Bertrand Russell

[Leela]

Please define your usage of “human flourishing.”

I wouldn’t ever want to proscribe a static definition for human flourishingt, well-being, eudaimonia, etc. Defining it is part of the ongoing process of achieving it. To define it as a set of codified rules such as the Hebrew Law would be to put contraints on the possibility that our future can be better. Better than we can even imagine. Certainly our society today is one beyond the inmaginationof the ancient Hebrews, and we no longer shoulod follow their regulations about selling our daughters into slavery, keeping the disfigured out of our temples, and wearing fabrics of two different types. We should’t let our current lack of imagination constrain our future anymore tham the Hebrew law should constrain our present.

Let me say more about the distinction between these two views about morality. The difference between liberal pragmatism and conservative orthodoxy when seen from the liberal perspective is that morality is not so much about what we should forbid, but who we should open ourselves up to and how we can better meet their needs. The movie fable Chocolat starring Juliette Binoche and Johnny Depp illustrates the difference in these ethics when the young priest near the end of the movie tells his pious congregation:

“I think we can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we don’t do - by
what we deny ourselves, what we resist and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to
measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create and who we include.”

From the orthodox perspective, pragmatists who don’t approach inquiry with the desire to understand the world so much as to change the world are putting the cart before the horse. But liberal pragmatists don’t think the future needs to be very much constrained by the present.

While Christians hope for escape from the world into another realm after death, pragmatists see that we have been able to make our present in this world better than our past and have hope for an even better world for our grandchildren in the future. Christianity reifies a concept of perfection–of what is meant by human flourshing–in the person of Jesus, while the pragmatists, as described by Richard Rorty, thinks “the present is a transitional stage to something which might, with luck, be unimaginably better” and favors “production of the novel over contemplation of the eternal.” Reifying Perfection puts undue limits on our imaginations. Rorty explains the importance of imagination:

“…we see both intellectual and moral progress not as a matter of getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right, but as an increase in imaginative power. We see imagination as the cutting edge of cultural evolution, the power which–given peace and prosperity–constantly operates so as to make the human future richer than the human past. Imagination is the source of new scientific pictures of the physical universe and of new conceptions of possible communities. It is what Newton and Christ, Freud and Marx, had in common: the ability to redescribe the familiar in unfamiliar terms…”

Christian theology includes holding up an ideal standard of the perfect human being for us to aspire to, while simultaneously teaching that we can never actually achieve our aspiration. Pragmatists substitute for the goal of unachievable Christian perfection the goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present. Pragmatists don’t agree that we have any idea of what the perfect human being is like and doubt that such a concept is good to put static contrainsts upon. We note that without knowledge of what perfection is, we would never know if we have achieved it anyway. Pragmatists and Christians agree that human perfection is an unachievable goal but disagree about whether an unachievable goal is a good goal to have. Christians claim to have knowledge, but pragmatists like Rorty who are skeptical of the possibility of grounding our knowledge claims would like to “substitute hope for knowledge.” He urges us to change the subject of conversation from whether we have a philosophical grounding for our beliefs to whether we have been imaginative enough to come up with good alternatives to our current beliefs that we can use to transform our present into a richer future.

Rorty again:

“…what [pragmatists] hope is not that the future will conform to a plan, will fulfil an immanent teology, but rather that the future will astonish and exhilarate. Just as the fans of the avant garde go to art galleries wanting to be astounded rather than hoping to have any particular expectation fulfilled…”

He claims that traditional philosophy, and I would add theology, “has been an attempt to lend the past the prestige of the eternal.” A view of inquiry as seeking eternal truths puts undue limits on our imagination of possibilities for the future, while it is human creative endeavor that offers a hope of a better future where people progress morally in seeing one another as also themselves.

Best,
Leela

 

[tonyrey]

Christian theology includes holding up an ideal standard of the perfect human being for us to aspire to, while simultaneously teaching that we can never actually achieve our aspiration. Pragmatists substitute for the goal of unachievable Christian perfection the goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present.

A lukewarm approach to life is doomed to mediocrity. To pursue perfection is the only way to make the most of our talents. It beckons us like a star with its beauty:

“Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what’s a heaven for?”

 

[d_erford]

Hello, Leela. I apologize for editing your statements, but I went over the letter limit. I hope I did not change their meaning in any way.

“I think we can’t go around measuring our goodness by what we don’t do - by
what we deny ourselves, what we resist and who we exclude. I think we’ve got to
measure goodness by what we embrace, what we create and who we include.”

Note, though, that a resistance to one thing is an embrace of another. I may resist the lure of pornography because I embrace the desire to have a pure heart. The “rules” of the Catholic Church are in place because we wish to achieve and embrace a better life (and afterlife) for everyone.

[L]iberal pragmatists don’t think the future needs to be very much constrained by the present.

Orthodox Christians only feel it should be constrained by the eternal “Present” that God and His objective goodness are in, not necessarily present fads, etc.

While Christians hope for escape from the world into another realm after death, pragmatists… have hope for an even better world for our grandchildren in the future… [P]ragmatists, as described by Richard Rorty, thinks “the present is a transitional stage to something which might, with luck, be unimaginably better” and favors “production of the novel over contemplation of the eternal.”

These views are not mutually exclusive. Christians yearn for Heaven, but realize there is work to be done here on Earth, to work and “hope for an even better world for our grandchildren in the future.” The difference, as Rorty points out, is that Christians feel this can be better accomplished through contemplation of God’s eternal plan.

Reifying Perfection puts undue limits on our imaginations. Rorty explains the importance of imagination:

“…we see both intellectual and moral progress not as a matter of getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right, but as an increase in imaginative power. We see imagination as the cutting edge of cultural evolution, the power which–given peace and prosperity–constantly operates so as to make the human future richer than the human past.”

Without the goal of “getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right,” you cannot actually say any point in time is “richer” or “better” than any other because those terms are defined differently by different people. Abortion and contraception place a negative value on life, but it is seen as progress, as a “better” world. Hitler’s view was that the world would be “better” without Jews and other races. I disagree with both definitions. Whose perception of a “better” world is right?

Pragmatists substitute for the goal of unachievable Christian perfection the goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present. Pragmatists… note that without knowledge of what perfection is, we would never know if we have achieved it anyway. Pragmatists and Christians agree that human perfection is an unachievable goal but disagree about whether an unachievable goal is a good goal to have.

The “goal of unachievable Christian perfection” and the “goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present” are not mutually exclusive. I cannot reach the perfection of Christ, but in my trying, I continuously improve myself. As PART of that reach for perfection, I am working towards the goal of making the world a better place. The unachievable goal we Christians refer to is only a bad thing if it leads to despair, which leads to inaction or negative actions. If viewed properly, though, it becomes a driving force for making this a better world.

Christians claim to have knowledge, but pragmatists like Rorty who are skeptical of the possibility of grounding our knowledge claims would like to “substitute hope for knowledge.” He urges us to change the subject of conversation from whether we have a philosophical grounding for our beliefs to whether we have been imaginative enough to come up with good alternatives to our current beliefs that we can use to transform our present into a richer future.

If you “substitute hope for knowledge”, how do you “know” that your actions ARE creating a better world? You may always be hoping, but without an idea of if it is working. As before, without a grounding of knowledge, your definitions of “good”, “better”, and “richer” mean nothing. As Christians, we have not only knowledge, but hope as well.

Rorty again:

“…what [pragmatists] hope is not that the future will conform to a plan, will fulfil an immanent teology, but rather that the future will astonish and exhilarate.”

A world that conforms to God’s plan will astonish and exhilarate because He has formed our human natures to be astonished and exhilarated by those things that are created and achieved according to His will.

A view of inquiry as seeking eternal truths puts undue limits on our imagination of possibilities for the future, while it is human creative endeavor that offers a hope of a better future where people progress morally in seeing one another as also themselves.

Best,
Leela

Are limits to imagination such a bad thing? By “limited”, I do not mean that it becomes impossible to imagine certain things, but that we know those imagined scenarios should not be pursued. Would it have been a horrible thing for Hitler’s imagination to have been “limited” by the eternal truth that a holocaust of a race of people is not a good thing? Without an eternal truth, what is your basis for saying that Hitler’s view of a better world is a misguided one? Or do you not believe it is misguided (I have met several pragmatists that feel that way)?

I wish you the best as well.

d_erford

 

[Shike]

Why can’t the Christian ideal of perfection be achieved?

I don’t see why not.

 

[d_erford]

Why can’t the Christian ideal of perfection be achieved?

I don’t see why not.

Hello, Shike.

Your question is a good one and depends on what you mean by perfection. Our human natures were wounded by original sin. While baptism erases original sin, the consequence of an inclination to evil (concupiscence) still exists. So if you define perfection as being like Jesus who may have been tempted but does not have the same wound of concupiscence that we do, then perfection is unattainable because of our wounded human natures. If you mean perfection as getting to a point where you do not sin, it may be very, very, very difficult to achieve (and only through the grace of God), but perhaps not unachievable.

In my answer, I was referring to the first definition of perfection. I hope that helps clear up a little of what I meant.

God bless!
d_erford

 

[antunesaa]

Why can’t the Christian ideal of perfection be achieved?

I don’t see why not.

Yes, the saints supposedly achieved it in certain moments (or most moments) of their lives. That’s why they’re saints.

 

[antunesaa]

Hello, Leela. I apologize for editing your statements, but I went over the letter limit. I hope I did not change their meaning in any way.

Note, though, that a resistance to one thing is an embrace of another. I may resist the lure of pornography because I embrace the desire to have a pure heart. The “rules” of the Catholic Church are in place because we wish to achieve and embrace a better life (and afterlife) for everyone.

Orthodox Christians only feel it should be constrained by the eternal “Present” that God and His objective goodness are in, not necessarily present fads, etc.

These views are not mutually exclusive. Christians yearn for Heaven, but realize there is work to be done here on Earth, to work and “hope for an even better world for our grandchildren in the future.” The difference, as Rorty points out, is that Christians feel this can be better accomplished through contemplation of God’s eternal plan.

Without the goal of “getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right,” you cannot actually say any point in time is “richer” or “better” than any other because those terms are defined differently by different people. Abortion and contraception place a negative value on life, but it is seen as progress, as a “better” world. Hitler’s view was that the world would be “better” without Jews and other races. I disagree with both definitions. Whose perception of a “better” world is right?

The “goal of unachievable Christian perfection” and the “goal of the hope that our future can be better than our present” are not mutually exclusive. I cannot reach the perfection of Christ, but in my trying, I continuously improve myself. As PART of that reach for perfection, I am working towards the goal of making the world a better place. The unachievable goal we Christians refer to is only a bad thing if it leads to despair, which leads to inaction or negative actions. If viewed properly, though, it becomes a driving force for making this a better world.

If you “substitute hope for knowledge”, how do you “know” that your actions ARE creating a better world? You may always be hoping, but without an idea of if it is working. As before, without a grounding of knowledge, your definitions of “good”, “better”, and “richer” mean nothing. As Christians, we have not only knowledge, but hope as well.

A world that conforms to God’s plan will astonish and exhilarate because He has formed our human natures to be astonished and exhilarated by those things that are created and achieved according to His will.

Are limits to imagination such a bad thing? By “limited”, I do not mean that it becomes impossible to imagine certain things, but that we know those imagined scenarios should not be pursued. Would it have been a horrible thing for Hitler’s imagination to have been “limited” by the eternal truth that a holocaust of a race of people is not a good thing? Without an eternal truth, what is your basis for saying that Hitler’s view of a better world is a misguided one? Or do you not believe it is misguided (I have met several pragmatists that feel that way)?

I wish you the best as well.

d_erford

I mostly agree with your post. Leela’s view of an “heaven on earth” is the graal sought after by so many people in the distant and recent past… Communism was just that. Hitler at some point said something like: “Our enemy is Ultramontanism, much more than Communism. For the latter promises heaven on earth, which of course we all know is unattainable, but the former promises heaven in the afterlife, so its much harder to fight.” The dictator understood the power of the supernatural and thought it was possible to overcome it. It wasn’t and it won’t be.

 

[sauce]

Decent post, Leela.

I am convinced that there is no Utopia because of concupiscence.

All we have to do is take a look around. Only little children are worth defending.
There are many philosophical dialects. I understand how attractive they are, but
unless we’ve had the opportunity to really learn these dialects, we risk the chance
of becoming Babelites.

iPhones and Blackberrys don’t improve communication. When a person
is texting or twittering while crossing the street or driving a car, someone is gonna get hurt.
We fail to be “mindful.” We’re so busy trying to get it all in. (What’s so important?)

We fail to do what’s right in front of us. And we fail to do it well.

King Lear still has something to tell us. The wisdom we seek can only be found in
adversity.

Regards

 

[Leela]

A lukewarm approach to life is doomed to mediocrity. To pursue perfection is the only way to make the most of our talents. It beckons us like a star with its beauty:

You are missing my point. You and other conservatives are asking, what is so wrong with setting high standards? Just because we know that some people will fail to meet the standard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t set a clear standard. Pragmatists answer, I wouldn’t say that your standard is too high so much as too orthodox. It is an attempt to make our historical practices eternal and a limit to the imagination for possibilities of an even better future.

If we actually can say that we have the end in mind for what perfection is, then there would be nothing wrong with pursuing it. But I don’t think we can imagine what would make for a perfect society in, say, the 25th century. What makes you think that you know what perfection is any better than any other past culture that has tried to define it? That’s meant to be a rhetorical question. Of course you have your reasons for thinking so, and of course I don’t but them for a second, and its not worth pursuing here. But from my perspective it is like asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal. It is making the good the enemy of the better. It is granting our current ideas about human flourishing the undeserved prestige of the eternal. The first step in opening our imaginatioins to “the better” is to learn the lesson of history that we are probably not already in possession of “the best.” But if you think that God has spoken to you and told you what is best now and forever,that you have some special access to “the truth,” then we’ll continue to talk passed one another on issues like this.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

“Without the goal of “getting closer to the True or the Good or the Right,” you cannot actually say any point in time is “richer” or “better” than any other because those terms are defined differently by different people. Abortion and contraception place a negative value on life, but it is seen as progress, as a “better” world. Hitler’s view was that the world would be “better” without Jews and other races. I disagree with both definitions. Whose perception of a “better” world is right?”

It is no use talking about “geting closer to the Truth.” If you already have the truth, then there is no way to get any closer to it. If you don’t already possess the truth, then there is no way to know if you’ve gotten any closer to it.

“If you “substitute hope for knowledge”, how do you “know” that your actions ARE creating a better world? You may always be hoping, but without an idea of if it is working. As before, without a grounding of knowledge, your definitions of “good”, “better”, and “richer” mean nothing. As Christians, we have not only knowledge, but hope as well.”

As you can guess, I sincerely doubt that you as a Christian have any special access to the truth that others do not have. “Good” and “better” have as much meaning as any other words. There just may not be as much agreement about them as their are about some other words.

“Without an eternal truth, what is your basis for saying that Hitler’s view of a better world is a misguided one? Or do you not believe it is misguided (I have met several pragmatists that feel that way)?”

I could give lots of reasons why I think Hitler was wrong just as you can. I just don’t think that there is a nonquestion-begging foundation for claims to knowledge that will convince every audience that I am right about Hitler.

 

[Shike]

Hello, Shike.

Your question is a good one and depends on what you mean by perfection. Our human natures were wounded by original sin. While baptism erases original sin, the consequence of an inclination to evil (concupiscence) still exists. So if you define perfection as being like Jesus who may have been tempted but does not have the same wound of concupiscence that we do, then perfection is unattainable because of our wounded human natures. If you mean perfection as getting to a point where you do not sin, it may be very, very, very difficult to achieve (and only through the grace of God), but perhaps not unachievable.

In my answer, I was referring to the first definition of perfection. I hope that helps clear up a little of what I meant.

God bless!
d_erford

Yes, but you are implicity making the assumption that death is the outer bound of our scope of analysis. The original claim was that the ideal couldn’t be attained. And how one would know it couldn’t be attained is beyond me… did they try?

 

[d_erford]

You are missing my point. You and other conservatives are asking, what is so wrong with setting high standards? Just because we know that some people will fail to meet the standard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t set a clear standard. Pragmatists answer, I wouldn’t say that your standard is too high so much as too orthodox. It is an attempt to make our historical practices eternal and a limit to the imagination for possibilities of an even better future.

If we actually can say that we have the end in mind for what perfection is, then there would be nothing wrong with pursuing it. But I don’t think we can imagine what would make for a perfect society in, say, the 25th century. What makes you think that you know what perfection is any better than any other past culture that has tried to define it? That’s meant to be a rhetorical question. Of course you have your reasons for thinking so, and of course I don’t but them for a second, and its not worth pursuing here. But from my perspective it is like asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal. It is making the good the enemy of the better. It is granting our current ideas about human flourishing the undeserved prestige of the eternal. The first step in opening our imaginatioins to “the better” is to learn the lesson of history that we are probably not already in possession of “the best.” But if you think that God has spoken to you and told you what is best now and forever,that you have some special access to “the truth,” then we’ll continue to talk passed one another on issues like this.

Best,
Leela

Hello, Leela.

It seems to me that without an objective and eternal grounding, “better” would have no meaning except for each individual. So how can you use pragmatic imagination to create a better world when there is no way to say that one thing is better than another? Wouldn’t the use of a pragmatic imagination simply be something to push a personal view or agenda, which can be based just as much on greed as charity?

d_erford

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

You are missing my point. You and other conservatives are asking, what is so wrong with setting high standards? Just because we know that some people will fail to meet the standard, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t set a clear standard. Pragmatists answer, I wouldn’t say that your standard is too high so much as too orthodox.

Before I make my main point, I just want to say, as an orthodox Catholic Christian who doesn’t consider himself a “conservative”, that I don’t think the word “conservative” (or “liberal”, for that matter) is accurate in this context. Why? Because, quite frankly, those terms don’t do justice to the fine distinctions you are drawing between these different ethical perspectives.

Many “liberals” appeal to orthodox principles and unyielding moral absolutes to justify their aims and methods (on, for example, economic and racial justice, gay rights, etc.)

Likewise, many “conservatives” actually violate those principles (for example, contemporary American neoconservatives who justify - in certain situations - the use of torture such as waterboarding).

So those are unacceptably imprecise umbrella terms which don’t do justice to the distinctions you are drawing. Anyway, on to your main point and mine:

It is an attempt to make our historical practices eternal and a limit to the imagination for possibilities of an even better future.

If we actually can say that we have the end in mind for what perfection is, then there would be nothing wrong with pursuing it. But I don’t think we can imagine what would make for a perfect society in, say, the 25th century. What makes you think that you know what perfection is any better than any other past culture that has tried to define it? That’s meant to be a rhetorical question. Of course you have your reasons for thinking so, and of course I don’t but them for a second, and its not worth pursuing here. But from my perspective it is like asking a dinosaur what would make a good mammal. It is making the good the enemy of the better. It is granting our current ideas about human flourishing the undeserved prestige of the eternal. The first step in opening our imaginatioins to “the better” is to learn the lesson of history that we are probably not already in possession of “the best.” But if you think that God has spoken to you and told you what is best now and forever,that you have some special access to “the truth,” then we’ll continue to talk passed one another on issues like this.

Best,
Leela

Leela, to an extent I agree with you. Your rhetoric reflects the appetite for the infinite that characterizes the Romantic worldview of poets such as Wordsworth and of works like Goethe’s Faust. I sympathize and agree with that worldview; even when I fail (which is often), I strive to live in a way consistent with it.

But I do so not in spite of my faith, but in full union with it - I think that Christian orthodoxy does justice to that worldview and finds its deepest expression in it. G.K. Chesterton once noted that - this is a paraphrase - man is fooilsh to speak of orthodoxy as something humdrum, boring, and predictable when it is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable paths known to man. Elsewhere he stated of Christianity specificaly that even watered down, it is stil hot enough to boil modern society to rags.

The great Christian philsopher St. Thomas Aquinas, whose reputation as a true intelectual titan is well-deserved, declared that all his brilliant writings were all worthless “straw” that should be burned after he had a mystical encounter with the living God late in his life.

That is the Christianity I know. Orthodoxy of any kind does not limit the moral imagination but rather defies any attempt at intellectual exhaustion.

(cont.)

 

[d_erford]

Yes, but you are implicity making the assumption that death is the outer bound of our scope of analysis. The original claim was that the ideal couldn’t be attained. And how one would know it couldn’t be attained is beyond me… did they try?

Mind you, I wasn’t dealing with the original claim of the ideal, I was dealing with the specific statement that Christianity has reified perfection in Christ. Also, this discussion was in the realm of creating a better world here on earth, so if we look at all of creation before we ever talk about Heaven or anything like that, we know the ideal (Jesus, who didn’t suffer damage from original sin) is unattainable because we have all suffered damage from original sin. We can never have THAT type of perfection here on Earth.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is possible because the truths of orthodoxy - including moral laws and expressions of the meaning of human flourishing - are capable of being absolute without being exhaustively infinite.

Philosophers sometimes distinguish between “finite infinities” and “absolute infinities.” A “finite infinity” may sound silly at first, but think of a line in geometry (the first philosophers were mathematicians ): it is truly limitless in two directions but is, paradoxically, also very limited. It exists in only one dimension, and it never even meets an infinite amount of points on either side of it. There are an infinite number of potential lines, each with an infinite number of points, which will never come into contact with the first line I mentioned, even though it is infinite.

That is finite infinity, and it helps philosophers understand a great many things - including how moral absolutes and universal principles can bind us so strictly even as we encounter things in life which always defy exhaustive explanation.

So we shouldn’t pretend that we have total freedom to re-imagine what human flourishing is, Leela. Whatever else it may be, it must also include living a life of active virtue.

Can we imagine what a perfect society in the 25th century would look like? Of course not - at least, not fully. But we can rule out some things which we know to be irreversibly imperfect. I am not giving my principles the “undeserved prestige of the eternal” - there is something universal, inviolable, and yes, even describable about them, and that is no threat to the spontaneity, mystery, and experiential inexhaustibility of life.

It is one of those paradoxes of life that - as Kierkegaard explains - we cannot transcend mere morals, mere absolutes, to ascend to something higher (he called this “the teleological suspension of the ethical”) until we first submit to them.

If we attempt to do so without acknowledging the unimpeachable universality and objectivity of some truths and values, disaster awaits.

I highly reccommend C.S. Lewis’ The Abolition of Man (it is very short) to learn more about the importance of objective value and right sentiment for the flourishing of the human person. He shows how we will become slaves to everything we seek to conquer if we strive to overthrow - or refuse to acknowledge and live by - the truth that some value is objective; that some truths are universal; that some of our principles do have what you so fittingly and poetically called “the prestige of the eternal.”

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

And Leela? I enjoy discussing these things with you. Though we may disagree often, I am impressed by the thoughtfulness, poetic nature, openness, and charitable tone of your posts. I wish more posters on this forum were like you.

 

[d_erford]

Hello, Leela.

It is no use talking about “geting closer to the Truth.” If you already have the truth, then there is no way to get any closer to it. If you don’t already possess the truth, then there is no way to know if you’ve gotten any closer to it.

We have God’s promise that His Church would be “led into all truth.” Revelation in Scripture and Tradition is organic. Nothing entirely new is created, but flows from what God revealed through His Word and Apostles. So while we have Truth in revelation, we can come to more fully understand what it means as time passes. So we possess the Truth, but that does not mean we understand it yet through and through. So we can get closer to the Truth as we come to understand it more fully.

“Good” and “better” have as much meaning as any other words. There just may not be as much agreement about them as their are about some other words.

That is my point. In your atheistic world-view, “good” and “better” have at best nominalistic meanings among a group of like-minded people, and at worst, are individualistic, robbing them of any actual significance. When you say “This is better”, you are really saying “This is my preference of how things should be”. When you give reasons for why Hitler was “wrong”, you are only giving your opinion of what should or should not have happened and why you have your opinion. You can never make a definitive statement about “good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”, or “better” because you have nothing higher to appeal to than your own opinion.

You may think the same can be applied to Christians. But since we appeal to an authority beyond humanity that has set His wishes for us and how we should act in our hearts, we can make definitive statements using the terms above. Of course, as I’m sure has been mentioned before, it requires faith.

 

[Leela]

And Leela? I enjoy discussing these things with you. Though we may disagree often, I am impressed by the thoughtfulness, poetic nature, openness, and charitable tone of your posts. I wish more posters on this forum were like you.

Thanks for the kind words Phone Bone (from the comic?). I’m not always as charitable as I’d like to be, but I try.

 

[Leela]

Before I make my main point, I just want to say, as an orthodox Catholic Christian who doesn’t consider himself a “conservative”, that I don’t think the word “conservative” (or “liberal”, for that matter) is accurate in this context. Why? Because, quite frankly, those terms don’t do justice to the fine distinctions you are drawing between these different ethical perspectives.

Many “liberals” appeal to orthodox principles and unyielding moral absolutes to justify their aims and methods (on, for example, economic and racial justice, gay rights, etc.)

Likewise, many “conservatives” actually violate those principles (for example, contemporary American neoconservatives who justify - in certain situations - the use of torture such as waterboarding).

So those are unacceptably imprecise umbrella terms which don’t do justice to the distinctions you are drawing.

That’s a good point. I don’t really think of myself as a liberal myself. I used the terms because my converns are not about whether theists or atheists have it right about ultimate reality, but about what I see as the negative effects of the religious right in this country and Islmaic terrorism in the world. I’m talking about philosophy but only because ideas matter in politics.

 

[Leela]

That is my point. In your atheistic world-view, “good” and “better” have at best nominalistic meanings among a group of like-minded people, and at worst, are individualistic, robbing them of any actual significance. When you say “This is better”, you are really saying “This is my preference of how things should be”. When you give reasons for why Hitler was “wrong”, you are only giving your opinion of what should or should not have happened and why you have your opinion. You can never make a definitive statement about “good”, “bad”, “right”, “wrong”, or “better” because you have nothing higher to appeal to than your own opinion.

But that is all I take you, me, and anyone else to be saying when they use those words. I can’t see what else they could mean. You anticipate my thoughts here…

You may think the same can be applied to Christians. But since we appeal to an authority beyond humanity that has set His wishes for us and how we should act in our hearts, we can make definitive statements using the terms above. Of course, as I’m sure has been mentioned before, it requires faith.

I can’t see how the bootstrapping through faith is supposed to work. To me it just sounds like “I believe it, therefore it’s true” instead of how we usually want to think “It’s true, therefore I believe it.”