Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[MegaTherion]

No. I believe that these Scripture verses were not meant to be taken literally.

Alright, so you reserve the right to interpret as symbolic any passages in the holy book that trouble you.

The bigger point for me is why, if there really is a source of Transcendent Absolute Morals, did not that Source codify those Absolute Morals into law? According to your holy book, this god was codifying all sorts of things into law – slavery, for example.

Further, why, if stories of genocide are allegorical, did this god select something Absolutely Evil to use to illustrate his point (without condemning the Absolute Evil act)?

I realize that your answer is going to be some variant of “his ways are not ours,” but that misses the bigger point: the absence of evidence that we would expect to see damages the credibility of a claim.

If the claim is that there are moral absolutes (and that they have always been moral absolutes), it stands to reason that the source of this morality would want to convey these morals when he was codifying laws (or at the very least not confuse his subjects and not contradict himself). After all, he supposedly conveyed the 10 commandments to the Israelites. Why not “Thou shalt not enslave a human being against his will”? Why not “Thou shalt not commit genocide”? Instead, we find rules for slavery and allegories that involve genocide (without condemning it)

Here’s the important point: What’s the practical difference between a world in which morality gradually develops in society over time and a world in which there is a god who chooses, for some inscrutable reason, to slowly reveal his absolute morality in a manner indistinguishable from its gradual development?

For all intents and purposes, it seems like the morality of the Israelites developed gradually over time, as it did in every society.

What evidence exactly is there that prompts us to accept the claim that the ancient Israelites had a direct line to the supposed Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes?

Yes, yes, YES! …]

So extrapolate that to Truth. If you only use one methodology, you’re exposing yourself to a poverty of information.

You do realize, don’t you, that atheism is not a position of faith? It’s a fact that man does not know everything and may, in fact, never know everything. I don’t believe (or even assert) that there are absolutely no gods. I don’t know enough about the world to make that statement. I can say that everything I know about the world has failed to convince me that there are any supernatural beings (and under a more restricted definition of “belief” and “knowledge” I would say that it’s very close to certain that there are no gods).

What other “methodology” do you recommend we use to acquire information? How do you know that the information you would glean from such methodology is true?

I have no argument with you that science works. It’s where you claim it’s the “only” method. As your science has yet to provide evidence for this, it seems that this is something you’re accepting on faith.

I said science is (so far) the only “method of learning things about the world around us that has unquestionably produced results.”

[An aside: actually, I suppose I would have to include math and logic as methods of learning things about the world, but only insofar as the specific calculations in question are based on confirmable data, which would probably lead me to classify them as forms of science]

Do you see that “so far”? I’m perfectly willing to accept other methods if we can demonstrate unquestionably that they indicate reality (remember, the kind of reality we’re talking about is “real for everybody regardless of belief”).

What other methods have unquestionably revealed information about the world around us (and how do you know the information is true)? I said “unquestionably.” No one can doubt that science reveals truth, as it relies on evidence (i.e. that which compels acceptance, regardless of belief). [An aside: by “truth,” I naturally mean “provisional truth, always open to changing when new evidence is discovered” – science brings us as close to reality as we can be at any given time]

If you say “faith,” then it is not unquestionable, as there are people who do doubt the claims of faith – because faith, by definition, does not rely on evidence (i.e. that which compels acceptance, regardless of belief).

You seem to think that faith makes a thing so. It very clearly does not.

 

[PRmerger]

Alright, so you reserve the right to interpret as symbolic any passages in the holy book that trouble you.

Bummer. I thought that we could dialogue without resorting to sarcasm.

Sigh.

Anyway, if the Church, which gave me this holy book, gives me the right to interpret this as symbolic, why can’t I use that right? What gives you the right to tell me I can’t?

(BTW, it’s not just “any passages that trouble me” that I reserve the right to interpret symbolically. Just so you know–I would never cut off my hand if it led me to sin. )

The bigger point for me is why, if there really is a source of Transcendent Absolute Morals, did not that Source codify those Absolute Morals into law? According to your holy book, this god was codifying all sorts of things into law – slavery, for example.

I suppose what you really mean is why did this Source not codify it into law for this specific group of people in history at that specific time and place. (Because, as you surely know, this Source* did* codify those Absolute Morals into law. So, from my point of view as a Catholic Christian, this is actually a moot point.)

Certainly I’m willing to entertain this question as a sort of academic exercise.

So, why did God not codify it into law at that time and at that place to that specific group of people? My first thought is because they wouldn’t have heard it. I’m pretty sure He told them to only worship the One True God, but they went ahead and went back to sacrificing to idols. Seems pretty reasonable that they wouldn’t have responded too willingly to “Thou shalt not commit genocide.”

 

[PRmerger]

. Further, why, if stories of genocide are allegorical, did this god select something Absolutely Evil to use to illustrate his point (without condemning the Absolute Evil act)?

I can give you another example in Scripture of God using something Absolutely Evil without condeming this Absolutely Evil act.

Want to guess what it is?

Hint: it’s in the New Testament.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s the important point: What’s the practical difference between a world in which morality gradually develops in society over time and a world in which there is a god who chooses, for some inscrutable reason, to slowly reveal his absolute morality in a manner indistinguishable from its gradual development?

Ostensibly, absolutely nothing.

What evidence exactly is there that prompts us to accept the claim that the ancient Israelites had a direct line to the supposed Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes?

I’m not sure what you’re asking. * Did *the ancient Israelits have a direct line to this Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes?

I don’t believe (or even assert) that there are absolutely no gods.

Yay! I knew I liked you for a reason! So if you don’t absolutely deny that no gods exist, then there’s a small part of you that might be open to the fact that there* may* be gods. Maybe even a God.

Why not say this prayer, “If you’re there, please help me find you.”
That’s a pretty painless and innocuous statment.

What other “methodology” do you recommend we use to acquire information? How do you know that the information you would glean from such methodology is true?

Well, to borrow from Aristotle: since reality is diverse, we ought to use diverse methods. There is no one universal method. Peter Kreeft writes: “One should not use a mathematical method in ethics…nor should we try to use our moral conscience to solve a mathematical equation. A problem of how to write a good novel can’t be solved by mathetmatics or ethics.”

Since reality is diverse, our methods of knowing must be diverse as well.

The proper study of mankind, says CS Lewis, is everything.

More later…have to run!

 

[PRmerger]

Do you see that “so far”? I’m perfectly willing to accept other methods if we can demonstrate unquestionably that they indicate reality (remember, the kind of reality we’re talking about is “real for everybody regardless of belief”).

So, am I correct in saying that this is, essentially, your philosophy: all that is verifiable is True; and all that is True is verifiable?

 

[Dameedna]

:idea: BTW, when where science, philosphy and religion ever united?:

Up until around the 15th and 16th century. Then they began to split as what was being “observed” about the universe did not fit with that the bible said. The bible was chosen as the truth over and over again, despite human observation.

Science and religion eventually split because the bible was being held as truth, over what being observed as truth.

Philosophy was kind of left over.

 

[PRmerger]

Up until around the 15th and 16th century. Then they began to split as what was being “observed” about the universe did not fit with that the bible said. The bible was chosen as the truth over and over again, despite human observation.

Science and religion eventually split because the bible was being held as truth, over what being observed as truth.

Philosophy was kind of left over.

Could you please provide some sources for this?

 

[Dameedna]

Well, then, since you haven’t shown that science proves this, you must accept it on FAITH. That is, you have FAITH that science is the only thing we should use.

I have no problem accepting that I live my life with forms of faith within it. I have faith that I exist to a degree. But I really have no choice in that unless I want to drive myself insane and other people confirm and observe the phenomenon that is me.

Let’s just say I have a lot 'more" faith in a scientific method that requires verification and has proven itself over and over. So really, all that I am having “faith” in is human beings capacity to obeserve the universe and draw conclusions from that which is consistant universal behaviour.

I have more "faith’ in that(since it has show itself to actually work), than I have in primative man who believed that plauges were a result of punishment from the Gods. We now know where plauges come from. That people still think they come from a God despite all the evidence is just…well…not sure what to say about it really.

 

[Dameedna]

You do realize, don’t you, that atheism is not a position of faith? It’s a fact that man does not know everything and may, in fact, never know everything. I don’t believe (or even assert) that there are absolutely no gods. I don’t know enough about the world to make that statement. I can say that everything I know about the world has failed to convince me that there are any supernatural beings (and under a more restricted definition of “belief” and “knowledge” I would say that it’s very close to certain that there are no gods).

Exactly. And without being presented with any idea that can be verified that would convince one of a God, they are by default an athiest.

 

[PRmerger]

I have no problem accepting that I live my life with forms of faith within it. I have faith that I exist to a degree. But I really have no choice in that unless I want to drive myself insane and other people confirm and observe the phenomenon that is me.

Well, then, I applaud you for admitting this. There *is *room for faith in one’s life!

I don’t know if you’ve challenged believers for having faith or not, but I hope now that you realize that everyone uses both faith and reason, whether they admit it or not.

I have more "faith’ in that(since it has show itself to actually work), than I have in primative man who believed that plauges were a result of punishment from the Gods. We now know where plauges come from. That people still think they come from a God despite all the evidence is just…well…not sure what to say about it really.

Well…yeah…I have more faith in science than in “primitive” man believing plagues were a punishment from the gods, too.

 

[MegaTherion]

So, why did God not codify it into law at that time and at that place to that specific group of people? My first thought is because they wouldn’t have heard it. I’m pretty sure He told them to only worship the One True God, but they went ahead and went back to sacrificing to idols. Seems pretty reasonable that they wouldn’t have responded too willingly to “Thou shalt not commit genocide.”

It’s one thing not to condemn evil acts because you think a people wouldn’t listen anyway – it’s quite another to condone and encourage evil acts.

Personally, I think it’s immoral even to use something like genocide as a symbol or teaching tool if there is even the remotest chance that someone could infer that genocide is ok in certain contexts.

But since you interpret the genocide passages as symbolism, let’s try slavery, which was codified into law that was practiced.

From Exous 21 (again, from the Bible at catholic.org) – The right of masters to beat their slaves within an inch of their lives:

20 'If someone beats his slave, male or female, and the slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. 21 But should the slave survive for one or two days, he will pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase.

And in the New Testament, in Ephesians, we find:
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are, according to human reckoning, your masters, with deep respect and sincere loyalty, as you are obedient to Christ

While we’re at it, can you point me to the moment in the Bible where Jesus says that slavery is wrong?

It would seem to me that if slavery is evil, the source of transcendent morals would have said so at some point – or, if past cultures were not ready to receive these morals, this source would at the very least have not codified laws for slavery.

Here’s the point of all of the above, and it’s a very important point:

When I asked you the practical difference between a world in which morality gradually develops in society over time and a world in which there is a god who chooses, for some inscrutable reason, to slowly reveal his absolute morality in a manner indistinguishable from its gradual development, you correctly responded:

Ostensibly, absolutely nothing

Then, I asked:

me:

What evidence exactly is there that prompts us to accept the claim that the ancient Israelites had a direct line to the supposed Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes?

And you asked:

you:

I’m not sure what you’re asking. Did the ancient Israelits have a direct line to this Transcendent Source of Moral Absolutes?

So let me clarify. You have admitted that there is no practical difference between those two worlds. In every way, history appears to have unfolded exactly the way we would expect if morality gradually developed in societies over time (as it did in ancient Hebrew society, no different than anywhere else in the world).

Yet you claim that one society had a special line of communication to the Transcendent Source of Absolute Morals. Where is there any evidence at all that would indicate that?

Because it seems like the development of morality is more easily and more rationally explained by what we know about anthropology and the history of human behavior. There is absolutely nothing that distinguishes the ancient Hebrews from any other ancient society, nothing at all that would indicate that they had “better” morals than any other group of people at the time.

 

[MegaTherion]

This is quickly going to lead us back into a discussion of evidence:

Since reality is diverse, our methods of knowing must be diverse as well.

You haven’t answered the questions. The questions were: “What other ‘methodology’ do you recommend we use to acquire information? How do you know that the information you would glean from such methodology is true?”

So, am I correct in saying that this is, essentially, your philosophy: all that is verifiable is True; and all that is True is verifiable?

That’s correct, but only for a definition of “True” limited to the objective world (that is, the world that is real for everyone). I think there are subjective realities (like thoughts, preferences, values, and desires) that are “true” for an individual but are not confirmable. But that is an entirely different sense of “true.”

For example, it’s “true” that I like chocolate ice cream. The preference itself is subjective in that it can’t be be verified by more than one person. Certainly, you could study my behavior (what I choose to consume) and conclude that it’s likely that I have a preference for chocolate ice cream – but you couldn’t actually experience the feeling of my preference and confirm that I really and truly do like it (after all, it’s possible – but highly unlikely – that I’m just acting like I prefer chocolate ice cream to fool you).

But that’s not the kind of “truth” we’ve been talking about in this thread. We’re talking about things that are true for everybody and how we can go about distinguishing that kind of truth from something false or subjective (i.e. something not true for everybody).

If something is true for everybody, then (by definition) it must be confirmable by anyone regardless of belief. (And before you make the mistake, please note I said “confirmable” – capable of being confirmed by anyone; it doesn’t have to be confirmed by every single person to be true)

I think that ethics is largely subjective, but that it relies on an understanding of the objective world to inform it – and that there are very broad ethical guidelines that are objective or so close to objective that we can say that certain acts (like genocide or slavery) are demonstrably wrong (we’ve been over this already in this thread).

So if you don’t absolutely deny that no gods exist, then there’s a small part of you that might be open to the fact that there may be gods. Maybe even a God.

Of course I’m open to the possibility to your god exists. In exactly the same way that I’m open to the possibility that Vishnu, Shiva, Zeus, Apollo, Quetzequotal, and Cthulhu may be real. In exactly the same way that I’m open to the possibility that leprechauns, ghosts, zombies, and trolls might exist.

But just because something could exist – and, theoretically, virtually anything could be true – doesn’t mean that it’s even remotely likely that it does exist.

I think that based on the fact that there is absolutely no evidence for any supernatural entities, the odds that any of those creatures exists is almost vanishingly small.

I am always willing to change my mind – but nothing will change my mind other than evidence.

 

[Dameedna]

Well, then, I applaud you for admitting this. There *is *room for faith in one’s life!

I don’t know if you’ve challenged believers for having faith or not, but I hope now that you realize that everyone uses both faith and reason, whether they admit it or not.

You hope I now realize this? What you have said is nothing new to me, and none of my arguments were based on some lack of understanding about this principle.

Just because I recognize that humans have to live their lives with a certain degree of faith, most of what we have “faith” in is verifiable. IE, I do not just have to “believe” I exist, others affirm this because they can see the physical evidence of my existance. The only think you reallly have to have faith in, is the human capacity for observation. Once we know we observe, we set up conditions to ensure our observations are as accurate as we can make them.

I have and will “challenge” believers for stating things as truth, when they are not verifiable and do not hold up to scrutiny either using empirical methods or reasoning even if they call it faith.

If they say this is what they believe, then that is fine. At least they are admitting it. And since it is “believed” then one needs to recognize that a belief could be wrong.

It is when “belief” is claimed as truth and especially when it is claimed as an absolute truth and “faith” is used as an excuse to not require verification that human beings get themselves into trouble.

 

[PRmerger]

I am always willing to change my mind – but nothing will change my mind other than evidence.

Excellent.

Before I go any further, (and I’m still digesting your previous comments so I will come back to them soon), I want to ask if you accept the evidence that Jesus Christ existed?

 

[Dameedna]

But that’s not the kind of “truth” we’ve been talking about in this thread. We’re talking about things that are true for everybody and how we can go about distinguishing that kind of truth from something false or subjective (i.e. something not true for everybody).

I think we can develop an understanding of what is true for everyone. I just think we struggle to find a way to encourage it to be meaningful for people, unless they believe in a God that sits behind it.

As much as I agree with finding a system we can all work with, all of this talk of justification will not give some people a reason to care.

 

[PRmerger]

While we’re at it, can you point me to the moment in the Bible where Jesus says that slavery is wrong.?

How about this: Luke 10:16 Christ is talking to his apostles and tells them “He who hears you, hears me.” So…when the apostles and their successors speak, in the areas of faith and morals, we are hearing Christ speak.

And one can look at the Magisterial teachings to see what Christ says about slavery.

 

[PRmerger]

You hope I now realize this? What you have said is nothing new to me, and none of my arguments were based on some lack of understanding about this principle.

Oh, sorry. This revelation about you was new to me.

And, Dame? I’m still hoping you’re going to provide sources (that is, evidence) for your claim on post #104.

 

[1holycatholic]

Oh, sorry. This revelation about you was new to me.

And, Dame? I’m still hoping you’re going to provide sources (that is, evidence) for your claim on post #104.

I, too, would be interested to see anything legitimate supporting such an egregious claim.

 

[MegaTherion]

How about this: Luke 10:16 Christ is talking to his apostles and tells them “He who hears you, hears me.” So…when the apostles and their successors speak, in the areas of faith and morals, we are hearing Christ speak.

And one can look at the Magisterial teachings to see what Christ says about slavery.

I didn’t ask what the Church teaches about slavery, I asked where Jesus himself said slavery was wrong.

You see the problem – Jesus never said that slavery was wrong. In fact, passages in Paul’s letters exhort slaves to obey their masters. The best you can do is “Jesus’ followers eventually came around to the idea that slavery is wrong (along with the rest of the world), and I attribute it ultimately back to Jesus.”

You’re asserting that the most moral being in the universe assumed human form, told people how to treat each other, and left out mentioning that slavery was wrong. Seriously?

Doubtless, you’ll say this is another case of “people wouldn’t have listened.” But what difference does it make if people wouldn’t have listened? The right thing to do would have been to still tell them what is morally correct. Think of how different the course of human history would probably have been if Jesus had explicitly said that slavery is wrong.

But the bigger point is: for all practical purposes, the way history has unfolded looks exactly as if morality gradually developed over time in society. There is no reason and no good evidence to accept your claim that there is a transcendent source of absolute morality that acted in history. There is not a trace of a source of absolute morality acting anywhere in history to tell people these absolute morals.

You see the problem with your claim, don’t you?

I want to ask if you accept the evidence that Jesus Christ existed?

There’s no evidence that the legendary figure depicted in the gospels existed. There are no eyewitness accounts, no contemporary accounts, nothing this figure wrote himself, nada.

Now that doesn’t mean that there wasn’t a person upon whom the legends were based. I think it’s quite likely that there was a rabbi (or possibly a few rabbis) who served as the basis of the legends. But there’s insufficient evidence to say for sure – and there is certainly insufficient evidence to accept the extraordinary claims made in the gospels.

A rough analogy would be to the legends of King Arthur – it’s possible that there was a king upon whom the legends were based, but the legends and stories (particularly the ones involving magic) are just that – stories.

Edit: And before you say it: no, I don’t have “faith” in history. I accept that historians use evidence (that anyone can look at, examine, and verify) to determine what is most likely to have occurred in history. Like all conclusions, these historical conclusions are provisional, always subject to change when new evidence appears. That is the opposite of faith.

 

[ishii]

As sort of an aside, in Catholic theology if reason were able to reign consistently within each individual, moral evil would cease to exist.

What if reason consistently reigned within each individual, yet individuals, with full knowlege of right reason still chose to do evil? Doesn’t that describe the world we live in in a lot of ways? I mean, we know what the natural law is telling us to do, but we still choose to do evil. We have the knowlege of right reason written upon our hearts. And yet, we ignore it and do things our own way, in opposition to right reason. That is called sin.

Ishii