Morals are based upon the objective facts of pleasure and happiness, and pain and suffering. The basic moral imperatives are to help people and to avoid hurting people.
Perhaps not every person in the world would agree with me, but some people think the world is flat, and perhaps there are others who think 2 + 2 = 5. We don’t let those people define what geography and mathematics are about.
Why is “help, and don’t harm” a moral imperative? Because in 99 out of 100 situations (more like 999,999 out of a million situations), that is exactly how a person would insist that other people treat him/herself. My moral imperatives don’t have the force of an edict from the almighty creator; but neither do they need such a divine warrant.
If apples fall from trees, or if hot water evaporates and cold water freezes, that will be true whether God exists or not, whether the Bible is true, or just partially true, or the work of Satan himself.
Now people are free to ignore moral imperatives if they choose. But once again, that is true whether we live in a materialistic universe or not.
I concede that in a materialistic universe, good people do not go to heaven and bad people do not go to hell. If you can’t accept that, we will not be able to disagree, but I, as always, respect your disagreement and salute your strong moral sense.

(Note: Christians themselves are often guilty of emotions that would appear to be somewhat irrational in a world ruled by an all-benevolent, omnipotent God. Two examples would be fear of death, or any kind of despair.)

Guilty of emotions? Never. All emotions are irrational, all of the time. Guilty of how we react to those emotions? Maybe. By extension, morals cannot be based on emotions or feelings like pleasure, happiness, displeasure or unhappiness, only on actions.

Not exactly right. If my actions produce positive emotions or negative emotions, then that has a lot to do with whether or not my actions are right or wrong.

No, it does not. You are no more responsible for other peoples emotions than they are for yours. That is a terrible burden to try to lay on somebody else. Half the problems in all relationships would go away if people stopped trying to hold others responsible for their emotions.

For example, if I am feeling grouchy and I tell a joke for the sole purpose of annoying those around me, then that would be rude and, therefore, mildly immoral.
If, on the other hand, I tell the exact same joke because I know those around me will like it and enjoy it, then that would be a good thing to do.

Your morality example falls apart when you remove the action, in this case telling the joke.

Emotions are not the only consideration. Sometimes emotions can be totally misleading. Sometimes emotions are outweighed by more important factors. But emotions are, nonetheless, a very important part of one’s moral calculus.

And the second sentence is the reason why. Emotions are not reliable. Even if you are trying to annoy somebody with a joke, there is no guarantee that it will annoy the other person.

Of course it does, that is my point. If someone’s action is intended to produce, and does produce, a specific consequence, then the person is responsible for that action and for that consequence.

Now apply that line of reasoning to telling the joke to elicit a positive emotion. Either way, you are trying to manipulate somebody’s emotion, so if one (the intent to annoy) is supposedly immoral, then the other (the intent to cheer) is as well.

Matthew,
‘Making someone happy = good’ and ‘Making someone unhappy = bad’ is useless as a base for moral calculus since by default some things such as disciplining children must always rely on exception consideration.

First of all, those two equations aren’t even true unless all other things are equal. What does that mean? It means, in this particular example, that the only moral variable involved is happiness versus unhappiness.

But what I am trying to explain in my clumsy way is that happiness and/or unhappiness is NOT a moral variable, because feelings are neither good nor bad.

Secondly, those two equations, even when they are true, are not the basis of morality. The basic moral imperatives are “Help people” and “Don’t hurt people”.

Even those are not particularly solid as moral imperatives, not when you have to qualify them. The highest moral imperatives are as Jesus said, the first (which you obviously do not adhere to) is “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.” The second, which also does not need any qualification is “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” In this case, the word ‘love’ is being used as a verb.
If it seems as if my skepticism meter is stuck on reject, it is because I am certain that I am right about this.

A few thoughts on the clumsy or arkward nature of the conversation…
We are not used to thinking about morality in terms of analyzing a given situation and weighing all the factors. The only time we might normally approach things that way is when confronted with a genuine moral dilemma, and we have to focus more carefully about what is going on under the surface.
The way we usually do morality is to recognize that there exist various moral truths and principles (which can vary a bit from culture to culture). These moral truths can seem absolute and intrinsic to reality, but our belief in them is actually the result of a combination of instinct, moral instruction during our youth, and the trial and error of personal experience.
We can develop good character or bad character depending on how much we make a habit out of adhering or declining to adhere to these truths/principles. Then our actions and our decisions will tend to flow naturally from our character, without a whole lot of conscious dickering over what happens to be right or wrong or good and bad.
What I am trying to do with my two moral imperatives (help people, and avoid hurting people), is to respond to Ucfengr’s objection that a non-divine morality is not objective, where “not objective” refers to the apparent fact that there is no way to resolve a moral conflict by appealing to a higher authority than one’s own personal preferences. I admit that my way of treating morality is not the most natural way of looking at things, but it does have several virtues.
For one, I believe it corresponds to what actually happens in the real world, as opposed to what one might be taught in a catechism or a madrassa.
It also does provide a reasonable way out of the problem of conflicting or competing moral claims. It does this by providing two basic moral principles that can be used to deconstruct, evaluate, and weigh any moral claims that might be under consideration.
Finally, it is itself based upon the truly great wisdom of all the world’s major religions, the Golden Rule.
So, however unnatural my perspective might seem to you or Ucfengr, or to anyone else, it does serve to provide a common ground that people who don’t share the same cultural traditions can relate and agree to. Even someone raised in a gangsta’ ghetto culture can admit the reasonableness of “help, don’t hurt”, and understand why people should agree to abide by it.

Smm,
Now remove any emotional inflection/overtones what ever they may be. The action of calling to speak to you is the moral, the loving act; letting you know that you are worth a little while of her time. Do you sit and ponder what her true intention was? I don’t imagine that you do, but I’m just using that as an example.
Two points:
1) Her true intention does matter.
She could have called on a morally neutral point of household business. She could have because she was angry about something and wanted to make me feel bad. Or she could have about something else with the intention to make me happy, or happier. Each intention puts a different moral value on the act of her calling me.
2) If letting me know that I am worth a little of her time is what makes the act moral (and of course, that is part of it), isn’t that because it improves my mood, my emotion. After all, I know darn well that I am worth a little of her time. The reason the call makes me better is because it serves to remind me of something I already know and to thereby improve my mood.
Which looks to me like you are limiting what love means in practice… sort of allowing yourself to exclude the ickier, more dicey things when it comes to loving neighbors if you can limit it to refraining from hurting them. By this you token you can claim to have loved them simply by avoiding any interaction with them.
The two moral imperatives go together. One must help and one must avoid hurting people. One without the other does not cut it.
Unless you exclude Islam (and by extension all the religions that practiced some form of human sacrifice) from the classification of ‘all the world’s major religions’, I don’t think that the Golden Rule is a common denominator of all the world’s major religions.
Islam has it’s own form of the Golden Rule. And every religion that I’ve come across has some variant on it. Some religions and traditions’ version are very similar in wording to the Bible’s.
If Islam and other religions leave the infidel out of the scope of their own some Golden Rule, then that is similar to what Christians used to believe until not so long ago.
If Christians can learn to embrace a Golden Rule that includes everyone, including non-Christians, then that is a very good indication that fundamentalists in other religions could do the same.
Do you have an answer to my question about loving God? In terms of one’s interactions with one’s fellow humans, is loving God covered by the Golden Rule, or is something else involved?
And here’s another question: Do you really believe that an orchestra performing a beautiful symphony is not a deeply moral act? If it is a moral act, is it not because of the emotions and pleasure inspired in the audience?

1) Her true intention does matter.
She could have called on a morally neutral point of household business. She could have because she was angry about something and wanted to make me feel bad. Or she could have about something else with the intention to make me happy, or happier. Each intention puts a different moral value on the act of her calling me.

Not really, because how you feel about her expressing her anger with you is an emotion, which is neither good nor bad, and you shouldn’t hold her responsible for your feelings. In calling you up and expressing her anger, or joy or other emotion with you she is making herself vulnerable to you. And that is an aspect that doesn’t fit into your version of the Golden Rule, but does fit into my version.

But what does it mean here on earth? What specifically, besides praying, does one do to love God?

I wasn’t sure if that was just rhetorical or not. I may have guessed incorrectly. Think of it like this… would you be loving your wife if all you did was talk at her in a one sided conversation? Of course, God is a bit more patient than your wife would ever be in that sort of situation, but that’s the gist of it. God is a real person, not just a radio receiver in the heavens. But at any rate, no, loving God is not fully covered by the Golden Rule… because loving your neighbor does not hold the requirement of ‘with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’

Do you really believe that an orchestra performing a beautiful symphony is not a deeply moral act? If it is a moral act, is it not because of the emotions and pleasure inspired in the audience?

Nope, I can’t wrap my reasoning around it being a deeply moral act. And if I’m wrong, and it really is a deeply moral act, I’m certain it will not be on account of emotions elicited or inspired.

If Islam and some other religions leave the infidel out of the scope of their own Golden Rule, then that is similar to what Christians used to believe until not so long ago.
If Christians can learn to embrace a Golden Rule that includes everyone, including non-Christians, then that is a very good indication that fundamentalists in other religions could do the same.

Not quite, Christians have never in theory excluded infidels from the Golden Rule the way the other religions have. The practice may have been hard to stick to, but the underlying scope of the meaning of neighbor even applied to unbelievers. Now if the stranger removes themself from the scope of being neighbor, well, the Christian can hardly be blamed for the stranger not allowing the theory to be practiced can they?

Smm,
Not really [her intention to make you feel bad doesn't matter], because how you feel about her expressing her anger with you is an emotion, which is neither good nor bad, and you shouldn’t hold her responsible for your feelings.
I didn’t say she actually did make me feel bad. In fact, if she were genuinely angry and trying to make me feel bad, I might very well understand the anger and sympathize with it and not feel put upon at all.
What I am saying is that if her intention is to make me feel bad, then no matter what my response is, then the moral value of her phone call is different (it is worse) than if she intended to make me feel good. You are dancing around this very simple point repeatedly. It is as if you have a blind spot that refuses to let you see or understand that emotions are real phenomenon that exist and are important.
If I steal $100 from you, you would consider that to be an immoral act. But if I steal your peace of mind by stalking you and harassing you, how is that any less of an immoral act?
True, you are responsible for your emotions, but you are also responsible for safeguarding your money.
Nothing is instrinsically a moral phenomenon. If a stone is picked up by a gale and hurled through the air and breaks a window, then that is a morally neutral event. Yet if I pick up a stone and use it to break the same window, that is certainly a(n) (im)moral act.
The same with emotions. If I am happy or unhappy, then that is morally neutral. But if someone acts in order to make me happy or unhappy, then the act has a moral aspect, positive or negative.
In calling you up and expressing her anger, or joy or other emotion with you she is making herself vulnerable to you.
Yes, that should be weighed against any intent to hurt my feelings. And almost all the time, I would probably give it much more weight than any bad intention. So on balance, the bad intention would be outweighed by the good intention of her sharing how she felt and addressing her own personal needs.
But I was discounting that aspect of her phone call for the sake of the example. We could make up another example where the pure motive of someone’s phone call was simply malicious, was simply to cause hurt feelings. But in the example I did give, you are correct, normally such a phone call should be judged with a large dose of indulgence and understanding.
And that is an aspect that doesn’t fit into your version of the Golden Rule, but does fit into my version.
It does fit into my morality, as I explained above. I was just giving an over-simplified example in order to illustrate the underlying principle.
Nope, I can’t wrap my reasoning around it being a deeply moral act. And if I’m wrong, and it really is a deeply moral act, I’m certain it will not be on account of emotions elicited or inspired.
Maybe it would help you understand my point if we further stipulated that the orchestra was composed of volunteers who were not payed for their performances. They just came together and played for the primary purpose of giving pleasure to those who attended their concerts.
If you are indeed certain that the morality of a concert will not be on account of the emotions generated in the audience, then you are deeply, deeply mistaken.
Two comments about the importance of feelings or emotions:
1) Emotions are an important part of morality. Not so much because of the emotions themselves (although the emotions themselves are important). But rather, because they are indicators of how people feel about things and how they evaluate the worth and importance of things.
In that sense, emotions play an analogous role to prices in a free-market economy. They generate signals that tell us to produce more or to produce less of a certain action (and to “consume” more or less of a certain activity).
Emotions are far from infallible or comprehensive, but neither are prices. Your inability to see the importance of emotions is similar in some ways to the way that communist dictatorships were very averse, for a long time, to understanding the importance of market-pricing mechanisms.
2) Emotions are just a small part of morality. Other things are just as important, or much more important.
For example, saving someone’s life is infinitely more important than guarding that person’s feelings while that person is in danger. But even here, one would expect that most people would be extremely happy and grateful to have their life saved, even if it was done in a rough way that was inconvenient, or troubling, or painful.
And as I pointed out in a prior comment, if one believe’s in a Christian afterlife, then the care of one’s immortal soul might be considered more important than a variety of emotional considerations.
In general, emotions will in fact be quite secondary to other, more pressing matters. But producing happiness and alleviating suffering are often the very goals of those other, more pressing matters, so things have a way of coming full circle when it comes to emotions.
If you don’t see that, then it doesn’t make any difference how certain you are, you are still deeply mistaken.
Not quite, Christians have never in theory excluded infidels from the Golden Rule the way the other religions have.
This seems to me to be a tangent to the discussion. I’m willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that Christianity puts the Golden Rule in a more central place than other religions, and that, in theory at least, it has included infidels of every stripe within the scope of its applicability.
On the other hand, until the late nineteenth century, it was a point of Roman Catholic doctrine, shared by many other denominations, that un-believers, folks who weren’t baptized, would be condemned to hell. Even pre-Christian pagans, like Plato and Socrates, who had never been preached the Gospels, would be consigned to hell, or at least limbo.
In theory, that has almost nothing to do with the Golden Rule: a person’s salvation or damnation is a personal matter between that person and God. But in practice, how is a Christian supposed treat his dammed, unbelieving neighbor with the same love as he does himself, when the Christian knows that his unbelieving neighbor is going to hell? This is testing human psychology to the breaking point, and I strongly suspect that most Christians would have failed the test.
Now if the stranger removes themself from the scope of being neighbor, well, the Christian can hardly be blamed for the stranger not allowing the theory to be practiced can they?
There’s a lot I could say about this, because this is a very interesting aspect of morality. But I think we’ve already got a lot to chew on and digest.
Ucfengr,
… I may try to respond, but with so much and my generally lazy nature, I am not optimistic.
Actually, you did just respond :)
Don’t call yourself lazy. Perhaps you are indeed motivationally challenged, but I would guess it’s more likely you just know how to set priorities.
If you call yourself lazy, you might hurt your feelings, and that would be bad ;)
Good day to you and Smm,
Matthew

Empathy is the ability to identify or sense what another person is feeling. It is like seeing through someone else’ s eyes. Empathy should not be confused with compassion, which is the desire to alleviate the suffering of another, and sometimes contains empathy, but really goes beyond it. You can act compassionately even when you do not empathize with a person’ s emotional state or situation.