The Ethics of Pleasure
December 18th, 2006 by 
soulster
One of the core conversations of this blog is unsurprisingly morality, for, I think, a couple of reasons: First, theists so often use arguements for their superior morality or atheists inferior morality as a defense that it has become a natural, if problematic, part of The Debate. Second, morality is cultural and social and has to due with the many ways our lives overlap, therefore it is important and any moral insecurity creates many fears within us. Readers on this site should be directed to the posts in the ethics category for a review of the conversation. Much more information is also included in the comments to these and other posts.
While surfing our connecting sites, I ran across the post "Virtue & Vice" on the blog The Black Tulip by Frieslander. I think it would be an interesting read since it confronts some currently popular cultural assumptions held by a broad sprectrum of moral orientations. Basically, the post talks about some recent authors who question our current categories of virtue and vice, and gives a response I like. Here's some of the bits I thought were the best:
…Instead of incorporating certain activities into our lives in moderation — such as drinking, recreational drug use, sex, junk food — we overindulge. Our society no longer subscribes to the "golden mean"; we are either promiscuous or virgin, "meat-heads" or vegans, addicts or purists. What's more, abstinence has become the new vice (whether from cigarettes, booze, sex); vice because it can no longer be virtue when adherents spend so much time and energy obsessing over what they have denied themselves.
I'm not sure if I would take this to such an extreme, however I do acknowledge that this very denial tends to produce the exact opposite qualities from the virtuous ones intended. For what is virtue? If one is to abstain from every bad habit, large or small, out of an obligation to do so in order to then become a virtuous person and live a good life, then is this abstinence not meaningless? Worse, might one's own self-righteousness contribute detrimentally to the well-being of others, or the ability of others to become virtuous? Doing or refraining from doing does not make a person virtuous; virtue is part of one's character and an element of the soul. True virtue makes these kinds of laws and regulations unnecessary; however we might also argue that virtue on that scale is not seen very often in this world, nor throughout history, with some notable (and famous) people excepted…
…We live in a short-sighted view of reality and seek to maximize short-term gain. This is simply because we are mortals and can only plan within our lifetimes; it is also very saddening to look outside today and see the serious harm we are doing to our environment — the natural world that will outlive us and our descendants. There must be a balance struck between daily pleasures and long-term happiness: for example, Sismondo opines that aging playboy Hugh Heffner does not have the kind of happiness and freedom from pain that most of us truly desire. Finding a sensible mate, getting a good job, eating well and exercising, and making sound investment choices may all be elements of the "good life" in modern society.
I like this because I am not much of a fan of virtue for virtue's sake or the maintainence of society and life in general by rules. I do not think legislating morality is a particularily good way of promoting it. I do not maintain my morality with rules, though boundaries are, on occasion useful, and I find such a strategy useless for helping most people.
In regards to pleasure, I would see it in relation to the ethic I have already stated elsewhere. There is nothing good about denying yourself pleasure in itself. Pleasure should only be denied as a sacrificial act to further missional goals, namely the nurture, growth, and well-being of others. More than that, pleasure should be used on behalf of others, and for the good of the world. This is the ethic of pleasure I see as truly Christian, though definitely not Puritian and perhaps not very Protestant either.
I would be interested in the thoughts of others as to their ethic of pleasure. When should we go for it? When should we not? How do we decide? Etc.
Posted in belief, ethics, philosophical issues | 
December 18th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
When I consider ethics or moral reasoning, I generally recommend that one considers the seminal work of Lawrence Kohlberg. He described the ability to reason morally/ethically as progressing through stages. Kohlberg’s formulation would place your idea of pleasure ethic in stage 5 or 6, so congratulations, you are reasoning at a very high percentile!
One of the pieces of evidence that Christianity is divinely inspired as compared to other religions is that it contains teachings that interface perfectly with the needs of people at all 6 stages of moral reasoning. If fact, that is the source of much confusion in the faith about legalism/freedom from law. So, my response to your post is that there are many levels of application of ethical principles based on the level of moral reasoning that a person utilizes. The higher levels demand substantial abstraction and higher order reasoning in general. So, I wouldn’t try to teach my daughter with Down Syndrome your pleasure ethic, it would never be comprehensible to her. She will need a solid set of rules to work with her very limited cognitive ability.
For those at the stage 6, there is “do unto others as you would have them do to you”. Or, 1 Corinthians 13. Skeptics, who have a bias against using such principles due to their source, might use “act so as always to do what is in one’s own enlightened best interest”, the difficult part being enlightened.
December 18th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
@ Ed:
I am strongly skepticaly about the claim you seem to be making, that Christianity is the only/one of the only religions that supports the needs of people at all 6 stages of Kohlberg’s hierarchy. Even supposing that is the case, divine inspiration is but one possible explanation of this ( another that immediately comes to mind is that the creators of Christianity included some people who operated at stage 6). I don’t think your claim, even if true, constitutes “evidence” that Christianity is divinely inspired.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Ed:
Thanks for the helpful hint about Kohlberg’s [wiki] work in stages of moral development [wiki]. This information was very helpful and I will be mulling it over for some time.
I think your position that Christianity can interface with all six stages is theologically well founded. The nature of the universe itself (as well as the Bible) hints that God is into variety and dynamic/organic systems. This would mean “both, and” is more likely that “either, or” and progressive scales, spectrums, and journeys are the name of the game. In my post of the Christian ethic, perhaps I should have thought in terms of the missional ethic being an ideal to strive for. As it is, it seems like my ethic is stated in an exclusionary way, calling ethics of lower stages in some way “unchristian”. In that respect, your comment is very helpful as is your experience with your daughter. I do believe a Christian ethic is possible in her case as well.
I do think, though this might be embarassingly like tooting my own horn, upon reading wiki’s overview of Kohlberg’s stages, the the missional ethic I propose is Kohlberg’s theoretical 7. It is not 5’s social contract because its sense of responsibility is beyond the idea of publics and power share. It is also beyond 6’s universal principles since it is not as concerned about objective right outside of situations, but rather right interms of wholistic relationship. In fact, I would claim it goes beyond the limits of the categorical imperiative and other such axioms. At its heart is the idea that what is ethical is participation with God in his life and the life of the cosmos, and as such, it seems to fit with the description of stage 7.
While I think it unlikely that many Christians will intellectually grasp and be able to express stage 7 themselves, they can access it through narrative and relationship through the imitation of Christ and the promise of incranation through the Spirit. In that way, Christianity is urging people to live the higher stages of moral development (as in Pauls teaching on Spirit above law in Romans), but they do not need to necessarily access that experience through reasoning. In my own case, I have arrived at the missional ethic, though imperfectly, through a spiral of reasoning and experience.
Benny:
Your objection might not be that hard for you to back up with some data. Perhaps it would be interesting for you to find other faiths that in their sacred text(s) meet all 6 stages (or 7 if you follow my line above). If you’re interested in doing the research, I will post it on the site as it’s own article if you like, referencing this conversation, of course. You can email your results to me if you like: ben[at]thetruthtree.com.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
@ Ed & soulster:
Soulster, you bring up a good point. Ed, my apologies for making an objection without factual back-up. I will do some digging and see what I can find
December 18th, 2006 at 11:20 pm
My point about Kohlberg’s stages and evidence for me of the validity of Christianity relates to several factors: parable-based teaching, narrative of the unfolding of the gospel, and the gospel itself. Other religions that are also successful over time tend to do very well up through stage 4: Confucian, Hindu, Muslim, Taoist, and Buddhist. It has been years since my study of their texts, but my memory of them was they were very much less integrative of Kohlberg’s stages than Christianity. Christianity is also unique in its large stage 5 and over component. This allows it to spread into very diverse places, especially when there are individuals who are looking to move past stage 4. This is largely the reason that Christianity, of all faiths, has tended to produce martyrs when introduced into a society. These stage 5 and above people are not understood by the ruling stage 4’s and are seen as a threat to the social order. That happened in the Roman empire, repeated itself in the re-Christianization of Europe in the early Dark Ages, in 16th century Japan, in imperial China, today in Islamic societies among native converts, and behind the Iron Curtain until recently. One problem in the modern era in studying this phenomenon is the many degraded forms of Christianity (nominal Catholicism, fundamentalism, liberalism, and others) AND the influence of Christianity on the development of western civilization, out of which springs the Enlightenment and modern scientific philosophies. The degraded forms of Christianity in history often fall back into stage 4 or lower, until the conditions permit the re-emergence of the full gospel understanding, that can move people up through the stages to 5 and over. My point is that it seems more likely to me that Christianity derived from divine intervention than that a Jewish carpenter and a few fishermen 2000 years ago thought this up. Even Kohlberg and his adherents have tried to come up with a method of accellerating the movement of people through these stages, and they were not very successful. So, to me that is an evidence for the divine.
December 18th, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Ed,
Humble beginnings do not make the present entity, be it through evolution or revolution, any less meaningful. I hate to meta-analyze, but it seems to me that you’re projecting your desires onto something you hold dear. If I remember correctly, you’re employing a genetic fallacy:
1. The origin of X is presented.
2. X is true.
If we were to hold a thought experiment and imagine that it in the near future the Unitarian Universalists and their message took hold of much of the West, and one grew up living as a Unitarian and said, “Unitarian Universalism is derived from divine intervention because it’s a class 6 on the Kohlberg scale,” it would not follow.
The Christian faith may have at times helped humanity’s progress (debatable, but for the sake of argument, I’ll grant it), and may even be the lone 6 on the Kohlberg scale (debatable as well) but your conclusion of a divine intervention is still puzzling.
There’s an interesting book about the history of the Catholic Church you might want to check out: Constantine’s Sword: The Church and the Jews, by James Carroll.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:57 am
Drunkentune,
Sorry, I’m not a trained debater, I’m a doctor. But I don’t think I’ve employed the genetic fallacy because I was not presenting proof, but evidence. Doctors must always consider the source of their information in their judgment of its reliability. If a male schizophrenic patient is admitted to my unit, and says the swelling in his abdomen is due to pregnancy, I will be doubtful even before I see a negative pregnancy test. If a breakthrough treatment for schizophrenia is written by a health food promoter in their promotional literature, I am less inclined to believe their evidence than the Harvard team that just published their results in the New England Journal. If a boy scout troop announces they have discovered warp drive technology I am less inclined to believe them than if it was a team of engineers from CalTech. But if the boy scout troop did discover warp drive and for two thousand years, the technology has held up, then I’d be inclined to believe their claim as to how they happened to come across this discovery in the early 21st century. The evidence of their humble origin but extraordinary accomplishment would lend validity to even a fantastic claim, such as “we understood it from our encounter with Vulcans who abducted us”. If the CalTech guys made the same claim, I’d be more inclined to believe they were making such a claim in an effort to be evasive about revealing too much to their competitors.
In your example of Unitarian Universalism, you are making the same leap. If, in two thousand years, UU has permeated nearly every culture, and brought about tremendous change in the prevailing social conditions of our world, then YES, I would see that as evidence (not proof) of its claims.
If there was proof of God’s existence or lack thereof, we would not be having this discussion. I think that is why religious faith is not an exercise in debate, it is a judgment followed by an experience.
December 19th, 2006 at 10:33 am
The more I read about Kohlberg’s moral hierarchy and Christianity, the harder it is for me to accept that Christianity rises as high as stage 6. Some of the most basic teachings, such as “sin and you’ll go to Hell” and “do good and you’ll go to Heaven”, rise no higher than stages 1 (avoidance of punishment) and 2 (do what is in one’s own interest), respectively. The most common justification for following the precepts laid down in the Bible is “God says so”. This comes up most often in discussions with anti-homosexual Christians. In my experience, many of these discussions end with the Christian pointing to a passage such as Leviticus 20:13, and saying “homosexuality is a sin because God says it is a sin.” To me, this kind of thinking lands solidly in stage 4. The biggest objection I have to ranking Christianity higher than stage 4 is due to this definition of stage 5 by wikipedia:
“In Stage five, individuals are viewed as holding different opinions and values, and it is paramount that they be respected and honored impartially. Issues that are not regarded as relative like life and choice should never be withheld or inhibited. In fact, no single choice is correct or absolute – ‘who are you to judge if they are or not’?”
I feel that Christianity is not a highly tolerant religion. There are many passages in the Bible promoting tolerance, love, and acceptance, but I believe that religions must be judged not only by what it preaches, but also by the actions performed by its adherents. By their works ye shall know them. And works such as the Crusades, the Inquisition, and witch hunts say much about the tolerance, or lack thereof, engendered by Christianity.
This is not to say that all Christians are intolerant. Far from it. Individuals such as Mr. Lynam and soulster demonstrate that Christian beliefs can be elevated to higher stages of Kohlberg’s hierarchy. But I don’t believe this is something inherent in or specific to Christianity. I see this ability to embrace a belief system and operate within it at a high stage of moral development as something that is enabled by the individual, which can be done for many different belief systems.
I would place Christianity, with its emphasis on laws, dictums, and (divine) authority, in stage 4 of Kohlberg’s hierarchy. I find Buddhism to be a better example of a system that places higher in the hierarchy. The Buddhist teaching of the Middle Way, which emphasizes the importance of moderation and reconciliation between seemingly antithetical claims, seems consistent with the respect for different opinions and values that defines stage 5. Buddhism also teaches that there is no self, that the distinction between “I” and “other” is only an illusion, and therefore one should attempt to increase the happiness of all living things as eagerly as one’s own. One could argue that this principle raises Buddhism to stage 6, or possibly even stage 7.
There is much more reading I must do, and I will report back in a bit.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am
Benny,
I agree that Buddhism shows a lot of higher order moral reasoning. It is a very successful belief system, and I see much evidence of the veracity of its teachings. However, my point about Kohlberg’s integration with belief systems is based on Kohlberg’s proof that people progress sequentially through the stages (they don’t skip them). And most people around the world today, and nearly all in ancient times were in very low stages. The integration of Christianity means that I can go to my Bible and read a parable. Since I’m Kohlberg stage 5 moving toward 6, that parable gives a meaning to me, helping me move along. When my daughter, who is mentally retarded, hears the same parable, she is helped to move along from stage 1 to stage 2. I just don’t see Buddhism offering the same degree of integration. Nor have Kohlberg and his adherents come up with a integrated system which has shown efficacy or much cross-cultural applicability.
I would also agree that many really horrible things were done by people who called themselves Christian throughout history. But, consider what the founding European tribespeople would have done to those they didn’t like if their faith hadn’t moved some of them from stage 1 to 2 or 2 to 3, etc. Just consider the implications of people who act like the Celts, Gauls, Vikings, Huns, Mongols coming to your town.
December 19th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Ed:
Again, I disagree that Christianity alone enjoys the benefit of “having something for everyone”, or as you call it, a high degree of integration. I believe that all major religions (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, etc.), by virtue of having remained viable for hundreds or thousands of years, demonstrate that they are accessible to people at all stages of moral/ethical development. I am aware that Christianity, if you ignore sectarian boundaries, have the greatest number of adherents in the world. But I feel there are too many factors involved (the aggressivness of Christian prosetylization, for instance) for one to conclude that Christianity is a superior religion simply because it has the most number of adherents.
In the same vein, I don’t feel that Christianity’s high degree of integration constitutes strong evidence for divine inspiration. To me, it essentially boils down to an appeal to complexity: “Christianity is so complex and all-encompassing, there’s no way a carpenter and some fishermen came up with it!” I have two objections to this. One, it is not at all inconceivable (at least, to me) that people of any occupation are capable of devising a complex system of ethics and morals. Two, many non-Christian religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, have complexity rivaling, if not surpassing, that of Christianity. If Christianity is the only divinely inspired religion, then the others must have been devised by people. And therefore people must be capable of devising systems of such complexity.
Re: “Just consider the implications of people who act like the Celts, Gauls, Vikings, Huns, Mongols coming to your town.”
I imagine the implications are much the same as when people such as the Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores come to town.
December 19th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Benny,
Except somewhere in their baggage the Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores would be carrying a very useful book that would make future generations less likely to become Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores.
Also, I am more along the lines of Origen, the early theologian, in my thinking about other philosophies/religions. Origen made efforts to intergrate Greek philosophy with Christian faith, because he recognized all truth as worthy. I would likewise not dismiss the notion that there is something of the divine in the teachings of some other religions. However, I still would see Christianity as having the best claim to the fullest revelation of the divine. Why? Clearer humble, unlikely origins. More and greater miracles. Greater applicability across cultural/ethnic divisions.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Ed:
“Except somewhere in their baggage the Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores would be carrying a very useful book that would make future generations less likely to become Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores.”
Correction: Except somewhere in their baggage the Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores would be carrying a book that didn’t prevent the invaders from becoming who they are, and may or may not help future generations (those that survive the invasion) less likely to become Crusaders, Inquisitors, or conquistadores.
With all due respect, you are CLEARLY, as drunkentune observed, projecting your desires onto something you hold dear. The fact that you have a strong, enlightened, personal relationship with Christianity does not mean others cannot have the same type of relationship with other belief systems. Please justify your claim that Christianity has “Clearer humble, unlikely origins. More and greater miracles. Greater applicability across cultural/ethnic divisions.” over all other belief systems.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
In between this debate, I would like to hear other’s view of ethics of pleasure too please. I think the current conversation is important so please continue, but I would like also to remind people of the original topic of the post and ask for their input since I am very curious about it.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:53 pm
As much as I’d like to be a hedonist, I don’t think I can bend that way. I’m going to have to go with soulster: one may pursue personal pleasure, but personal pleasure ought not be the prime good.
December 19th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
Pleasure IS good. (Unless it is derived at the loss to others.)
December 19th, 2006 at 6:43 pm
Ed,
We’ve discussed the conclusions you draw from Kohlberg’s system (and as an aside, after reading the dearth of interesting comments you’ve made, I believe you are employing a non sequitur, and not a genetic fallacy.), but your second comment holds this:
You and Benny have been quarreling over this for a while, but I’d like to point you to this short internet paper: Science and Medieval Christianity, by Richard Carrier.
soulster,
I see pleasure and its baggage as the antithesis of pain and suffering, so am all for it. I agree with beepbeep and you on this one. Perhaps a few thought experiments should bring them to light?
A favorite of mine that I’ve devised revolves around sacrifice. It’s a variation of the Trolley Problem set forward by Philippa Foot:
A trolley is hurdling down the track, and there are five people tied to the track. It is possible to save the five people by jumping in front of the trolley, causing it to derail. Should you jump in front of the trolley?
It’s not really about pleasure, per se, but I’m wondering what others have to think about it. If there’s any dilemmas you can think of that would make the conversation more interesting, it might help. This may be a situation of no contest on all sides. There is a proceeding question – with a slight variation – that interests me even more:
A trolley is hurdling down the track, and you are tied to the track. It is possible to save yourself by pulling a switch by your side, causing it to derail and crush five innocent people. Should you pull the switch?
December 19th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Sorry, I’m about to add another to my dearth of interesting responses! From where I sit, I find Benny and drunkentune as CLEARLY projecting their desires onto something that they hold dear, that is, their skepticism. That is, we all have bias. I can understand yours since I was not a believer until age 19. I think one of the key differences is how we accept truth. When I asked the question about what would change your worldview (on another thread), the skeptics response was a demand for God to react to their personal demand for proof. My response to the same exercise was that I would need to lose confidence in the reliability of nearly every other person. So, I think we are dealing with two ways of integrating truth, one is centered on self and personal experience and one is centered on others and community experience.
December 19th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
To all:
I was thinking about the ethics of pleasure and I wondered about the idea of “golden mean”. Can there be a point where pleasure becomes excessive even if it doesn’t damage anyone else? Like, for example, is it unethical to pursue pleasure to your own harm, such as with desenstization? Or, if you need a situation — I’ll use one from my work — is it wrong for a coke user to use in the privacy of his own home after work, since the effects will be done by morning?
Also, I’m saying a little bit more above than “it’s OK as long as you’re not hurting anyone”. I’m saying its OK so long as it does not hamper the mission of bringing whole living to other lives, and more than that, that it should be used to promote the good of everyone. I think our current, “I’m not hurting anyone” ethic is lacking because it concentrates on justification rather than mission/purpose. For example: someone can agrue that their over-large car is for their own pleasure and is not hurting anyone else, so it’s totally ethical to own a gas-guzzler. Or: A group of guys hold parties with plenty of free alcohol because, in their experience, they have a better chance of getting lucky under such circumstances. They say, “hey, nobody’s making ‘em drink, and nobody’s underage.”
drunkentune:
I not sure what these dilemma’s are attempting to reveal in relation to the post. Please explain. But like a good lab rat, I’ll jump in without knowing what the experiment is about.
I’m a little stumped by the first one because I’d like to think I was noble enough to jump in front to the trolley, but I’m not sure I am. And also, is the trolley empty or is there a driver and passangers.
The second one, I would say to not flip the switch.
Now, please explain to me what that reveals about me and what the whole thing means :).
December 19th, 2006 at 11:14 pm
RE soulster
“Can there be a point where pleasure becomes excessive even if it doesn’t damage anyone else?”
Where is one’s primary responsibility? Is it to others or is it to self? (I think that religious people and non-religious people may have different ideas concerning this.)
If one’s primary responsibility is to self, then that I endulge in pleasures which have limited or minimal negative impact upon others, but may still in the process harm me; remains in the league of my responsibility to self.
Actions which may harm self, but have minimal impact on others, are my responsibility.
On the other hand, if my primary responsibility is to others, (forsaking self), then ALL of my actions and inactions become potentially beneficial or harmful to others, regardless of whether they are harmful to myself or not.
The latter might be more in line with a religious point of view, the former might be more alligned with a self-determining individualistic point of view,or an atheistic point of view.
I come down on the side that my primary respnsibility is to self and that other people’s primary responsibility is to self.
This doesn’t mean that the individual has carte blanche to ride roughshod over anyone who gets in the way, as we have already established that responsibility to self is mitigated by a responsibility to not deliberately harm others in the process.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
RE the trolly
“A trolley is hurdling down the track, and there are five people tied to the track. It is possible to save the five people by jumping in front of the trolley, causing it to derail. Should you jump in front of the trolley?”
How is one convinced that by jumping in front of the trolly that 5 lives will be saved would be my first question.
But for the sake of argument, I will pretend that that is the only way that the 5 lives can be saved.
It might depend on who the 5 people were. If they were people I was particularly close to, I might. No guarantees though.
If they were 5 children, the odds go up in favour of me throwing myself in front of the trolly. Still no guarantee.
If they were MY 5 children - not many women would consider NOT standing in front of that trolly.
December 19th, 2006 at 11:49 pm
Ed:
I would’ve appreciated it if you justified your claim that Christianity has “Clearer humble, unlikely origins. More and greater miracles. Greater applicability across cultural/ethnic divisions†over all other belief systems, instead of merely retorting that it is drunkentune and I who are biased. After my initial post, I’ve tried to not only explain my objections to your claims, but to find support for them as well. I would’ve appreciated the same in turn.
Re: drunkentune’s dilemmas
I can see what seems to be the right choices in each case (jump , don’t pull the switch), but I honestly don’t know what I’d do if I found myself in those situations. And I think I already know what this says about me. I’m more argumentative than I am ethical.
Re: soulster’s latest post
I think theoretically, there may indeed be a point beyond which pleasure becomes unethical even if it doesn’t hurt anyone else. As a first stab at it, we could define it as the point at which the pursuit of pleasure becomes detrimental to the pursuit of other goals you deem more important than obtaining pleasure. But in practice, the “as long as you don’t hurt others” may be the best we can do, since everyone has different goals and weighs them differently, whereas determining when one person’s actions hurts or affects another seems easier.
I think the “I’m not hurting anyone” principle actually works for the two examples you cited. For the car example, since gas is a finite resource, a car that uses more than it needs to is in fact hurting others. For the party example, the idea that alcohol makes it more likely to get lucky implies that alcohol will induce someone to do something they would not do if sober, so the guys can be judged as hurting others and unethical by their own belief.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:24 am
beepbeep:
Very interesting observation. I admit that I no longer hold "self-determining individualistic point of view" as consistent with my worldview, primarily because of my religious views. My experience as a religious worker, however, would say that the majority of religious people, at least in practice and often in theory, do hold to it. Ideally, there are oft quoted verses in Christianty which say that should not be the case, but then again Westernism and Americanism do tend to trump the ideals of faith in many cases.
Benny:
Maybe, it would work for some, but it hasn't worked in my experience. Owners of gas-guzzlers point out that personal property is their business, they pay taxes to deal with the consequences and are within the environmental controls defined by law, and they pay for the gas, so they are not taking without putting back and are helping the economy. While this may seem like a weak justification to you or I, it seems to hold for them. So my method is to move the focus off justification to mission. Not, 'don't hurt anyone' with your gas consumption to 'how can you do the most good' with your gas consumption. I've had more success with that. The same has been true when talking about sexuality. If the focus remains on justification, I've found it hard to convince people to be responsibile, let alone legal. On the other hand, if reframed in terms of 'how can you do good', people tend to respond better.
December 20th, 2006 at 9:58 am
In Drunkentune’s link in post 16, down below the referred reading there are responses which bring into question the author’s conclusion. Having read from many of the primary sources of the Enlightenment (Bacon, Descartes, Franklin, Jefferson-Adams, Rush, Darwin), I would say that Drunkentune’s reference Carrier is a revisionist historian who has given me no useful information. The primary sources I have read from that era were all influenced by the predominant religion in their society, Christianity, and its text, the Bibe, and they frequently refer to such. Please try to refer to primary sources when available rather than revisionist historians with your bias in the future. Also, I am not in a debate, this is a discussion, so please stop throwing out debate terms like “genetic fallacy” and “non sequitor” inappropriately. They are perceived by me as a means to discredit my contribution to the discussion.
In response to Benny, it would take a lot of space to elaborate on my statements, since they relate to the content of the NT, church history, and comparative religion. But, let me point out that of the top 5 most prevelant religions (Christianity, Islam, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian), the only one heavily reliant on miracles (including resurrections) done by its founding teachers is Christianity. Islam and Buddhism have equally close/sudden origins to their canons. Islam is the only other with a strong claim for unlikely origin, as Mohammed was supposedly mostly illiterate. In terms of history and culture, Christianity has at this time not only more nominal adherents, but they are more culturally diverse. I went to a missionary conference a while ago, and one of the sessions was on “unreached people groups” and the groups described were small, obscure, and remote. The Bible is translated into more languages than any other text.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:42 am
Ed,
I’d hate for this to descend into argument, so I’ll take this slowly. I hope you do not take this as an attack, and I dare say I believe I am preemptively stamping out a possible flame war that may ensue, so let’s nip it in the bud. My words are not aimed to attack, only to question your extraordinary claims.
I’m fine with you dismissing a bit of “revisionist history,” however I still believe his point is valid. Religion - namely the church - neither hindered nor advanced science from ~ 300 to 1250 AD. Each of the examples you cite, of “Bacon, Descartes, Franklin, Jefferson-Adams, Rush, Darwin,” all lived after 1250 AD, when the church’s control of matters had waned.
When you say,
and do not list the primary sources you have read, this strikes me as humorous. You claimed that,
yet failed to provide any documentation of this claim. It’s an extraordinary one to me, since what I’ve read on the subject comes to a different conclusion all together. Would you point me to the texts you have read?
I apologize for any perception that you may have; however, I don’t see how attacking the method of my approach is a response to the content. While my use of “debate terms†may have been “inappropriate†to you, your claim that,
does not follow. Would it be possible to rephrase your evidence as so?
1. The Christian religion is the only religion to reach all 6 stages of Kohlberg’s moral reasoning stages.
2. Therefore, the Christian religion is likely to be divinely inspired.
I don’t see how you reach #2. Your logic does not follow, and with or without a fancy Latin name to describe your error, I still can’t see how you get your conclusion. Benny has primarily focused on your presupposition (#1), showing other religions that can be classified as reaching all 6 stages, or examining Christianity and if it does reach all 6 stages, while I have explained that your conclusion does not follow.
Both of these assertions are unfounded. That does not make them incorrect, but as of now you have only asserted, and have not provided evidence to back up your claims.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Soulster:
That is a really novel idea. The one complication I see is that even if two people agree that the focus is “how can I do the most good?”, they won’t see eye-to-eye unless they agree, more or less, on what is “good”. The driver of a gas-guzzler could easily justify his action if he defines “good” as “good for my ego.” The more universal we want to this principle of “do what is good” to be, the more general and widely accepted the definition of “good” needs to be. And wow, that is one awkward sentence.
Ed:
I agree, Christianity at this time has more nominal adherents… if you completely ignore the differences between denominations. I also agree that the Bible is the most translated text (hard to disagree with a fact). I don’t know enough about the cultural distribution of major religions to dispute whether Christianity has in fact reached more cultures than all others. But please explain why you think Islam and Christianity has more “unlikely” origins than the others, and more importantly, why this is evidence of divine inspiration. As I said in post 10, this sounds like an appeal to complexity/incredulity.
More to the point, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that:
1. The more unlikely an origin a religion has, the more likely it is to be divinely inspired
2. The more miracles a religion claims, the more likely it is to be divinely inspired
3. The more adherents a religion has, the more likely it is to be divinely inspired
I don’t understand why these are the criteria by which you judge whether a religion is divinely inspired and/or superior to others. To me, these are non-sequiturs. Yes, I am using a debate term in this conversation, and no, I don’t think they should be off-limits simply because this is not a debate. If I were to make an illogical claim like “Buddhism is the best religion in the world because its founder was Asian”, you would have every right to challenge that claim. I would be wrong to say, “hey, that’s my contribution to the discussion, who are you to try to discredit it?”
December 20th, 2006 at 11:54 am
drunkentune, thank you for saying what I was trying to say in a more elegant, less hostile manner.
December 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Ed,
I’m wondering what relevance this holds to the missionary conference, or our conversation as a whole. This says a lot more about printers and volume of production than content. Mao’s book, The Little Red Book is the second bestselling book of all time.
Do the sales of The Little Red Book have anything to do with the content?
Do the number of languages The Bible has been translated into have anything to do with the content?
December 20th, 2006 at 12:52 pm
My point about the Christian faith and Kohlberg’s stages of moral reasoning is that no other religion or philosophy seems to have shown the ability to move so many different people, in so many different times, and in so many different places from one stage to another. I base this opinion on the effect of Christian teaching on many cultures of Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. All of the areas where Christianity has spread have gradually ceased to employ slavery, mistreat women and children, engage in tribal genocide and cannabalism, and allow for the free expression of ideas. The prevailing animism and tribal religions did not move people through the stages well. The areas of the world where Christianity did not spread as well (Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucian), all had religious/philosophical systems in place that brought people up through the Kohlberg stages to a good degree and resulted in relatively stable social systems. But, none of those religions did as much or as well as Christianity has over history. I state this as opinion, which is based on my understanding of the broad sweep of history. I am not saying that Christianity always led people to move forward in Kohlberg’s stages, just that when applied, the parables and teachings of the faith do a very good job at reaching people in all stages of Kohlberg. And, that Christianity does so in an integrative manner, as I illustrated with my daughter’s and my situation. Because of this, yes, I do find that as evidence that Christianity is divinely inspired.
Which brings me to the issue of the non-sequitor. Your example of one about Buddhism was a statement of opinion/fact. The 3 items you listed for my viewpoint are statements of probability assessment. If I should say, “A new tree species will be discovered today, and its leaves will be green.” That is a non-sequitor. It does not follow that a tree’s leaves must be green. Constrast with, “A new tree species will be discoved today, and it is likely its leaves will be green.” This is a statement of probability. It does not prove anything, but it is believable because my experience and the reports of other around the world and throughout history indicate that trees usually have green leaves. So, I stand by my statements about the likelihood of divine inspiration being greater if certain factors are present, and that they are not non-sequitors.
Regarding the improbability of the origins of Islam and Christianity versus other religions, I base this on the observation of probability that is based on mine and others observations throughout history that educated people, especially in groups or with much collaboration, tend to come up with great new ideas. That a carpenter’s son would have the greatest influence on the development of the human race of any one individual is improbable. That an illiterate man should produce the Koran is improbable. That the educated son of a nobleman should take a new direction in life and with a group of friends come up with Buddhism is more likely, it fits the usual scenario. Hinduism and Confucianism seem to have developed gradually over centuries among an educated elite, that also fits the usual scenario.
December 20th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Re: do the number of translations have anything to do with the Bible’s content? Yes, there is the great commission which inspires the faithful to take the word to other cultures/tribes. And, yes, the content seems to have appeal across most cultures, as not only are there translations available to 95% of the people in the world, but churches in practically every country in the world. Reference is http://www.joshuaproject.net/globalstatistics.php
To illustrate the Kohlberg stage integration, let me present this passage: There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
The barbarian tribal leader or the young child will think of this in terms of preconventional reasoning, as in “God will reward/punish me the same as anyone else despite my high/low status. Or, I can make a deal with God to get what I want just like anybody else.” The conventional stage person could think, “Despite my lack of maleness (or caste, or tribe, or condition of servitude), God will favor me if I am a good girl.” Or, “In Christ’s heaven we will have equal status and that is different than in this world.” The post-conventional thinker: “We need to change the laws and norms of our culture to protect the rights of women, minorities, and the poor.” or “The value of every soul transcends any distinction, they are all of equal value. This passage shows that the parts of the Bible that are patriarchal cannot be universally applied at all times and in all places.”
I think that one of the problems with arguing among Christians and against the Bible by others is that they are at varying levels on the Kohlberg stages.
December 20th, 2006 at 5:49 pm
Ed,
Let’s take a minute to understand the skeptic’s side. To me, you sound like this:
To some that are low on the Afflatus scale, called 1’s, they see Melville’s whale Moby Dick as only a whale; others, higher up on the Afflatus scale, called 2’s, see it as a literary figure representing good and evil. On one level it is a real animal in a story; on another it is an allegory.
I cannot think of any other book that has reached as many levels of the Afflatus scale. People can quote the Tao Te Ching at me all they want, but it’s obvious to me that they just aren’t 2’s in how they interpret the writing.
My understanding of history shows that Melville-readers show that they naturally move up the Afflatus scale - but I’m not implying that this has always been so. Only when it is applied, the parables and teachings of Moby-Dick reach both 1’s and 2’s.
Because many people of both 1’s and 2’s may be on different levels of the Afflatus scale and still enjoy Moby-Dick, this is evidence that Moby-Dick is divinely inspired.
December 20th, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Ed,
On an aside, I’m wondering how Genesis 17:14 or Luke 12:46-47 reach the 6th Kohlberg stage. Does the totality of the Bible rest at the pinnacle of the Kohlberg stage, or only parts of the Bible? You’re not selling me on Kohlberg’s conclusions, and without an already existing belief that the Bible is superior to other religious texts, I don’t see how I can follow your logic.
Is there another way to argue your position while retaining the heart of the matter?
December 20th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Drunkentune,
Kohlberg’s theory is validated scientifically pretty well. It is intermediate between evolutionary theory (well validated) and string theory (still not experimentally verified to everyone’s satisfaction). It is, like any scientific theory, a work in progress, and subject to revision, but probably the best we have right now on moral development. In fact, there is a study done in a Muslim country where I believe no one scored above a 4. I recall from a lecture years ago that a study in tribal areas show no one above a 3. They’ve done studies on American physicians, and the scores are usually 4 or above. So that should help you come up with a meaningful scale to do a measurement. As for something to measure, Moby Dick doesn’t make any claims to divine inspiration, nor did its author, nor have there been people willing to die rather than renounce their faith in its teaching. Nor do 1/3 of mankind attributes some degree of confidence in its moral teachings. Perhaps it would be good to look at Tao Te Ching compared to the Bible, I may do so someday, thanks. I think that much of the Bible in terms of specific passages is there to provide a narrative on the overall message, so, no, it depends a great deal on which part you choose to study.
December 20th, 2006 at 8:54 pm
RE soulster:
“Very interesting observation. I admit that I no longer hold “self-determining individualistic point of view” as consistent with my worldview, primarily because of my religious views.”
This may be the crux of the issue. Though I agree with you that many religions preach the code of selflessness, non-ego, putting others first etc (and however slse it can be expressed); the majority of people, even when they say they adher to such a code, find that it is extremely difficult to put this code into practice.
Personally, I think it is an unrealistic code for a number of reasons.
(That I think it is unrealistic, I am sure is not a surprise to you; as though I believe that acts of “altruism” are worthy and perhaps even noble, I doubt that it is possible to physicaly survive for extended periods of time by placing oneself last.)
And as an added note, I don’t think that atheists under all situations put themselves and their responsibility to self, first all the time either.
I think it is in contradition to our “genetic instructions” (yes, whatever that means - gene expression, perhaps) - to put ourselves last. Or, to put others first.
If, on the other hand, our genetic prescriptors have no impact on a human desire for survival, then it is plausible to place others first.
If, we are, as scientific evidence suggests, genetically programed towards survival, our individual needs would take precedence.
If, however, one is concerned with the survival of a defined group, the needs of the individual may not take a prominent place.
This requires that the individual become prepared to sacrifice self for the common good of the group.
This is a common dynamic, I would suggest, in most groups, religious or otherwise. This fits into my comment about the trolly and the fact that many mothers would theoretically put themselves last to save their own children.
The mother may be prepared to sacrifice herself in order to preserve or save the group. Of course, this idea of a group, the family, is of considerable importance to many people.
In the same way, this idea of “the group” needing to be preserved through self sacrifice is a common human dynamic.
Politicians regularly “fall on their swords” in order to preserve that which they consider to be the integrity, or worth of the party to which they belong.
Religious fanatics regularly sacrifice their very lives in order to preserve (as they see it), the belief system of the religious group to which they belong.
And of course soldiers of every nation have sacrificed their lives for the same ideal. The preservation of the group/nation/political ideology etc.
Where does this concept of self sacrifice, or putting the needs of others first originate?
Well, as an atheist, I think that these human attributes and predispositions are to be found in gene expression.
For example, it is demonstrated in nature that many animal mothers will place themselves in considerable harm in order to preserve their family. It is also demonstrated in nature that male animals will fight off the attentions of other males in order to preserve the pride, pack, group.
So, animals and humans both has a sense of what it is preserve a group. But essentially, their interest to preserve the group through self sacrifice might merely be that of self interest.
In other words, they are prepared to put self last only as an act of self interest. (Sounds contradictory, I know.)
They have a vested interest in the preservation of the particular group to which they belong which may exclude their act of self sacrifice as being an act of putting self last.
In the example of the politician, the religious fanatic, or the soldier, the act of self sacrifice emulates the instinctual act in the animal kingdom.
The political party has become the family. The religious group has become the family and the nation for which the soldier fights for has become the family.
Are these acts ones of self sacrifice or are they an instinct to preserve self by preserving the group?
When the group becomes synonymous with the self, the case could be made that self sacrifice isn’t putting oneself last, it may just be putting oneself first. Preserving the group might become preserving self when personal identification with the group is total and complete.
Of course these are only my thought on the matter. I could be wrong. That I could be wrong, I accept as a matter of course.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:26 pm
Ed:
You still have not provided any evidence for your opinion that Christianity alone has “the ability to move so many different people, in so many different times, and in so many different places from one stage to another”, other than your own interpretation of history. The studies you mentioned would be more convincing if 1) you cited the studies in question; 2) a study was done to show how Christians fare on the Kohlberg scale. The situation with you and your daughter demonstrates that Christianity has had a significant impact in your lives, but proves absolutely nothing about other religions and philosophies as experienced by others.
My non-sequitur example of “Buddhism is the best religion in the world because its founder was Asian” was meant only to support my point that logical fallacies should not be immune to being challenged merely because we are not in a formal debate. Here’s a better demonstration of what I see as your non-sequitur reasoning: “Buddhism is more likely to be divinely inspired because its founder was Asian.” Is this statement of probability any less absurd than the original version? This is exactly the reasoning you are employing, except you’ve replaced “Buddhism” with “Christianity” and “asian founder” with some other claims. Your examples about green leaves are believable because it can be independently verified that most trees have green leaves. But there has never been any evidence that a religion is divinely inspired, outside of its own claims. So any claim about probability of “divine inspiration” is unbelievable unless you’ve already proved the existence of divine inspiration.
I see what you’re saying about the unlikely origin of Christianity and Islam. It is the jump from “unlikely origin” to “divine inspiration” that I don’t follow. Since divine inspiration has never been proven, it is just as unlikely an event as a carpenter’s son or an illiterate man devising systems such as Christianity and Islam. As you say, it is educated people in groups or collaboration that usually come up with great new ideas. As such, wouldn’t that be the most likely explanation for the origin of Christianity and Islam?
December 20th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Ed:
I want to add that I am not posting endlessly in order to change your beliefs. It is not your conclusion that I take issue with, just the way at which you arrived at it. From where I sit, the arguments you have presented thus far contain logical fallacies that does no justice to your beliefs. I also want to add that I appreciate the exchange we are engaged in, for it has pushed me to read and think about ideas I have not previously explored. And I thank you for that.
December 20th, 2006 at 10:46 pm
Er, another addendum. In post 35, in the second sentence, instead of “the way at which you arrived at it” it should read “the arguments you have presented for it”. It would be unforgivably presumptuous of me to think I know how you arrived at your beliefs based solely on exchanges on this blog!
December 20th, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Benny (#25):
You are right in saying a missional ethic cannot be universal. And there should be no attempt to make it so. You can't universalize it because to do so would be to require it of the reluctant and so it would not be missional for them. However, I don't think universalizing it would be necessary: it opperates on persuasion and influence rather than on coercion and authority. If I ask most people to think of what the best possible use of gas for others would be (or the world in general), they come up with surprisingly consistent results. If applied, their ideas, though somewhat varied, would produce a cumilative effect much greater than the current policies and practices which concerntrate on limitation and removing certain powers from people. In a missional ethic. people mostly need support in making their ethic a reality. I've been surprised how well this works in the real world and so far I haven't had anyone come up with a good that is not very good, if you get my meaning.
You are also right in saying that people will have to agree on what is 'good' in any joint venture. But I see this as superior to the elite or an authority imposing a definition of good because it promotes ownership to let it happen grass-roots. People are empowered by making decisions themselves, and they take responsiblity not when people tell them to, but when they see they have an opportunity to make something better. You might be surprised how easy it is for people to agree on 'good' given they have a forward-looking orientation and true power to make their own decision.
I find this works well except for those people so criminalized or manipulative that they only respond to harshly enforced rules. They tend to need limits, not permission and support to act for good. So, again, a missional ethic is a reform ethic built on top of a morality structue that prevents abuses. That structure controls the crooks, but the missional ethic drives the individual and society forward.
December 20th, 2006 at 11:54 pm
soulster,
Your comment immediately reminded me of a recent article in The New York Times, What It Takes to Make a Student, by Paul Tough (November 26, 2006). I’ll quote it at length:
The entirety of the article goes into great length how we have an educational caste system in America. For some people brought up from an early age in such a negative environment, I agree that many “only respond to harshly enforced rules. They tend to need limits, not permission and support to act for good.â€
December 21st, 2006 at 12:22 am
Benny,
I also appreciate the exchange, it is very helpful for me also. I likewise respect your beliefs and would not seek to change them. I am sorry that I do not always elaborate on every point, I don’t want to waste everyone’s eyeballs by becoming pedantic, and I’m glad the others on this blog avoid that trap.
I would agree with the idea that Buddhism is more likely to be divinely inspired because its founder was Asian. That is certainly more likely than that Gilliganism was because it was founded on an island of castaways from a three hour tour.
History that I was asked to elaborate upon. Before Christian ethics became prodominant in Italy, gladiators and captives were killed in arenas. Before Christian ethics became predominant in Ireland, there were human sacrifices and vendetta clan warfare. Shortly after, read all about it in “How the Irish Saved Civilization”. Before Christianity became prominent in Scandanavia, its inhabitants pillaged the helpless, capturing the children and hunting them later for sport. Before Christianity came to Mexico, they tore out the beating hearts of their still living human sacrifices. I admit that Christianity came to Mexico in a very suboptimal way, but I see Catholic Spain of that time as about the most degraded form of Christianity practiced on a large scale. Before Christianity came to New Zealand and Oceana and New Guinea, they ate one another. Before Christianity came to Africa as a missionary enterprise, it was Wilberforce’s determination that ended the slave trade, another blight on the name of Christianity because of the degraded form practiced by those who participated in it. I will note that the influence of Christians in England and America eventually corrected this blight, and from that, it is now considered unethical in nearly every country to hold slaves, and is illegal in all. Later, in the 20th century, enlightened Christians began to go to Africa as friendly missionaries, and now, despite the slave trade history, Africa has a sizeable Christian population. I wil also point out that the influence of Christians in South Africa was very instrumental in the Truth and Reconciliation program, that seems to have defused a genocidal potential there. Christians today participate actively in missions of mercy to the poor and helpless, and are active in many positive social causes. Any speculation about the state of the human population if Christianity had never existed would be grim, since there is little evidence that in the thousands of years of history “B.C.E” that anything changed in the basic condition of man except the names of who made slaves and/or dinner of who.
December 21st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Christopher Columbus’s diary states,
He called the Indians “idolaters” and “slaves, as many as [the Crown] shall order.” (ibid, 2004)
Columbus planted a cross on every island he landed on “making the declarations that are required” to claim the land in ownership of Catholic Spain.
On Hispaniola, after Columbus visited, the native Arawak, a harmless people, suffered 50,000 dead (ibid, 2004).
A witness wrote,
Ed,
For every example you can think of that shows the positive side of Christians, I can dredge up some of the worst horrors in history done in the name of Christ. Either way, acts done – either positive or negative – in the name of a religion have nothing to do with the truth of that religion.
December 21st, 2006 at 3:52 pm
So let me summarize your point:
Because many bad things happened during history in the name of Christ, that means that the introduction of Christianity into societies had no bearing on their moral or ethical development. That, my friend is a NON-SEQUITOR.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:38 pm
Ed,
Christianity’s historical problems or achievements has nothing to do with its claim on the truth. A negative act done in the name of Christianity, for example, the 1648 Chmielnitzki massacres of Jews in Poland when an estimated 200,000 Jews were killed by Christians (K.Deschner, Opus Diaboli, 43), does not relate to the truth of Christianity, just as a positive act done in the name of Christianity does not relate to the truth of Christianity. I said nothing about “moral or ethical developmentâ€; only truth.
For each positive action followers of Christ have committed, there are equally negative actions that have taken place. Your argument falls on atheist’s deaf ears. I’ll repeat my request as before:
Please don’t misrepresent my argument when it’s a quarter of an inch above your comment.
December 21st, 2006 at 4:40 pm
Thanks for the bit from the Times, drunkentune. Seems to fit exactly. I’d like to look it up, especially because my wife is a teacher in an innercity school a few blocks from the house.
Let me put my missional ethic into a personal example. I do not consider it ethical for me to own a television. That doesn’t mean I think it unethical for other people to. But in my case, my wife and I agreed that we would have a better relationships and more conversation without one. I suggested the idea after several conversations with other married people in which they said TV was a major limiter in their availability for their partner. Given the importance of interaction, I thought it would stunt our growth as a couple and our individual development. I also thought I would have much more time for other people if TV wasn’t distracting me, since I am a addict when it comes to the tube. Likewise, I found that TV endulged a violent escapism related to my general powerlessness that was unhealthy and that the hundreds of advertizing impressions per hours tended to make me lean towards an ugly materialism. Don’t get me wrong. I really like TV. I mean I really like it. That’s why it wouldn’t be possible for me to own one but simply keep it off. For me it is unethical because it stands in the way of me taking missional action for others and their development which multiplies into real negative effects for the world. But I would not dream of pushing that on others, universalizing it, or ‘preaching it’ unless they also saw it as a necessary sacrifice for freedom to act for others.
Now, I’m not sure if this fits very well in beepbeep’s theory of sacrifice (#33). I don’t think giving up TV has much to do with my desire to see my genes passed on, though it might be related to my identity with the group. I really think it’s more than that myself. I wouldn’t do it, I don’t think, unless I did it as worship — as some kind of participation in what I think is the work of God. After all, most people love their group and keep their TVs. I think, God or not, many people sacrifice because humans have a capacity to give to something bigger than themselves as an act of hope with little bearing on survival. I think it connects to our psychological need for meaning, and our need at higher levels of psychological complexity and maturity to dwell in the beauty of goodness itself.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:01 pm
Ed:
Your example of Gilliganism perfectly demonstrates one of the flaws I’m trying to point out in your reasoning.
1. Because Buddhism was founded by an Asian, it is more likely to be divinely inspired
2. Because Gilliganism was founded on an island of castaways from a three hour tour, it is more likely to be divinely inspired
3. Because Christianity has an unlikely origin, it is more likely to be divinely inspired
4. Because Christianity claims more miracles, it is more likely to be divinely inspired
5. Because Christianity has more adherents, it is more likely to be divinely inspired
All employ the same logic, and all are equally absurd. In post 34, I presented an explanation of Christianity’s unlikely origin that is more probable than divine inspiration. Similarly, there are explanations for Christianity’s claims to more miracles (the authors liked miracles) and more numerous adherents (more aggressive prosetylization) that have nothing to do with divine inspiration. There is no logical basis whatsoever for thinking that divine inspiration is the most likely cause for the observations in 3, 4, and 5, any more than there is for 1 and 2. The gap between the 5 premises and the conclusion of divine inspiration is equally wide, making all 5 statements equally faulty.
Ed, I think the reason why drunkentune and I continue to disagree with you is that you are pre-supposing that a divinely inspired religion would have certain traits (unlikely origin, more miracles, more adherents, more likely to do good, etc.) Not everyone shares this assumption. And for those of us who do not share your assumption, your arguments fall flat.
December 21st, 2006 at 5:18 pm
soulster:
The personal example you gave seems to perfectly embody the idea I mentioned in post 21, that it is ethical for one to pursue pleasure up to the point where it becomes detrimental to one’s other goals. Much kudos to you for living an ideal that I admire but lack the will power to live by. It seems to me it might be possible to merge that idea with your mission ethic into a general principle somehow, something like “how can you do the most good in your pursue of pleasure?”
December 21st, 2006 at 6:02 pm
Benny,
Yes, your post in #21 was very insightful and anticipated where I was going with my missional ethic.
When I wrote Soulster’s Christian Ethic, I used the Sermon on the Mount. In that discourse, the incorportation of pleasure actually comes before the sequential levels of missional ethic. Jesus says, “You are the salt and light of the world (paraphrased),” meaning that these dull and rag-tag crowds had destiny to be the brightest and tastiest people. What could this possibly mean in a world of ineffective oil lamps and where salt cost a king’s ransom, other than they are to use pleasure for the good of others? So many Christians, and I have been guilty of this, have violated a true missional ethic by making themselves the grand killjoys of the planet. God forgive us.
December 22nd, 2006 at 9:59 am
Benny,
Regarding assumptions about a divinely inspired religion, let me use an example in my field.
1. Prozac is more likely effective against depression because it appears to work only on Gilligans island.
2. Prozac is more likely effective against depression becasue it appears to work among most of the world’s peoples.
The second probability assessment is more accurate than the first. There is not an equally wide gap. Nor is there in my example with Christianity UNLESS one begins with the premise that there is an infinite improbability that a divinely inspired religion exists. That is the error that the skeptics, such as yourself make when considering the evidence in this area of inquiry, it is evident that you have a bias. I know, because I was a skeptic also until I was 18, and I know how strongly I had to hold to the premise that the spiritual world did not exist.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:43 am
Ed:
What makes your first statement absurd is that a drug’s effectiveness on Gilligan’s island has little relation to its general effectiveness. What makes your second statement more accurate is that a drug’s effectiveness in the general population is the very definition of general effectiveness. What makes your statements about Christianity absurd is that in each statement the two parts have little relation to each other absent some other pre-supposition.
This is your reasoning:
Premise 1: A divinely inspired religion would probably have characteristics X, Y, and Z.
Premise 2: Christianity exhibits characteristics X, Y, and Z.
Conclusion: Therefore, Christianity is likely to be divinely inspired.
Obviously, the argument only works if both premises are true. The problem is that there is no evidence whatsoever for premise 1. There has never been a religion proven to be divinely inspired, hence any statement about what characteristics a divinely inspired religion can only be conjecture. As I have already said in comment 44, your argument works for those who are willing to assume premise 1 is true. For people who don’t, the argument falls apart.
I would appreciate it if you stopped throwing around the accusation of bias. Nowhere did I say it is impossible for Christianity to be divinely inspired because there is no evidence. What I am saying is that I do not accept that claim without evidence. I am not saying X is true or false. I am saying that the jury hasn’t decided yet, and won’t until more evidence presents itself. It is not bias to ask for evidence before accepting a claim. Skepticism, in and of itself, is not a bias.
December 22nd, 2006 at 10:56 am
Ed:
Come to think of it, in order for your arguments to work, premise 1 needs to be even stronger:
Premise 1 (revised): Only a divinely inspired religion is likely to have characteristics X, Y, and Z.
Because if all religions, whether divinely inspired or not, are equally likely to have characteristics X, Y, and Z, then the fact that Christianity has those characteristics still proves nothing about whether it was divinely inspired.
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:17 am
“There has never been a religion proven to be divinely inspired.” Wait, that is not true. The resurrection proved Jesus’ claims of divinity were true to the apostles and many other disciples. Paul’s encounter with him on the road to Damascus also proved those claims to Paul. You should say, “There has never been a religion proven to be divinely inspired to skeptics.”
December 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 am
To me, the “to skeptics” part seems obvious, since if you accept the divine origin of Christianity, then you’ve already accepted the conclusion and there’s no need for the argument. But you’re right, that was poorly worded on my part, and your version makes the statement clearer. I wish there was a way to edit existing comments.
December 22nd, 2006 at 2:00 pm
So, think of the following statements:
1. Prozac is more likely to be effective against depression because it appears to work among the most of the world’s peoples.
2. Alcohol is more likely to be effective against depression because it appears to work among the most of the world’s peoples.
3. Cocaine is more likely to be effective against depression because it appears to work among the most of the world’s peoples.
4. Pennicillin is more likely to be effective against depression because it appears to work among the most of the world’s peoples.
I would think of Prozac as analogous to Christianity, other religions as various psychoactive substances with problematic efficacy, and Penicillin as Gilliganism.
But, “All employ the same logic, and all are equally absurd” to a Scientologist because his worldview (?bias) tells him there cannot be a chemical agent that would be effective against depression. Why does a skeptic disregard the reports of the vast majority of people who have lived that spiritality/divine exists? The same reason a Scientologist disregards the prevailing evidence.
December 22nd, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Ed:
Actually, this skeptic thinks that all 4 of those examples are logically sound, whereas your statements about Christianity are not. You can logically conclude that a drug is generally effective if it works amongst most people, because that’s the very definition of general effectiveness (as I have already said in the very first paragraph of comment 48). On the other hand, by themselves, the characteristics you have ascribed to Christianity have no logical relation to divine inspiration (also already explained in comment 48). I grow tired of repeating myself. Please read my posts more carefully before responding.
Please refrain from making a sweeping generalization like “Why does a skeptic disregard the reports of the vast majority of people who have lived that spiritality/divine exists?” before proving:
1. The existence of reports of personal experience of the spiritual/divine from the vast majority of people who ever lived
2. That existence of the spiritual/divine is in fact the most probable explanation for these reports
As stated in comment 49, I am still waiting for your proof of the premise that ONLY divinely inspired religions can have the characteristics you ascribe to Christianity (unlikely origin, claim to many miracles, numerous adherents). Right now, this is the biggest gap in your argument, and without patching it, your argument will continue to ring false to skeptics. Alternatively, present a different argument for why you think Christianity is more likely to be divinely inspired (as requested by drunkentune in comment 42).
December 24th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Ed:
I’d like to retract the challenges from my last post. My understanding is that we disagree mainly because we have different thresholds for what constitutes definitive evidence of the supernatural and divine. And that’s ok; I don’t think that difference makes either of us wrong or biased. I think the points from both sides have been made sufficiently clear, and little would be gained by expending more energy in going back and forth. That energy could be better spent on other things, like enjoying our holiday times with loved ones!
On that note, a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all
December 30th, 2006 at 4:17 am
Ed (as per comment #50),
Perhaps a ‘neutral observer’ would work as well as ’skeptics’.
Just about every religion has the claim to fame of its divine origins, along with stories of gods showing their power to mortals. A neutral observer would consider them all and conclude that asserting that a text is divinely inspired within that very text, or heretical claims by followers, are quite common in almost every religion.
We’re going to need more evidence before we point to one religion or holy text above others.
January 9th, 2007 at 9:29 am
In retrospect, I think this post has helped us to see that it is easier to talk about various claims concerning morality sources than morality itself. But we are mostly Western, so of course this would be the case.
I think, in light of personal oddities I’ve contemplated lately like not owning a television and not liking to over-eat even at holiday feasts, that I am very concerned with ethics perhaps in a way could appear spartan or puritan. And I’ve been trying to wonder why…