Is there a need for religious dialogue?

[KrazyKaiju]

Hello CAF,

I’ve just been thinking about some things lately and have been playing around with a peculiar idea. Tell me if it makes sense or if I’m just crazy. I wrote a reply to a post in the Back Fence about the state of morality in the US and how to cure our current ailment. I’ve come up with a theoretical solution that attacks the heart of the problem, but it requires alot of effort. Here it is:

The USA is a peculiar mix of religions and beliefs. To keep people from cutting each others’ throats at night, we let everyone practice their own religion freely. In doing this, we also avoid any dialogue between religions.

Not all of them make the same claims, and some religions cannot be simultaneously true, due to the nature of their claims. Something’s gotta give, but I don’t think people are ready to sacrifice their own opinions for the sake of the truth. At least in this case. People can be very sensitive about religion, as you can see with people’s past history (holy wars, Inquisition, some terrorism, etc.).

Unless we can open up the door to religious dialogue, I don’t think we can fix the state of morality in this country. We can try “social contracts”, laws, and the like, but their bases will be weak. I think we should ultimately try to aim for religious dialogue.

That’s just my opinion.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think you’re onto something there. As you may know, interreligious dialogue is quite a big deal in Catholic academia these days. I guess there’s the practical questions to consider of venue, etc.

 

[Heavens_Flowers]

That is a great idea in theory however due to such contrary beliefs in each religion, “giving alittle” for each religion would mean giving up there core beliefs and adopting someone religion. At least this is my opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[kimmielittle]

Listeningopcorn:

 

[Tsuwano]

Interreligious dialogue has been ongoing for some time now and according to theologians of various faiths progress has been made in many areas. Of course, depending on what one thinks the purpose of interreligious dialogue is, progress can be defined in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, I think a greater awareness of faith and the common elements that religous people share in faith has taken place. This has led to a greater sensitivity toward different faiths and a desire to understand the process of faith rather than offer an automatic condemnation of different faiths simply because they are different. I also find that there is a greater openess to discovering whatever truth may underlie a faith and using that understanding to inform one’s own faith in a deeper and more comprehensive way. From a Christian perspective, we must acknowledge the holiness of the search for faith even if an individual comes to believe in a way that is different from our own. We do this because we believe that the very desire to believe is made present to us through the grace of God. Of course, we do not acknowledge the equality of all faith or the salvific power of all faith, but we do recognize that the desire to seek God is God’s first call to us.

 

[leopolis1]

First of all we have to defend the truth that is the teaching of the CC. Our aim is to bring all non-Catholics to unity with the vicar of Christ who is the pope.

 

[Tsuwano]

First of all we have to defend the truth that is the teaching of the CC. Our aim is to bring all non-Catholics to unity with the vicar of Christ who is the pope.

The goal of interreligious dialogue is to discover the truth. Our motivation for interreligious dialogue is love. So, of course I believe you are correct. Still, we must be mindful that love compels us to propose faith in Christ as the source of truth, not impose it. Indeed, charity must be our primary method of approaching people of other faiths. Such charity dictates humility on our part and not triumphalism, trust in God’s grace and not arrogance in our own understanding of the truth, and also a willingness to listen to the voice of God as he has spoken through the faith lives of those we are encountering. Our faith must be strong, but it must never be oppressive.

 

[Drawmack]

The USA is a peculiar mix of religions and beliefs. To keep people from cutting each others’ throats at night, we let everyone practice their own religion freely. In doing this, we also avoid any dialogue between religions.

Are you making two claims about the way things are or are you saying that the second is a result of the first. In other words, which of the following sentences best restates what you have said above? The first option: Due to the peculiar mix of religions and beliefs in the U.S. the concept of freedom of religion was adopted to allow those of different faith to peacefully coexist; there is also a lack of interreligious dialogue in the U.S. The second option: Due to the peculiar mix of religions and beliefs in the U.S. the concept of freedom of religion was adopted to allow those of different faith to peacefully coexist which has resulted in an avoidance of any interreligious dialogue.

Not all of them make the same claims, and some religions cannot be simultaneously true, due to the nature of their claims.

And this is the major problem with universalism (i.e. all religions are different paths to the same god).

Something’s gotta give, but I don’t think people are ready to sacrifice their own opinions for the sake of the truth.

Here is the problem, what is the truth? You believe it is the truth as taught by the Catholic Church. Other Christians think it is the truth as taught by their churches. Muslims think it is the truth as taught by the Koran, ect. As far as each and every religious person is concerned their opinion is the truth and everyone else’s opinion is not the truth or not the complete truth. Always remember that the person or a different faith feels that their theology is the truth as vehemently as you feel that yours is the truth. To have an interreligious dialogue all participants must maintain the objectivity necessary to see things from the other person’s point of view and most people are incapable of this when it comes to religion. While this should not stop interreligious dialogue it certainly does limit the participants.

At least in this case. People can be very sensitive about religion, as you can see with people’s past history (holy wars, Inquisition, some terrorism, etc.).

Yeah!

We can try “social contracts”, laws, and the like, but their bases will be weak. I think we should ultimately try to aim for religious dialogue.

(I rearranged your last two sentences because the second to last sentence was your thesis statement and will allow me to comment on the overall post.) What do you mean by social contract? How will the basis be weak?

Unless we can open up the door to religious dialogue, I don’t think we can fix the state of morality in this country.

From reading this post I do not understand how interreligious dialogue will fix the moral problems in this country. Not only do different religions have different truth claims they also have different moral claims. I do not think that it is possible to legislate morality – just look at all the societies through history that had a state church and were still immoral. So, I am curious exactly how you think that interreligious dialogue will fix the moral problems in the United States? What specific issues do you think would be corrected? How would these issues be corrected? What religions agree on these issues, which ones disagree, and how do we get those that disagree with the morality to agree to abide by it?

That’s just my opinion.

 

[Drawmack]

I think you’re onto something there. As you may know, interreligious dialogue is quite a big deal in Catholic academia these days. I guess there’s the practical questions to consider of venue, etc.

It is quite a big deal in academia period. Religious debates are being held at secular universities all the time.

 

[Drawmack]

That is a great idea in theory however due to such contrary beliefs in each religion, “giving alittle” for each religion would mean giving up there core beliefs and adopting someone religion. At least this is my opinion. I could be wrong.

Why would it entail adopting a new religion? Would it be possible to do something like a majority rule, or a closest candidate system? The purpose of the interreligious dialogue would be to determine exactly where all the major religions agree and disagree. Then we can see how laws can be drawn up that do not offend anyone, but probably do not completely appease anyone either. The biggest problem I see with this is defining major religions to decide who gets a seat at the table.

 

[Drawmack]

Interreligious dialogue has been ongoing for some time now and according to theologians of various faiths progress has been made in many areas. Of course, depending on what one thinks the purpose of interreligious dialogue is, progress can be defined in a variety of ways. Generally speaking, I think a greater awareness of faith and the common elements that religous people share in faith has taken place. This has led to a greater sensitivity toward different faiths and a desire to understand the process of faith rather than offer an automatic condemnation of different faiths simply because they are different. I also find that there is a greater openess to discovering whatever truth may underlie a faith and using that understanding to inform one’s own faith in a deeper and more comprehensive way. From a Christian perspective, we must acknowledge the holiness of the search for faith even if an individual comes to believe in a way that is different from our own. We do this because we believe that the very desire to believe is made present to us through the grace of God. Of course, we do not acknowledge the equality of all faith or the salvific power of all faith, but we do recognize that the desire to seek God is God’s first call to us.

Excellent demonstration of bridge building!

Do you think that interreligious dialogue can, directly, address the problem of immorality in the U.S. (or any country)?

 

[Drawmack]

First of all we have to defend the truth that is the teaching of the CC. Our aim is to bring all non-Catholics to unity with the vicar of Christ who is the pope.

This is the problem I was pointing to in my first post on this thread. Actually, the first step of apologetics is to build bridges, to determine where the person you are talking to agrees with you and build that agreement up. Only after this can the two begin to discuss the differences. Now, also realize that in an interreligious dialogue the person across the table from you would replace CC with their religion in the first sentence of this post and state it as vehemently as you did. That is the major stumbling block with interreligious dialogue you have to find people capable of setting their beliefs aside long enough to truly see things from the other person’s perspective. Once all those participating of done this then, and only then, can they begin to explain the differences to each other.

 

[Tsuwano]

Excellent demonstration of bridge building!

Do you think that interreligious dialogue can, directly, address the problem of immorality in the U.S. (or any country)?

Well, I don’t think the goal of interreligious dialogue is to directly address the problem of immorality in society. However, I do think that talking with people of other faiths and recognizing the sincerity with which they believe can help us build a framework with which people of differing faiths can cooperate to address various social ills. In this way interreligious dialogue can help build a consensus as to what various religions regard as moral or immoral actions and why. But, of course, in the modern secular societies that have developed in the West and in Japan, and which are developing in other parts of the world, such dialogue would have to take place not only between differing faiths, but also between those of no faith and even those who are hostile to faith, in order to reach a consensus as to what is moral and immoral and how to conduct our lives within those parameters. I do not think such a dialogue is impossible (and in fact, we can see the threads of such dialogue taking place when we read Christopher Hitchens and other popular atheist writers today), but I think we are a long way from building a consensus on morality in society. I believe Christians should take seriously the Lord’s description of his Church when he described it as “a city on a hill” and his people as “the salt of the Earth” and the yeast within the bread. We are not necessarily called to live our lives as Christians within the confines of a moral community or society, but rather to live moral lives within the chaos and confusion of societies that struggle and often fail to see the light and who seek to find a way through the dilemmas of everyday life.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

Are you making two claims about the way things are or are you saying that the second is a result of the first. In other words, which of the following sentences best restates what you have said above? The first option: Due to the peculiar mix of religions and beliefs in the U.S. the concept of freedom of religion was adopted to allow those of different faith to peacefully coexist; there is also a lack of interreligious dialogue in the U.S. The second option: Due to the peculiar mix of religions and beliefs in the U.S. the concept of freedom of religion was adopted to allow those of different faith to peacefully coexist which has resulted in an avoidance of any interreligious dialogue.

Either option is feasible. I was probably thinking about the second option, but that’s jumping to conclusions too easily. To play it safe, I’ll go with the first option.

Here is the problem, what is the truth? You believe it is the truth as taught by the Catholic Church. Other Christians think it is the truth as taught by their churches. Muslims think it is the truth as taught by the Koran, ect. As far as each and every religious person is concerned their opinion is the truth and everyone else’s opinion is not the truth or not the complete truth. Always remember that the person or a different faith feels that their theology is the truth as vehemently as you feel that yours is the truth.

Oh yeah, without a doubt! But who has the best backing?

To have an interreligious dialogue all participants must maintain the objectivity necessary to see things from the other person’s point of view and most people are incapable of this when it comes to religion. While this should not stop interreligious dialogue it certainly does limit the participants.

Agreed. I can’t see my post as I’m typing the reply, but I hope I did mention that somewhere!

(I rearranged your last two sentences because the second to last sentence was your thesis statement and will allow me to comment on the overall post.) What do you mean by social contract? How will the basis be weak?

Oh yeah. I took a moral theory class that introduced me to several theories (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.), few of which have religious bases. In writing some paper about morality and religion, I concluded that objective morality cannot exist apart from religion (and if it can, we’re not really compelled to obey its tenets). Also, subjective moral theories (I think the social contract is one such theory) can’t really bind us to their tenets at all - just the peer pressure that comes with them.

From reading this post I do not understand how interreligious dialogue will fix the moral problems in this country. Not only do different religions have different truth claims they also have different moral claims. I do not think that it is possible to legislate morality – just look at all the societies through history that had a state church and were still immoral. So, I am curious exactly how you think that interreligious dialogue will fix the moral problems in the United States? What specific issues do you think would be corrected? How would these issues be corrected? What religions agree on these issues, which ones disagree, and how do we get those that disagree with the morality to agree to abide by it?

While I agree that legislating morality can become quite troublesome, I think that completely separating it from the law can become problematic. Why should a person be arrested for growing commercial marijuana or promoting communism? We say that certain acts are “bad”, “wrong”, and punishable by the law, but why those actions? Unless we can come to some agreements about objective morality, I’m not sure if our laws will be taken seriously. (Of course, there’s the matter of time constraints. By the time we make a law for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, will it still be needed? Or will it be too late?)

I wish I knew how to answer your questions, but right now, my mind is blank. My main concern is dealing with the degenerate culture that many of our kids grow up with. My I’ll admit that making laws about regulations seems…well…ridiculous. I’ll let you know when I come up with some answers.

That’s just my opinion.

And it’s very much appreciated!

 

[Drawmack]

Either option is feasible. I was probably thinking about the second option, but that’s jumping to conclusions too easily. To play it safe, I’ll go with the first option.

I was hoping that you would say that, because if you took the second option it can be demonstrated that, historically, countries which do not have a separation of church and state make interreligious dialogue improbable (at best) and effecting social change through it impossible because the state religion always wins.

Oh yeah, without a doubt! But who has the best backing?

This was in response to:

Drawmack:

Here is the problem, what is the truth? You believe it is the truth as taught by the Catholic Church. Other Christians think it is the truth as taught by their churches. Muslims think it is the truth as taught by the Koran, ect. As far as each and every religious person is concerned their opinion is the truth and everyone else’s opinion is not the truth or not the complete truth. Always remember that the person or a different faith feels that their theology is the truth as vehemently as you feel that yours is the truth.

I don’t understand what you mean by best backing? Do you mean the best evidences for them being true? (that is subjective) Do you mean the largest number of adherents in the country? (that is morality by majority) I can’t think of what else you might have intended with best backing, so I’d like a little further explanation on this one.

Oh yeah. I took a moral theory class that introduced me to several theories (utilitarianism, virtue ethics, Kantian ethics, etc.), few of which have religious bases. In writing some paper about morality and religion, I concluded that objective morality cannot exist apart from religion (and if it can, we’re not really compelled to obey its tenets).

I would argue with that conclusion, because it is demonstrably false. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who lead perfectly moral lives without any religious affiliation at all. As for not being compelled to obey, that is also demonstrably false. If the person has a desire for society to be such that people can peacefully (at least for the most part) co-exist (which all rational people do) then it is this desire which binds them to act morally and the reason that just because someone is an atheist or agnostic they are not out blowing away everyone who looks at them funny. (Although that leads to a much more permissive morality than Christianity [and many other religions] promotes, but it is still binding adherence to a moral system none the less.)

I would agree, and it’s actually an argument for God, that you cannot have objective morality without God because objective morality is a law and a law needs a law maker. However, this does not mean that one has to believe in God in order to be a moral person because God has the power to write those laws into the fiber of our being without our cooperation through belief.

Also, subjective moral theories (I think the social contract is one such theory) can’t really bind us to their tenets at all - just the peer pressure that comes with them.

This is correct to an extent. If the laws of a country reinforce the subjective moral theory then there is binding (of a sort) to those tenets. For example, one major driving moral theory in the U.S. is personal freedoms and everyone’s right to exercise them, this theory is supported by a myriad of laws protecting those freedoms in all sorts of places, therefore you cannot infringe on someone else’s freedoms without breaking the law. However, if we attempt this with all morality we will begin to fall into the trap of legislating morality. It’s a tricky line to draw though. For example, murder is illegal – this works pretty well with murder and keeps it down significantly from where it would be without these laws. However, this is not the case with prostitution which is easier to control when it is legalized. So, you see, this is very tricky ground and I am no where near qualified to draw lines or conclusions about it.

While I agree that legislating morality can become quite troublesome, I think that completely separating it from the law can become problematic.

I agree, to a point. Either extreme is not good, but then again extremes usually are not good. What I intended to say was that in my opinion this pendulum should swing farther from legislating morality than it does towards legislating morality – I don’t want them to legalize murder.

Why should a person be arrested for growing commercial marijuana or promoting communism? We say that certain acts are “bad”, “wrong”, and punishable by the law, but why those actions? Unless we can come to some agreements about objective morality, I’m not sure if our laws will be taken seriously. (Of course, there’s the matter of time constraints. By the time we make a law for regulating greenhouse gas emissions, will it still be needed? Or will it be too late?)

If we are going to try and “come to some agreements about objective morality” haven’t we actually made morality subjective? I think that the trick here is to structure the laws in such a way that people’s religious beliefs do not have to be compromised to abide by those laws. (For example, you can’t force a doctor to give an abortion or proscribe the pill.) In order to do this we need to have the interreligious dialogue so we can determine what would violate people’s religious beliefs. And, we have to be careful not to attempt to legislate doing things (or not doing things) which could violate a person’s religious beliefs. For example, the medical bill says that every American must procure medical insurance – this goes against the beliefs of those religions who do not believe in doctors (regardless of how you or I feel about those religions).

(cont)

 

[Drawmack]

I wish I knew how to answer your questions, but right now, my mind is blank. My main concern is dealing with the degenerate culture that many of our kids grow up with. My I’ll admit that making laws about regulations seems…well…ridiculous. I’ll let you know when I come up with some answers.

I think it is always important to remember that we are in the world but not of the world. I think that we should worry a little more about ourselves and a little less about society. Abortion rates among Christians are only marginally lower than among the general population (but repeat abortions are significantly lower). Divorce rates among Christians are on par with the general population. We need to fix these problems at home (i.e. within the Christian community) before we attempt to fix them in society. After all we are in the world but not of the world and blaming our community’s (i.e. the Christian community’s) problems on society will not work unless we’re trying to make Jesus laugh on judgment day.

So, in the end – let’s have a little intrareligious dialogue with ourselves and work on some better teaching of our own. Once we have accomplished this then we can start to work with other religions and society at large. Basically we have let society erode our bullwark to the point where we think that only fixing society can fix that bullwark – the truth is we have to fix that bullwark first and only then can we worry about what goes on outside of our own community.

Am I even making sense here? Have I strayed from the original topic?

 

[KrazyKaiju]

I don’t understand what you mean by best backing? Do you mean the best evidences for them being true? (that is subjective) Do you mean the largest number of adherents in the country? (that is morality by majority) I can’t think of what else you might have intended with best backing, so I’d like a little further explanation on this one.

Ah, my apologies for the vague terms. I meant best evidence.

I would argue with that conclusion, because it is demonstrably false. There are plenty of agnostics and atheists who lead perfectly moral lives without any religious affiliation at all.

But then what does it mean to live a “perfectly moral life”, and what justification do they have for leading such a life as opposed to another?

As for not being compelled to obey, that is also demonstrably false. If the person has a desire for society to be such that people can peacefully (at least for the most part) co-exist (which all rational people do) then it is this desire which binds them to act morally and the reason that just because someone is an atheist or agnostic they are not out blowing away everyone who looks at them funny.

Once again, do they have justification for leading such lives?

I would agree, and it’s actually an argument for God, that you cannot have objective morality without God because objective morality is a law and a law needs a law maker. However, this does not mean that one has to believe in God in order to be a moral person because God has the power to write those laws into the fiber of our being without our cooperation through belief.

Ah, I see what you meant in the previous paragraph now. I definitely grant that an atheist/agnostic/non-Christian can comply to some, if not all, moral laws an obligations. However, I don’t think he/she would (most times) be complying for the right reasons. Such a person’s moral sentiments would be left to chance. (Assuming in this paragraph that Christianity is the true religion)

If we are going to try and “come to some agreements about objective morality” haven’t we actually made morality subjective?

Yes and no. In some cases, we may not know the answer. The point is to try to make our subjective notions as close to objective reality as possible. It would be like saying Newtonian physics and Einstein’s are subjective, yet the latter is closer to capturing reality than the former. (Who knows; Einstein’s may be correct. But I hope this demonstrates my point.)

I think that the trick here is to structure the laws in such a way that people’s religious beliefs do not have to be compromised to abide by those laws. (For example, you can’t force a doctor to give an abortion or proscribe the pill.) In order to do this we need to have the interreligious dialogue so we can determine what would violate people’s religious beliefs. And, we have to be careful not to attempt to legislate doing things (or not doing things) which could violate a person’s religious beliefs. For example, the medical bill says that every American must procure medical insurance – this goes against the beliefs of those religions who do not believe in doctors (regardless of how you or I feel about those religions).

I’m going a little off-topic but here’s some food for thought. Where should we draw the line about what we can and cannot force a person to do by law? Should we force schools to teach that the world is round instead of flat? Probably, since the latter is blatantly false and the former is pretty close to true - the world isn’t perfectly round.

Some of life’s persistent questions are still up in the air, but once we find the answer, shouldn’t some efforts be made to promote the truth and stamp out falsehood (i.e. the world is round, not flat)? Of course, universalizing this kind of mentality can get particularly hairy, which is why I ask: where should we draw the line?

So, in the end – let’s have a little intrareligious dialogue with ourselves and work on some better teaching of our own. Once we have accomplished this then we can start to work with other religions and society at large. Basically we have let society erode our bullwark to the point where we think that only fixing society can fix that bullwark – the truth is we have to fix that bullwark first and only then can we worry about what goes on outside of our own community.

Am I even making sense here? Have I strayed from the original topic?

I like your proposal. And you didn’t stray from the topic; I think you hit the mark.

 

[Drawmack]

Ah, my apologies for the vague terms. I meant best evidence.

Okay, so who gets to decide what evidence is admissible and how do we ensure that this person, or group, isn’t biased? Also, who decides what is the best evidence and how do we ensure this person, or group, isn’t biased? The problem here is that the term best evidence is subjective and not objective so allowing morality to rest on a subjective foundation necessarily reduces morality to subjective morality.

But then what does it mean to live a “perfectly moral life”,

Webster’s defines moral as “conforming to a standard of right behavior” (the most applicable definition to this discussion). So, living a perfectly moral life means that they live a life that no reasonable person would find morally objectionable.

Ah, I see what you meant in the previous paragraph now. I definitely grant that an atheist/agnostic/non-Christian can comply to some, if not all, moral laws an obligations. However, I don’t think he/she would (most times) be complying for the right reasons. Such a person’s moral sentiments would be left to chance. (Assuming in this paragraph that Christianity is the true religion)

Your original premise was that without religion it was impossible to be moral because the moral code have no reason to have authority over the person. I showed you how and why this is incorrect and you changed to saying that they not only have to be moral but they have to be moral for the “right reasons”. First of all this is a moving target type of argument, if you’re just going to change the basis or your argument everytime I show it to be flawed there is no point in discussing your argument because you are more committed to keeping that argument in tact than in finding the truth regardless of its effect on your argument. Secondly, whose definition of right reasons would you like to use? By the atheist’s definition you are the one who is being moral for the wrong reasons. Additionally, the claim that the person’s moral sentiments are left to chance is spurious at best. I explained that they could be driven by what is best for society as a whole – this is not a chance encounter and if you would like to claim that it is please show how and do not just state that it is.

Yes and no. In some cases, we may not know the answer. The point is to try to make our subjective notions as close to objective reality as possible. It would be like saying Newtonian physics and Einstein’s are subjective, yet the latter is closer to capturing reality than the former. (Who knows; Einstein’s may be correct. But I hope this demonstrates my point.)

In the end, it’s still subjective. It might be less subjective but that’s like being less infinite; it simply doesn’t matter.

I’m going a little off-topic but here’s some food for thought. Where should we draw the line about what we can and cannot force a person to do by law? Should we force schools to teach that the world is round instead of flat? Probably, since the latter is blatantly false and the former is pretty close to true - the world isn’t perfectly round.

Ahhh, education as an example: something I am qualified to talk about. When it comes to education we need subject matter experts, child psychologists, and education experts to sit down and develop guidelines for what is taught in each grade. The subject matter experts ensure that what is taught is correct to the best of our knowledge. The child psychologists ensure that the information is profitable to the child given their age. The education experts make sure that we are not trying to cram too much information into one school year. Now, I ripped the example apart to demonstrate how difficult this is because it is no easier with any other laws. Basically, you have to make sure that the law does not (intrinsically) violate anyone’s rights, that obedience to the law does not make one person violate another person’s rights, and that two people obeying the law are not violating each other’s rights – not an easy task!

Some of life’s persistent questions are still up in the air, but once we find the answer, shouldn’t some efforts be made to promote the truth and stamp out falsehood (i.e. the world is round, not flat)? Of course, universalizing this kind of mentality can get particularly hairy, which is why I ask: where should we draw the line?

Most of life’s persistent questions that are still up in the air will always be up in the air. However, yes we should not teach what we know is error. However, when it comes to religion you cannot conclusively prove that anyone is correct – that is the entire point of faith. If you could prove that any particular religion were correct we all would have converted to that religion centuries ago.

I like your proposal. And you didn’t stray from the topic; I think you hit the mark.

Thank you.

 

[KrazyKaiju]

Okay, so who gets to decide what evidence is admissible and how do we ensure that this person, or group, isn’t biased? Also, who decides what is the best evidence and how do we ensure this person, or group, isn’t biased? The problem here is that the term best evidence is subjective and not objective so allowing morality to rest on a subjective foundation necessarily reduces morality to subjective morality.

I suppose in the end, most of our findings will be subjective, right? That’s the essence of the problem of knowledge (which is probably best covered in a separate thread). The above assertion could basically be translated to nearly all fields of inquiry. I can’t really get myself out of that pickle without making a potentially subjective statement; I’m stuck.

Webster’s defines moral as “conforming to a standard of right behavior” (the most applicable definition to this discussion). So, living a perfectly moral life means that they live a life that no reasonable person would find morally objectionable.

And of course, this inevitably raises questions about the “standard” and what makes a person “reasonable”.

Your original premise was that without religion it was impossible to be moral because the moral code have no reason to have authority over the person. I showed you how and why this is incorrect and you changed to saying that they not only have to be moral but they have to be moral for the “right reasons”. First of all this is a moving target type of argument, if you’re just going to change the basis or your argument everytime I show it to be flawed there is no point in discussing your argument because you are more committed to keeping that argument in tact than in finding the truth regardless of its effect on your argument.

No, these aren’t as inconsistent as you might think - just a tad ambiguous. I stick to the my first assertion, but I’ll clarify the second. I said they can comply to some, if not all, moral laws an obligations. I’ll take out the "if not all part for now, which sounds a bit harsh, but consider this.

Certainly, they can obey certain obligations like “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal”, but can they comply to ALL moral obligations? Some right or wrong doings may not be based on visible actions alone but on intentions. Perhaps certain right doings can only be expressed by a strictly religious intention (Christian symbols of the family, the Eucharist, etc). If such obligations exist, I don’t think an atheist/agnostic/non-Christian can fulfill ALL of them, so long as he/she is consistent with his/her beliefs. The question is whether or not such obligations exist. (But of course, the answer to this question all boils down to metaphysics.)

Secondly, whose definition of right reasons would you like to use? By the atheist’s definition you are the one who is being moral for the wrong reasons.

By “right” reasons, I mean those that are true statements (i.e. “This act is right because…X”, where X is a true or false statement.). And I’ll refrain from answering the question of whose right reason we should use. I wish I knew that and 100 other things.

Additionally, the claim that the person’s moral sentiments are left to chance is spurious at best. I explained that they could be driven by what is best for society as a whole – this is not a chance encounter and if you would like to claim that it is please show how and do not just state that it is.

In theory, they are “left to chance” - meaning that the person COULD have any set of moral sentiments, simply given his or her metaphysical beliefs (particularly atheism and agnosticism). Of course, he or she may be driven to do certain things, whether by biology or social interaction. All I meant to say is that he/she could flip-flop between any set of moral sentiments/obligations, and he/she would not be blameworthy, simply given his/her metaphysical beliefs.

I did make one mistake there, though, and that was to include all non-Christians in that picture. That’s not what I meant to do, though. I meant to strictly include beliefs like atheism and agnosticism.

Ahhh, education as an example: something I am qualified to talk about. When it comes to education we need subject matter experts, child psychologists, and education experts to sit down and develop guidelines for what is taught in each grade. The subject matter experts ensure that what is taught is correct to the best of our knowledge. The child psychologists ensure that the information is profitable to the child given their age. The education experts make sure that we are not trying to cram too much information into one school year. Now, I ripped the example apart to demonstrate how difficult this is because it is no easier with any other laws. Basically, you have to make sure that the law does not (intrinsically) violate anyone’s rights, that obedience to the law does not make one person violate another person’s rights, and that two people obeying the law are not violating each other’s rights – not an easy task!

I’m glad that you put “intrinsically” there, because I think talking about rights brings us back to the issue at hand. I suppose for the time being, until a great mind makes some stunning discovery or insight, (many) of our current laws seem to be feasible ones.

 

[Drawmack]

I suppose in the end, most of our findings will be subjective, right? That’s the essence of the problem of knowledge (which is probably best covered in a separate thread). The above assertion could basically be translated to nearly all fields of inquiry. I can’t really get myself out of that pickle without making a potentially subjective statement; I’m stuck.

The problem of knowledge rests on a person’s preferred epistemological stance. For example the person who is an epistemological evidentialist will affirm that we can know things by the other epistemologies (I forget all their names off hand but there are basically three of them discounting the religious epistemology) however what is known by any other epistemology must confirm to what is known evidentially because evidence has the highest epistemological meaning. With a religious epistemology the highest authority is given to that religions ultimate power (God in Christianity but I’m trying to be abstract here to cover all religions) and so anything a religious person knows by any other means must be inferior to what is known by divine revelation. While there are moral truths that are universal (don’t kill, don’t hurt others, etc) there are other moral obligations that are subjective (tithing, not blaspheming, etc); when I say subjective I do not mean that every person agrees they are subjective, but that not every person agrees they are objective. The objective ones are pretty much already illegal. This is why I think an interreligious dialogue will not really accomplish much legally. (There is an excellent treastice on this called Doctrine of the Knowledge of God by John M Frame – he is Presbyterian but the vast majority of the book is on epistemology and arguing for God as the ultimate authority and not directly about theology.)

And of course, this inevitably raises questions about the “standard” and what makes a person “reasonable”.

I am glad that you say where I was going with that. Although I think a person’s reasonableness can be proven through logical tests. You know give them a couple facts then ask them if a series of conclusions can be drawn from those facts and if so how.

No, these aren’t as inconsistent as you might think - just a tad ambiguous. I stick to the my first assertion, but I’ll clarify the second. I said they can comply to some, if not all, moral laws an obligations. I’ll take out the "if not all part for now, which sounds a bit harsh, but consider this.

Certainly, they can obey certain obligations like “thou shalt not kill” and “thou shalt not steal”, but can they comply to ALL moral obligations? Some right or wrong doings may not be based on visible actions alone but on intentions. Perhaps certain right doings can only be expressed by a strictly religious intention (Christian symbols of the family, the Eucharist, etc). If such obligations exist, I don’t think an atheist/agnostic/non-Christian can fulfill ALL of them, so long as he/she is consistent with his/her beliefs. The question is whether or not such obligations exist. (But of course, the answer to this question all boils down to metaphysics.)

It goes even farther than that though. Do you think it is a moral obligation to tithe? Do you think it is a moral obligation to attend Mass? Do you think it is a moral obligation to pray? Could an atheist or agnostic answer those questions the same way you did and still be an atheist or agnostic?

By “right” reasons, I mean those that are true statements (i.e. “This act is right because…X”, where X is a true or false statement.). And I’ll refrain from answering the question of whose right reason we should use. I wish I knew that and 100 other things.

Referring to what I said earlier about epistemology, how do we determine what is true?

In theory, they are “left to chance” - meaning that the person COULD have any set of moral sentiments, simply given his or her metaphysical beliefs (particularly atheism and agnosticism). Of course, he or she may be driven to do certain things, whether by biology or social interaction. All I meant to say is that he/she could flip-flop between any set of moral sentiments/obligations, and he/she would not be blameworthy, simply given his/her metaphysical beliefs.

I can see where this comes from. However, I think it could be reasonable to assume that everyone seeks to better society so that their children’s and grand children’s world will be a better world than the one we live in today. However, the caveat is that they define better differently than you or I do.

I did make one mistake there, though, and that was to include all non-Christians in that picture. That’s not what I meant to do, though. I meant to strictly include beliefs like atheism and agnosticism.

Well, atheism and agnosticism are vastly different, and there are many types of agnostics. An atheist says that God does not exist. An agnostic can range from saying they do not know if God exists to saying they believe God exists but don’t know which (if any) religion is right and some are almost deistic about this saying something along the lines of we can’t know which one is right. I would also argue that Unitarians are actually agnostic.