Richard Dawkins -- one of the famed 'new atheists' has recently called himself a "cultural Christian." His comments, and the following linked responsive opinion, raise the prospect of whether the decline of religion generally, and Christianity in particular, is having an adverse effect on culture:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/christianity-s-decline-has-unleashed-terrible-new-gods/ar-BB1kZdRj

Here are some excerpts:
_______________________________________________

"Still, though Dawkins has spoken of his “cultural Christianity” before, this feels like another staging-post on a journey towards the good Professor finally admitting that the New Atheism, of which he was such a shining light, was wrong in crucial respects. First, in its almost touching naivety that a post-Christian world would give way to a values-neutral space, rooted in reason. Second, in its semi-adolescent diagnosis of Christianity as a retardant upon cultural and intellectual progress. A New Atheist would generally cite the Spanish Inquisition or some wacky US creationist as representatives of the world’s largest faith – conveniently ignoring any contradictory examples."

"One reason for Dawkins’ change of heart might be good old-fashioned scientific observation. It doesn’t take the brains of an evolutionary biologist to work out that New Atheism was mistaken in its diagnosis of what would follow religion’s decline. The rational world we were promised hasn’t materialized and a nastier, less reasonable one is supplanting what was there before."

"Yet increasingly, the thesis of Tom Holland’s book Dominion seems to be winning out, via a growing recognition that the ethics we hold as natural and universal are, in fact, anything but. Much of what atheists ascribed to vague concepts of “reason” emerged out of the faith which informed the West’s intellectual, moral, and, yes, scientific life – a cultural oxygen we breathe but never see."

____________________________________________

COMMENT: I think it is fair to say that the widely held assumption that given the decline of Christianity, atheistic 'rationality' would of itself sustain cultural and moral values has proven to be naive. Right or wrong (and true or false), Christianity has provided for centuries a foundation (God and Jesus) for basic humanistic moral values. Atheism, on the other hand, generates rudderless moral confusion, moral skepticism, and moral relativism. After rejecting Christianity, the humanistic values -- e.g. freedom, equality, justice, love, etc. -- become platitudes to be overridden or distorted by one's favored secular ideology.

The problem is that Christianity (and religion generally) does not come with *just* a nice set of 'golden rule' moral values as the metaphysical dictates of a supposedly 'just' God. It also comes with 'God-inspired' dogma that infects like a virus otherwise 'legitimate' Christian values. The dictate to 'love thy neighbor' is one thing, but the insistence that eternal damnation (or marginalization) is the fate of the non-believer (or abortionist) is quite another.

For all its faults and limitations, metaphysical atheism and its insistence on rationality are still necessary to check Christianity (and religion generally) when its dogmatism extends beyond the implications of the golden rule. Dawkins' suggestion that the nice aspects of 'cultural Christianity' can be severed from ideological, dogmatic, and culturally judgmental Christianity, is a myth.

I would say the majority of people in the pews believe in some form of Christian universalism. They may claim to believe in hell, but when beloved Aunt Melba who never went to church dies, they say nice things about seeing her in Heaven. The idea of Hell is too awful for most Christians who believe in a God of Love to actually accept. They reseve it for people like Stalin and Hitler if they believe it at all.

My comments are interspersed with yours.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Richard Dawkins -- one of the famed 'new atheists'
> has recently called himself a "cultural
> Christian." His comments, and the following
> linked responsive opinion, raise the prospect of
> whether the decline of religion generally, and
> Christianity in particular, is having an adverse
> effect on culture:
>
> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/christianity-
> s-decline-has-unleashed-terrible-new-gods/ar-BB1kZ
> dRj
>
> Here are some excerpts:
> _______________________________________________
>
> "Still, though Dawkins has spoken of his
> “cultural Christianity” before, this feels
> like another staging-post on a journey towards the
> good Professor finally admitting that the New
> Atheism, of which he was such a shining light, was
> wrong in crucial respects. First, in its almost
> touching naivety that a post-Christian world would
> give way to a values-neutral space, rooted in
> reason. Second, in its semi-adolescent diagnosis
> of Christianity as a retardant upon cultural and
> intellectual progress. A New Atheist would
> generally cite the Spanish Inquisition or some
> wacky US creationist as representatives of the
> world’s largest faith – conveniently ignoring
> any contradictory examples."

While I'm not a fan of Dawkins (he's too militant for my taste). I think the essayist is ignoring something very important; namely, that this world doesn't just have Christians and atheists in it; it also has Jews and Hindus and Muslims, among others. Recognizing this fact must therefore mean that Christianity losing favor doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are winning; in fact, the situation appears to be more complicated.
>
> "One reason for Dawkins’ change of heart might
> be good old-fashioned scientific observation. It
> doesn’t take the brains of an evolutionary
> biologist to work out that New Atheism was
> mistaken in its diagnosis of what would follow
> religion’s decline. The rational world we were
> promised hasn’t materialized and a nastier, less
> reasonable one is supplanting what was there
> before."
>
> "Yet increasingly, the thesis of Tom Holland’s
> book Dominion seems to be winning out, via a
> growing recognition that the ethics we hold as
> natural and universal are, in fact, anything but.
> Much of what atheists ascribed to vague concepts
> of “reason” emerged out of the faith which
> informed the West’s intellectual, moral, and,
> yes, scientific life – a cultural oxygen we
> breathe but never see."
>
I should probably point out here that while some of the values held by Christians (and other religionists) may be valid even in today's world, the mythical stories of how we got those values appear to be just that, myths!

> ____________________________________________
>
> COMMENT: I think it is fair to say that the widely
> held assumption that given the decline of
> Christianity, atheistic 'rationality' would of
> itself sustain cultural and moral values has
> proven to be naive. Right or wrong (and true or
> false), Christianity has provided for centuries a
> foundation (God and Jesus) for basic humanistic
> moral values. Atheism, on the other hand,
> generates rudderless moral confusion, moral
> skepticism, and moral relativism. After rejecting
> Christianity, the humanistic values -- e.g.
> freedom, equality, justice, love, etc. -- become
> platitudes to be overridden or distorted by one's
> favored secular ideology.

I would argue that you could have written the above paragraph about any number of world religions besides Christianity and it would still ring true regardless of which religion you were discussing.
>
> The problem is that Christianity (and religion
> generally) does not come with *just* a nice set of
> 'golden rule' moral values as the metaphysical
> dictates of a supposedly 'just' God. It also
> comes with 'God-inspired' dogma that infects like
> a virus otherwise 'legitimate' Christian values.
> The dictate to 'love thy neighbor' is one thing,
> but the insistence that eternal damnation (or
> marginalization) is the fate of the non-believer
> (or abortionist) is quite another.
>
> For all its faults and limitations, metaphysical
> atheism and its insistence on rationality are
> still necessary to check Christianity (and
> religion generally) when its dogmatism extends
> beyond the implications of the golden rule.
> Dawkins' suggestion that the nice aspects of
> 'cultural Christianity' can be severed from
> ideological, dogmatic, and culturally judgmental
> Christianity, is a myth.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2024 02:01PM by blindguy.

blindguy says:

"I think the essayist is ignoring something very important; namely, that this world doesn't just have Christians and atheists in it; it also has Jews and Hindus and Muslims, among others. Recognizing this fact must therefore mean that Christianity losing favor doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are winning; in fact, the situation appears to be more complicated."

That is a very good point, blindguy.

It is complicated. People leaving Christian circles aren't all that likely to join religions like Judaism, Hinduism or Islam. Some may but the majority not. They also don't necessarily become atheists. They cease their religious practice but don't specifically choose another side. Etc. Lots of options. Some end up in the official "I don't know" camp. Or even the "I don't care" camp.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/03/2024 04:20PM by Nightingale.

While I'm not a fan of Dawkins (he's too militant for my taste). I think the essayist is ignoring something very important; namely, that this world doesn't just have Christians and atheists in it; it also has Jews and Hindus and Muslims, among others. Recognizing this fact must therefore mean that Christianity losing favor doesn't necessarily mean that atheists are winning; in fact, the situation appears to be more complicated.

COMMENT: Well, I think the essayist was focused on Dawkins' particular interest in the social dynamics of Christianity vs Islam. In fact, most of Dawkins' reconsideration of "cultural Christianity" is motivated by his utter distain for Islam, and the inroads he sees Islam making in the British religious culture. I am quite sure that although he would rejoice in Christianity as an ideology losing favor, he would certainly not equate this with atheism winning. Especially, if the demise of Christianity coincides with the increased popularity of Islam.
Moreover, rejection of Christianity or religion generally, does not necessarily imply embracing atheism. There are many forms of 'belief' outside of any institutional commitment. As you say, the situation is much more complicated.
_________________________________________________

I should probably point out here that while some of the values held by Christians (and other religionists) may be valid even in today's world, the mythical stories of how we got those values appear to be just that, myths!

COMMENT: Well, the natural response to this point might be "So what?" Does it matter if a culture establishes and embraces 'legitimate' moral values out of belief in religious myths -- with ultimately such values being motivated by the myth of God's mandate? In other words, if atheism fails to provide a rational foundation for such values, or otherwise undermines them, shouldn't society be more tolerant of religious myths; at least to the extent it serves a moral purpose?
_________________________________________ 

>COMMENT: I think it is fair to say that the widely
> held assumption that given the decline of
> Christianity, atheistic 'rationality' would of
> itself sustain cultural and moral values has
> proven to be naive. Right or wrong (and true or
> false), Christianity has provided for centuries a
> foundation (God and Jesus) for basic humanistic
> moral values. Atheism, on the other hand,
> generates rudderless moral confusion, moral
> skepticism, and moral relativism. After rejecting
> Christianity, the humanistic values -- e.g.
> freedom, equality, justice, love, etc. -- become
> platitudes to be overridden or distorted by one's
> favored secular ideology.

I would argue that you could have written the above paragraph about any number of world religions besides Christianity and it would still ring true regardless of which religion you were dis.

COMMENT: Well, my comment was more about atheism than Christianity. But, in addition it was focused upon Christianity rather than religion generally because that is what the Dawkins' OP essay was focused on. The bottom line was that religion offers 'myths' that embrace moral values (among other things), and it is worth asking what happens when religion (and its moral mandates) become undermined through broad cultural disbelief. My own observations are that atheistic attempts to substitute rationalism as the basis for morality have been a failure. This also was the main point of the OP link. One sees this especially in secular education where science is the focus. There are no foundational moral principles to be gleaned from physics, biology, psychology, philosophy, or neuroscience (for example). In fact, evolutionary biology hammers home the principle that individual survival and reproduction is the ultimate value, not altruism.

I made the point below followed by Henry Bemmis' response. I'm repeating it here for clarity before responding to Mr. Bemmis.

_________________________________________________

Blindguy said: "I should probably point out here that while some of the values held by Christians (and other religionists) may be valid even in today's world, the mythical stories of how we got those values appear to be just that, myths!"

COMMENT: Well, the natural response to this point might be "So what?" Does it matter if a culture establishes and embraces 'legitimate' moral values out of belief in religious myths -- with ultimately such values being motivated by the myth of God's mandate? In other words, if atheism fails to provide a rational foundation for such values, or otherwise undermines them, shouldn't society be more tolerant of religious myths; at least to the extent it serves a moral purpose?
_________________________________________

Blindguy responds: Your point, while it is a good one, only works in the short term, say, one generation. Why? Because, as we continue to see in U.S. society today, each generation likes to reinvent the wheel; that is, they want to know if the stories they are being told are really true and do they match the experiences people actually live. While this goes on to an extent in all societies, it is especially common in western free societies where information counter to the prevailing moral sentiments is more widely available for those who seek answers. The point I am making is that when members of the next generation discover that the stories they've been told (like Aesop's fables and the Bible) are not true when their forebears claimed otherwise, they begin to doubt that the values represented by these stories are true as well.

This brings me to something else you said in response (if memory serves) to someone else. Your argument (if I remember correctly) was that moral values are not relative to changes in human societies or human behaviors. I would take issue with that point as historically, moral values actually change with time even if it is ever so slowly. Some changes we've seen (such as in sexual values) are brought about by technology (such as the invention of the birth control pill) while others are brought about by humans experimenting with the values systems they were taught as children and making changes to those systems to fit their own needs.

I've mentioned sexual activity as being one area in which some values are changing, particularly in western countries. Another area that has seen more far-reaching and radical changes is gambling. Until the late 1980s, it was illegal to gamble (save on horse and dog races) in every state of the U.S. except Nevada. Many religious groups, particularly fundamentalist ones but also some mainline churches, condemned gambling as being against God's laws.

But a funny thing happened. States discovered that people preferred to gamble their money in lotteries that supported state budgets than pay state taxes. In addition, Federal judges struck down bans on gambling on native American reservations arguing that these should be treated as separate "countries" and not extensions of the individual states. During the 21st century with the rise in iPhones and android phones, gambling, especially sports gambling, has become quite popular and lucrative. So while some churches still condemn it, it is now very clear that many people now legally enjoy playing games of chance and don't see anything morally wrong with doing so.

And morality is not the same among human societies. For example, the late anthropologist Margaret Mead found African societies in the mid-1960s who encouraged sexual relations before marriage, something not accepted (and still not accepted in some circles) by a majority of western societies at the time.

I will close my comments with a point made to me by my high school physics teacher. He said that while Aristotle argued that the natural state of objects, including humans, was to be at rest, those who study physics and the other sciences have come to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the natural state of all objects, including human beings, is to be in motion. And I would argue that this is true for human morality as well.

> I will close my comments with a point made to me
> by my high school physics teacher. He said that
> while Aristotle argued that the natural state of
> objects, including humans, was to be at rest,
> those who study physics and the other sciences
> have come to the opposite conclusion; namely, that
> the natural state of all objects, including human
> beings, is to be in motion.

Relativity suggests that everything is both at rest and in motion at the same time depending on one's frame of reference. Given that fact, describing one state as more "natural" than others doesn't make sense.

"Relativity suggests that everything is both at rest and in motion at the same time depending on one's frame of reference."

COMMENT: This is an incorrect statement of Relativity. In the first place, it is a blatant contradiction to suggest that everything is both at rest and in motion at the same time. Rather, in order to avoid such contradiction, Relativity imposes "block universe," where both time and motion are illusions. Here are a couple of quotes:

(1) "Suppose an intelligent being, advanced beyond our comprehension, somehow obtained access to the complete spacetime diagram of the universe. The world lines of everything that ever existed or will exist--past, present, and future--would be etched within such a cosmic "crystal ball." From the creature's perspective, time would seem as frozen as a block of ice. Nothing could ever change, because it would already be foreseen. Such a timeless vision is often called the "block universe."

"Philosophically, Einstein came to accept such a timeless worldview. As he once wrote, "To us believing physicists, the distinction between past, present and future has only the significance of a stubborn illusion."

[Paul Halpern, *The Quantum Labyrinth: How Richard Feynman and John Wheeler Revolutionized Time and Reality* (2018:52)]

(2) "A consequence of relative motion is that who or what is moving is always a matter of point of view. Earth and the sun move around each other, but which is really moving? Is the real story that the sun moves around an Earth fixed at the center or the universe? Or is it rather that sun that is fixed, and Earth that orbits? If motion is only relative, there can be no right answer to this question."

"The fact that anything can be moving or fixed makes it hard to explain the causes of motion. How could something be the cause of Earth's motion around the sun if there is a different and equally valid point of view according to which Earth isn't moving at all? If motion is relative, an observer is free to adopt the point of view that all motion is defined relative to him."

[Lee Smolin, *Time Reborn: From the Crisis in Physics to the Future of the Universe* (2013:26)]

Note that if time is an illusion, motion must be also, because conceptually motion requires change within time. Because of these problems with Relativity, many physicists (including Smolin) believe that it can't be the correct story of the Universe, regardless of its theoretical appeal.
___________________________________

"Given that fact, describing one state as more "natural" than others doesn't make sense."

In the context of Relativity, the natural state is the block universe state as noted above, which is the only state. This state represents both the past and future as equally existing as a motionless, and timeless block. When you read about motion is the context of Relativity theory, it is not to be understood as objects actually moving relative to each other: That is Galilean relativity. Rather it is a matter of perception or appearance, from (as you say) a particular frame of reference within the block universe. If you find this doesn't make sense, welcome to modern physics.

Note: One of the most useful concepts in modern physics, and science generally, is the concept of an illusion. It explains everything that doesn't make any sense from the standpoint of a materialist worldview or theory. Time, motion, free will, consciousness, the Self, morality, you name it: All illusions serving materialist science by protecting favored theories and worldviews. What people do not realize is that eventually, the illusions engulf science itself, and we are seemingly back to square one.

You say my characterization of relativity is wrong and then quote Smolin saying precisely what I did. Is it your expectation that no one will notice?

There's no point in discussions with you, Bemis. You just like to hear the sound of your own voice.

1) You lie about your background. You told us you had a degree in microbiology only later to retract that claim. You then told us you have a degree in the philosophy of science, then retreated to the admission that your undergraduate degree was only in philosophy.

2) You claim to understand mathematics and science yet never cite any actual math or science. But you still want us to take you seriously on those topics.

2) You refuse to consider science that contradicts your point of view. You have asked me for sources on the localization of brain functions, then when presented with those sources throw up your hands and say you don't have time to consult them. You go so far as to claim that neurology is not real science, which, frankly, makes you look silly.

3) You use Dennet as an argument against determinism and then, when confronted with the fact that Dennet describes himself as a determinist, simply do not reply. Rather, you go silent for a few weeks in the apparent hope that people will forget what was either a monumental failure to comprehend what Dennet writes or another instance of dissimulation.

You have zero credibility on scientific issues and the vast majority of posters here find you unbearably tedious. Like your namesake from the Twilight Zone, you would fare equally well alone in the universe talking to yourself.

You say my characterization of relativity is wrong and then quote Smolin saying precisely what I did. Is it your expectation that no one will notice?

COMMENT: This is what you said, and I quote:

"Relativity suggests that everything is both at rest and in motion at the same time depending on one's frame of reference."

This is fundamentally wrong. In the first place, as stated this is a blatant contradiction, and Relativity is not contradictory. Moreover, observers (and their particular frames of reference do not cause or determine objects to be in a state of motion or rest. Observers *perceive* objects as being in a state of motion or rest, but in actuality there is no motion, because there is no flow, or temporality, of time.

I will let you try again to contrast what you said with what Smolin said. What he said is perfectly consistent with my explanation.
_________________________________

There's no point in discussions with you, Bemis. You just like to hear the sound of your own voice.

COMMENT: I don't talk while I am typing!
________________________________

1) You lie about your background. You told us you had a degree in microbiology only later to retract that claim. You then told us you have a degree in the philosophy of science, then retreated to the admission that your undergraduate degree was only in philosophy.

COMMENT: Here again, we have a continuing pattern. You don't understand the issues, you cannot respond substantively to my comments and criticisms, so you simply make stuff up and engage in personal attacks. This should tell people all they need to know about your credibility when attacking me.
______________________________

2) You claim to understand mathematics and science yet never cite any actual math or science. But you still want us to take you seriously on those topics.

COMMENT: I cite mathematics and science all the time, when it is relevant, just as I did in this very thread!
______________________________

2) You refuse to consider science that contradicts your point of view. You have asked me for sources on the localization of brain functions, then when presented with those sources throw up your hands and say you don't have time to consult them. You go so far as to claim that neurology is not real science, which, frankly, makes you look silly.

COMMENT: You are welcome to start any thread you want about brain function, neuroscience, or whatever science you want. I have, of course, never claimed that neurology was not real science--ever! (By the way, "neurology" is not the same as "neuroscience." You might want to look it up.) I have only at times commented (with citations) about the limits of neural imaging techniques.
______________________________

3) You use Dennet as an argument against determinism and then, when confronted with the fact that Dennet describes himself as a determinist, simply do not reply. Rather, you go silent for a few weeks in the apparent hope that people will forget what was either a monumental failure to comprehend what Dennet writes or another instance of dissimulation.

COMMENT: I have never cited Dennett as advocating free will as opposed to determinism-- ever. Where do you get this nonsense. I have read essentially everything Dennett has written on the subject, and have cited him many times, almost always negatively.
_______________________________

You have zero credibility on scientific issues and the vast majority of posters here find you unbearably tedious. Like your namesake from the Twilight Zone, you would fare equally well alone in the universe talking to yourself.

COMMENT: Maybe you should speak for yourself. After all, I did post this thread, and there were many comments, including your own. I think you, Soft Machine, and others suffer from the same ailment. You cannot accept the fact that there may be matters you do not know, and things you do not understand, and when confronted with that self-reflective reality you attack the messenger. So, you dislike me, fine. I don't care! But that has nothing to do with the validity, or lack of validity, of what I write here in RfM.

That said, why don't you start a thread and inquire about how people view my contribution or lack thereof on RfM. If most people feel as you do, then I will be happy to leave, and you will have done a great service. Until then, I will assume that there are some people here who although they don't like me (we can agree on that) they nonetheless appreciate and (God forbid) learn something from my input.

Even you might take a deep breath, step back, and acknowledge you learned something about Relativity from my civil (and gracious) comments to you in this thread. If you haven't, well, that is on you.

LW wrote: "Relativity suggests that everything is both at rest and in motion at the same time depending on one's frame of reference."

You said that is wrong and rebutted it with Smolin's statement that "A consequence of relative motion is that who or what is moving is always a matter of point of view."

"Frame of reference," "point of view." Smolin supports my view, not yours. That you don't understand that should be a source of embarrassment.


---------------
You write that I "cannot respond substantively to [Henry Bemis's] comments and criticisms, so [I] simply make stuff up and engage in personal attacks."

Given that you think Smolin's statement contradicts my claim, it's apparent that you're the one who does not understand the topic.


-------------
As for my "personal attacks," did you or did you not falsely claim to have a degree in microbiology? Did you or did not claim to have a degree in the philosophy of science?


-------------------
You claim to "cite mathematics and science all the time, when it is relevant, just as I did in this very thread!"

Can you refer us to, say, three peer-reviewed scientific or mathematical papers that you have posted in your 2,200+ posts on this site? You know, the sort of thing BoJ, [|], and I reference quite frequently?

I don't think you can. Because you don't read such sources. You only read people's glosses of science packaged and sold to the mass market.


--------------
You told us that "neuroscience. . . is not 'hard science' because it is undermined by the facts of human experience, and human cognitive capacities."

In that sentence you assert that science is only "hard," only real, if it accords with human experience. And by "human experience" you mean your own experience since you reject science that others, including people with actual degrees in microbiology, advocate.

The problem you embody is that the purpose of science is not to accord with "human experience" but to show us where "human experience" leads to false conclusions: you know, like quantum mechanics does. Your rejection of science's purpose puts you squarely in the flat earth crowd.


---------------
You assert that you never used Dennet to argue against determinism. But that's a lie. The exchange was deleted from the archive, but in a heated debate you absolutely did use Dennet against Sapolsky. You said Dennet proved that determinism is false and I replied that you had mischaracterized him as a determinist whereas he was in fact a compatibilist, then you went silent for weeks lest anyone point out your patent dissimulation.

You know this full well.


--------------------
> You cannot accept the fact that there
> may be matters you do not know, and things you do
> not understand

To the contrary, I get slapped down by BoJ, [|], and others all the time and I am grateful for the correction because I like to learn. But you are not a BoJ; you are a poseur, a pretender, the Walter Mitty of RfM.


---------------
> That said, why don't you start a thread and
> inquire about how people view my contribution or
> lack thereof on RfM.

The topic does not interest me. I was discussing something with blindguy, making the argument that you unwittingly substantiated with the Smolin quotation.


------------
> Even you might take a deep breath, step back, and
> acknowledge you learned something about Relativity
> from my civil (and gracious) comments to you in.

I learned nothing about relativity from you--much as you learned nothing from Smolin.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2024 12:17AM by Lot's Wife.

First, thanks blindguy for your continued engagement:
_________________________________________

"Blindguy responds: Your point, while it is a good one, only works in the short term, say, one generation. Why? Because, as we continue to see in U.S. society today, each generation likes to reinvent the wheel; that is, they want to know if the stories they are being told are really true and do they match the experiences people actually live. While this goes on to an extent in all societies, it is especially common in western free societies where information counter to the prevailing moral sentiments is more widely available for those who seek answers. The point I am making is that when members of the next generation discover that the stories they've been told (like Aesop's fables and the Bible) are not true when their forebears claimed otherwise, they begin to doubt that the values represented by these stories are true as well."

COMMENT: I think your point is that the general moral sense of members of any given society, or the society at large, is somewhat fluid. I agree. But I would add that there are good and bad social effects generated by such changes, as well as real social causes for the direction of this fluidity. That might suggest that society has a role to play in assessing and monitoring these changes, which might include being more circumspect about dismissing values solely because of their religious roots, or their resistance to rational justification.
_________________________________________

"This brings me to something else you said in response (if memory serves) to someone else. Your argument (if I remember correctly) was that moral values are not relative to changes in human societies or human behaviors."

COMMENT: No, I would never say that. I would say, however, that some *basic* moral values are part of human nature and are thereafter molded by culture. (The old nature-nurture debate, I suppose) I would also add, more controversially, that to my mind evolutionary psychology does not explain the existence of such innate moral values, and neither does culture.
_____________________________

". . . And morality is not the same among human societies. For example, the late anthropologist Margaret Mead found African societies in the mid-1960s who encouraged sexual relations before marriage, something not accepted (and still not accepted in some circles) by a majority of western societies at the time."

COMMENT: I would call these differences relatively minor. We might ask, for example, "Are there any basic cross-cultural values among humans? The answer to that question is generally yes. First, the existence of a moral sense itself is cross-cultural. That is, for all cultures, some things are morally right, and some things are morally wrong, wherever that moral sense ultimately comes from. Second, I would point to altruism, and empathy, the natural moral inclination to look out for those in one's own tribe. A host of additional mores are appended to these basic instincts.
______________________________

I will close my comments with a point made to me by my high school physics teacher. He said that while Aristotle argued that the natural state of objects, including humans, was to be at rest, those who study physics and the other sciences have come to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the natural state of all objects, including human beings, is to be in motion. And I would argue that this is true for human morality as well.

COMMENT: Well, I take issue with the claim that micro-physics, which indeed imposes a constant flux on elementary particles, also means that macro-objects, like human beings, are also in constant flux. (After all, the iron paperweight on my desk seems pretty stable.) I suppose one might by principles of reduction make such a claim, but physics distinguishes between the properties of micro-entities and those of macro-entities.

This is my response to Henry Bemmis' and Lot's wife's responses to my last comment (though I will not be copying LW's comment in this message). My response as before will be below Mr. Bemmis' comments.

Blindguy says: I will close my comments with a point made to me by my high school physics teacher. He said that while Aristotle argued that the natural state of objects, including humans, was to be at rest, those who study physics and the other sciences have come to the opposite conclusion; namely, that the natural state of all objects, including human beings, is to be in motion. And I would argue that this is true for human morality as well.

Henry Bemmis COMMENTS: Well, I take issue with the claim that micro-physics, which indeed imposes a constant flux on elementary particles, also means that macro-objects, like human beings, are also in constant flux. (After all, the iron paperweight on my desk seems pretty stable.) I suppose one might by principles of reduction make such a claim, but physics distinguishes between the properties of micro-entities and those of macro-entities.

Blindguy responds: As my high school physics teacher would say, the fact that the paper weight on your desk seems pretty stable doesn't mean it is not in motion. Remember that when it or we humans are at rest, the earth beneath is still engaging in two motions: rotating daily on its axis and revolving annually around the sun. The fact that we don't feel the movement of the earth (because its motions are steady) doesn't mean that it's not moving; it just means that we can't feel its motions. It is the fact that we can't feel Earth's motions that caused many religious people and early astronomers (before Coppernicus and Galileo) to believe that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around.

I would also argue that (and here I probably would depart from what my high school physics teacher said) there is another motion involved even when we humans think we are at rest; namely, the process of ageing is, in and of itself, a sort of motion that all living creatures (and possibly most, if not all, non-living creatures) go through. Again, because we don't feel the motion of ageing (though we can certainly observe its effects on us and others) and because that process usually moves very slowly, we assume that the process either stops or pauses when we are at rest--but the opposite is true; that is, we continue to age when we are at rest, making the process of ageing a motion in and of itself.

Blindguy responds: As my high school physics teacher would say, the fact that the paper weight on your desk seems pretty stable doesn't mean it is not in motion. Remember that when it or we humans are at rest, the earth beneath is still engaging in two motions: rotating daily on its axis and revolving annually around the sun. The fact that we don't feel the movement of the earth (because its motions are steady) doesn't mean that it's not moving; it just means that we can't feel its motions. It is the fact that we can't feel Earth's motions that caused many religious people and early astronomers (before Coppernicus and Galileo) to believe that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way around.

COMMENT: When you shift from micro-physics (quantum particles) to cosmology a different set of rules apply. In the first instance, quantum mechanics is operable as to the motion of elementary particles within a body, whereas in the second case, General Relativity is operable.

In General Relativity, the motions of the planets are relative motions, such that there is no correct answer as to which is moving, the Earth or the Sun, and in fact, as I explained to LW, neither is technically in motion at all, but are part of a 'block universe." Time and motion are illusions. (See quotes in my post above)

We don't feel the motion of the Earth around the Sun not because its motion is steady, or unchanging. In fact, classically, the motion of the Earth around the Sun is elliptical, and therefore involves acceleration, which means it is *not* steady. If gravity were not present, the Earth would veer out of its orbit and proceed in a straight line as per Newton's first law. Then, it *would* then be steady, or with constant velocity, until operated on by some other force.

https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/13575/changes-in-earths-orbital-and-rotation-speeds

Do we have to be a Christian or Atheist? If you are a good and honest person, I don't care what your label is. I personally don't like the term atheist, it's like being in the "Santa Claus is not real club". For you Christians, I have no idea if there is a supernatural spirit of the universe but if you bring me evidence, I will consider it.

Do we have to be a Christian or Atheist? If you are a good and honest person, I don't care what your label is.

COMMENT: The question at hand is what motivates one to be "a good and honest person?" 'Christian' is not just a label; it has specific content (meaning). Same with atheism. As such, it is certainly fair to evaluate the content (meaning) of each, and the effect such content has on the beliefs and moral commitments within a society, for better or worse.

I think the mistake is to think atheism is a moral system when system is only about one's belief in God. It's not in competition with religion in that way.

I think societies can develop and perpetuate moral systems independent of religion and may do so well.

I think the mistake is to think atheism is a moral system when system is only about one's belief in God. It's not in competition with religion in that way.

COMMENT: No one has suggested that atheism is a 'moral system,' except perhaps those atheists who attempt to derive morality out of atheistic materialist science. Moreover, you do not have to consider atheism to be a moral system in order to consider what effects, if any, atheism has on moral attitudes within a society or culture. Thus, there is no mistake here.
_______________________________ 

I think societies can develop and perpetuate moral systems independent of religion and may do so well.

COMMENT: Well, if that is the case, please provide (1) the logical, rational, or scientific foundation or basis for such moral systems (remember common moral intuitions do not constitute a rational basis), including the basis for the moral authority that must be encompassed by such systems. (why anyone in society would be *morally* (not just legally) compelled to adhere to such a system); and (2) an example of such a society.

Moral authority doesn't exist in nature. It's a societal construct, largely via religion.

That's why divine command theory is such a failure as a moral authority.

The moral authority of judeoristianity supports slavery women menstruation making them dirty and lesser, genocide and so on.

Moral authority doesn't exist in nature. It's a societal construct, largely via religion.

COMMENT: That is exactly my point, and exactly why you cannot provide a secular moral theory, or an example of a secular moral society based solely on rational (or naturalistic) principles. Yet, moral authority is *required* of any moral theory because it answers the question, "Short of legal compulsion, why is someone morally required to follow *any* socially or religiously imposed moral mandate? Religion feebly, but forcefully and effectively, answers the question quite simply, "Because God demands it!"
__________________________

That's why divine command theory is such a failure as a moral authority.

COMMENT: It is NOT a failure for those who believe in it and follow it. For them, God imposes the moral law (e.g. the ten commandments) and that is enough of an authority to motivate compliance.
__________________________

The moral authority of judeoristianity supports slavery women menstruation making them dirty and lesser, genocide and so on.

COMMENT: This is not about specific moral beliefs or teachings. We can all agree that Judeo-Christian morality often veers far away from our intuitive moral sense, which is a problem I alluded to in my original post. Nonetheless, more conventional Judeo-Christian moral principles, as claimed to be divinely inspired, might be worth salvaging even if we don't buy into God as the source.

I believe in the duplicity of mankind; it will never let you down nor will it stop surprising you.

So go back to church. It's the greatest freak show on Earth.

The Freak Show in my head is sufficient for my needs...

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe in the duplicity of mankind; it will
> never let you down nor will it stop surprising
> you.


So true. as Rick Blaine stated, "I stick my neck out for nobody!"

I like to go back to Kohlberg's moral stages of development:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

I think that a lot of Christianity keeps believers at a very low stage of moral development -- i.e. don't sin because it makes God/Jesus unhappy, you may not go to Heaven, and you may be punished. Some people, largely on their own or because of how they were raised, are able to move beyond that. I believe that it's an open question about how much moral development can be attributed to Christianity (or religion in general,) and how much comes from other sources, i.e. the home.

There are plenty of evil, immoral people who are card-carrying Christians.

I think religion exists because of the development of morality. I am sure way back when a more rational\thinking person saw another bludgeon his hunting partner over who got the bigger portion of meat. And they thought, hey that's not right.

So they created religion, which was effective because science was unknown, and myths were all the rage since it was the only way to explain things.

I do not think that religion and morality works anymore. I mean look at our governing bodies, they give new meaning to the word dysfunctional. They react to emotion and irrational beliefs\myths reinforced by religion instead of focusing on advancement into a more rational approach that meets the need of most regardless of religion and\or beliefs (you will never get 100%).

I think James Fowler was correct when he postulated that the majority of people join a religious following and stay there because it feels safe. Of which they are unwilling to move beyond. Very few ever make it to a spiritual open minded state of existence based being a good person and helping others.

Since we still have people believing the world is flat and we have lizard people among us. We are a long ways away from dumping religion and approaching morality from a rational point of view.

What is relevant in the present post is the following comment from your link relevant to Kohlberg post-conventional level:

"The post-conventional level, also known as the principled level, is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society, and that the individual's own perspective may take precedence over society's view; individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principles—principles that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice. People who exhibit post-conventional morality view rules as useful but changeable mechanisms—ideally rules can maintain the general social order and protect human rights. Rules are not absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question. Because post-conventional individuals elevate their own moral evaluation of a situation over social conventions, their behavior, especially at stage six, can be confused with that of those at the pre-conventional level."

The question now becomes not just an explication of "stages" of moral development, but rather how does one instantiate authoritative moral rules and values to the individual who now feels free to reject them. The stages that follow do not explain this at all. Religion, arguably, is the glue that sustains the authority of moral values when an individual comes to see through the merely social rules they have been otherwise taught.

I'll take as an example the Catholic church in which "artificial" birth control (i.e. the pill, IUDs, diaphragms, etc.) is considered sinful. Most Catholics morally reason their way out of that thinking. As a young teen, still a believer, I reasoned that birth control was a gift from a loving God to the women of the Earth.

Moral reasoning can, and should, move beyond the constraints of religion.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/04/2024 07:29PM by summer.

  
  
  

And elderolddog (giving the best response possible) for the win. There are some potato chip crumbs in between the sofa cushions as the prize. Please wait until Dagny stands up and goes to the fridge before taking your prize. Could get a bit awkward.


HH =)