Dr. David Wilbur: Power and Illusion: Religion and Human Need. Part 15, Chapter 14
by Ervin Taylor
This is Part 15 of the summary of Dr. Wilbur’s book. It should be emphasized that all of the text in this series of blogs in bold font in the body of the text of the chapter summary has been kindly provided by Dr. Wilbur. If there are any of my own comments, they will follow in regular type.
Summary for Chapter 14 Summary: Conclusions and Futures
The Evolution of Religion
All the current major religions are the result of thousands of years of cultural evolution. In apparent response to many different human needs, all of these long-lasting religions have developed many strands with variations in details or emphases. Islam, the youngest of these faiths, despite a Qur’anic call for unity, has split into multiple sects and sub-sects including some violent fundamentalists willing to use terrorism to achieve religious or political goals. The other great religions have had at least at some times similar splits and problems with confident and violent fundamentalists.
The vigor of religious belief in the United States may reflect the lively religious market place that has been present here for hundreds of years. Adam Smith in his 1776 book The Wealth of Nations made such an attribution. He felt that religions that had official state support tended to be complacent while those that needed support from voluntary adherents were more dynamic and service oriented.
The Good of Religion
Religion has at least some of the time over the past few thousand years supported many good things such as education, morality, charity and humane treatment of others. It has served to organize communities for various common and important needs. Unfortunately it has also been used to justify hierarchy and the oppression of the common man by his “betters” and to validate the destruction or impoverishment of those who don’t share the preferred belief system.
All civilizations have been built on some supernatural religious belief system. The Marxists were unable to provide a viable alternative. Supernatural beliefs may seem quite “natural” to a majority of humans and may partly work because they reinforce our intuitive optimism.
The Possibility of a Universal Ethics
Going back to the Axial Age (800-200 BCE) there is a strand somewhere in each great religion that says the most important thing is to rise above sectarian or theological concerns and apply a sophisticated form of what is often called the “Golden Rule,” making respect for others, even all life, the ultimate concern.
Perhaps someday our religions could agree on a common human ethics that would be taught in all educational establishments. Religions refusing would face public criticism but not be made illegal and adherence to these rules would be expected of exemplary citizens but not enforced by law—perhaps a dream.
Accommodation with Science
Scientific discovery has done more to change human life, mostly for the better, in the last few hundred years than occurred in modern man’s tens of thousands of prior years. Some religions having made claims about the natural world find themselves in conflict with science. In the short run they can reject the findings of science but over a period of many generations it seems likely they will find it necessary to bring their beliefs into rough agreement with science—or lose adherents and power.
A new religion that was science friendly and exploited an admiration for scientific discovery might have some chance of thriving, but so far that is an unfulfilled wish.
Tolerance and Pluralism
Global media coverage has made religious violence more visible to all, but the news coverage we see doesn’t always explain the religious mandates that drive this violence. Fundamentalists with Islamic, Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh affiliations have in my lifetime caused terrible atrocities that seem to the uninvolved observer senseless. Removing the turn to violence from the religious traditions would seem a wonderful possibility—unlikely to be achieved because many find it useful for political goals.
Both primitive and civilized humans like confident black-and-white understandings, classifying others as good people like us or dangerous people who are different. Education of young people about the great variety of religious beliefs in our world might defuse some of the intolerance that comes from this intuitive practice.
The Future—Seen Darkly
The conflicts between religion and science could largely disappear over many generations. There may always be some risk related to the development of messianic cults with tight bonding, unusual beliefs, apocalyptic expectations and suicidal solutions all justified by some leader’s dissociative private experiences.
The world would not be better off if there was only one great religion. Competition makes religions better providers of their kind of goods and protects us from their fundamental conservatism—idealizing the past. Far into the future our religions are apt to still be here offering solutions that, though possibly imaginary, are more congenial for many people than the stark answers of the objective student of reality.
Summary
Religious representatives and interested secular parties should be involved in establishing, disseminating and teaching universal ethical standards. Society might also benefit from providing a universal education about the many forms of religion present in our world—in an attempt to improve religious tolerance.
A future worry is the acquisition of weapons of “mass destruction” by apocalyptic sects with “holy goals” justifying the killing of large numbers of people. Another concern is the ruthless politician who in times of societal stress will target as scapegoats religious minorities—for oppression or extermination.
‘Unfortunately it has also been used to justify hierarchy and the oppression of the common man by his “betters” and to validate the destruction or impoverishment of those who don’t share the preferred belief system.
…Going back to the Axial Age (800-200 BCE) there is a strand somewhere in each great religion that says the most important thing is to rise above sectarian or theological concerns and apply a sophisticated form of what is often called the “Golden Rule,” making respect for others, even all life, the ultimate concern.
…Perhaps someday our religions could agree on a common human ethics that would be taught in all educational establishments.
…Education of young people about the great variety of religious beliefs in our world might defuse some of the intolerance that comes from this intuitive practice.
…Religious representatives and interested secular parties should be involved in establishing, disseminating and teaching universal ethical standards.’
A range of very interesting comments by Dr Wilbur. Much thanks to Erv for presenting them. However, I am left with a bit of an empty feeling here.
Who says hierarchy and intolerance is bad; who says the Golden Rule is ‘good’ at all?
Is there really any such thing as common human ethics? If one only embraces some form of post-modernist relativistic religion, or agnosticism or atheism, then who says anything of this isn’t just guff? Perhaps it is all a con, to make me waste valuable resources when I could better be ensuring I enjoy this one-and-only life for myself.
On what basis can anyone genuinely condemn the morality of the Nazis or Soviet Union, which did operate under the morality of their own internal logic? I oppose their beliefs by resorting to Judeo-Christian principles which I believe comes from a God who does have universal ethical standards – both in written codes like the Ten Commandments and in our human hearts as natural law. However, on what basis do unbelievers like Dr Wilbur really oppose the Nazi ethic as flawed and the Judeo-Christian ethic of turning the other cheek as preferable?
I’m not talking about doing what’s right because of some promise of eternal reward or punishment. I am talking about something far more fundamental, as to what ‘right’ is exactly? Didn’t Nieztche think Judeo-Christian notions of mercy merely the thinking of the slave? Who says it is not far nobler to kill or enslave everyone who doesn’t look like us, who is a threat to us and our kind: first animals and then different looking humans; thereby, helping ensuring the protection and propagation of one’s own genes?
If the only answer is I refrain from robbing, killing and raping because of the fear of the State, then how is that any different from promises of eternal reward or punishment? Why shouldn’t I be the first and only concern I should have in this life – and the rest be dammed?
Why is it morally repugnant to kill a fellow human being but ok to eat other living animals? What is the basis for such underlying moral decisions?
I have never received an adequate explanation as to what ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is for those who don’t believe in a Divine-right to universal morality. Simply making emotive statements about ‘it just is’ seems no different from a well-known Mormon argument that one should accept their book because ‘of the feeling in their bosom.’
There can’t be universal ethics unless there is a universal standard to judge against. If a society introduced infanticide tomorrow, as existed in pre-Islamic society, would that suddenly make it morally ok?
On what basis is Dr Wilbur qualified to talk about establishing ‘universal ethical standards’?
Yes, Stephen,
Hierarchy and intolerance are bad because they minimize and derogate human freedom. The Axial Age was a period where there was a common understanding that the Golden Rule was the highest form of moral decision making. Religions are largely antithetical to that view of morality because it gives them no place to make moral rules and laws for others. All religions are about control and require a leader or leaders and a willing group of followers.
No one has yet show that living by the Golden Rule is not superior to any man-made religion. It precedes organized or institution religion and since it is found in all the ancient world cultures it has proved by its longevity to be far more reliable than any religion. It is the one true ethical principle enunciated by Jews, Christians, Confucians, Buddhists, Hindus, and others.
Because there may never be a universal standard accepted by all has never prevented many religious systems from that attempt. If mankind truly accepted and adopted the belief that mankind was God's highest creative act and lived by that principle, we would be able to live in harmony. History has shown that the world's oldest wars were between religions–often those religions claiming peace to be their main principle.
The idea so frequently promoted that only in religion or belief in God can there be morals has no basis.
Aristotle and other philosophers since him have "preached" the moral and ethical life as respecting others as equals. Religion separates their group from the "others" and in doing so, gives them less, or no respect as equals. This is the central message of many religions and particularly Adventism where all who do not accept that view will eventually be eternally lost.
Surely, your belief that without belief in a Divine right to infuse morality cannot be supported. Where is the evidence? Are you not claiming that only by accepting a higher divine authority that people will not live moral lives? Again, where is the evidence? Which of the various divinities should standardize morals? Do you believe that humans were not given a conscience to know right from wrong without religion? How did Cain know he committed an evil act by murdering his brother? Where was there a law informing him? The proliferation of laws only identifies additional ways of disobedience, and has never made better humans. Self-control comes from within, not from outside sources.
We are destined to face the realities of society as has always been, and will never change. The multiplication of sects, cults, schisms etc will continue to further divisional quantity as time goes on.
The big problem worldwide however is the tendency for non-religious National & Global entity (along with some religions) hierarchies to seek control of the masseswith ever increasing fervor.
Elaine, i submit that you personally lived through the greatest bloodletting season ever, from 1920's thru 1945, that was of non-religious exercises of a global genocide. So much for the non-religious "GOLDEN RULE". And we are fast approaching a new wave of global non-religious wholesale enslavement, and murder, on a scale unprecedented in history. The name of the ultimate game on Earth is control of the masses under a one world government. Our enemies are in high places of non-religious factions. No major religious body, except Islam, has in its articles of faith, a demand to murder all non-belivers.
"I have seen the enemy and it is us."
Looking outward for enemies does nothing to change our relationship with others; it only infuses hatred.
The period between 1920-1945 did not change the Golden Rule; simply because laws and rules are broken does not invalidate them. Standards are not set by those who break them, otherwise we would all submit to anarachy. Individuals, not nations can adopt standards such as the Golden Rule and even in "God's Chosen People" there was just as much killing and disobedience as the surrounding pagans.
Religions do not make people better, but it can make them feel superior.
What has been presented here does not differentiate between destructive and constructive religion. How can it be a balanced study of religion? Did I miss something? He begrudgingly admits that "some of the time" religion has done good things. I would suggest that it has done a lot of good and maybe the only good on this earth. Even in the dark ages, nuns cared for the sick and helped the poor. In the western world people of faith led out in education, health care, and care for the poor. Great men of the past such as Newton and DaVinci were religious. Can you think of any great good that has not come about in the atmosphere of religion? I am talking primarily of the Judeo-Christian religion here.
Other world religions have given people ethical standards to live by. Most started with men of good will like Buddha and even Mohammad made his society better than it had been. It appears that when these religions attract followers who often run a profound faith into superstition and an us and them mentality that they flounder and can become pathways for self-fulfillment through violence.
Religions are made up of people–good and bad. Because humans tend more to sin and selfishness, they generally turn something good into something bad. I happen to believe that true religion or faith exists in many individuals through the power of God's spirit. If there is such a thing as an adversary we call the devil (maybe changing the term wouild help), he/it would first infiltrate every new religion–that's a no brainer for the believer.
As for a religion of science–oh sure! Wasn't it science that invented the nuclear bomb and other kinds of warfare to kill more people? Science could be more corruptible than any relegion has ever been.
It's good versus evil religion or not.
Matt 10:34, 35, 36 sets the record straight that spiritual unity or religious unity isn't a universally guaranteed possibility. There are certain conditions necessary for Christian unity to exist. The gospel of Jesus Christ at times divides (or separates) in order to preserve and advance the cause of God in pursuing the work of righteousness by faith in Christ which results in obedience to God and a changed life. This debunks the humanist Golden Rule concept which in itself has no substance, only an excuse to condone and accept wickedness.
If one may accuse me of taking this out of context, then I will posit Matt 10:37, 38 as reasonable grounds for my comment.
Elaine: 'The idea so frequently promoted that only in religion or belief in God can there be morals has no basis.'
Thanks Elaine – I do agree with you. However, you haven't really addressed my fundamental issue – what is or is not right or wrong? I don't believe you need to believe in God to do and know good from evil, but I believe the believer and non-believer alike obtain that sense of morality from the Divine. Without a sense of moral absolute, who is to say up should be up and down should be down? If your up is my down, and there is no any notion of absolute morality, then why should I adopt your proposed ethics?
Elaine: 'Hierarchy and intolerance are bad because they minimize and derogate human freedom.'
Who says hierachy and a loss of human freedom are bad? Some might see your modern 21st-Century morality as proposing chaos – something many ancient societies feared more than hierachy and loss of human freedom. The ancient Egyptians and modern post-9/11 Americans alike seem willing to trade loss of freedom for an increased sense of security and order.
Elaine: 'The Axial Age was a period where there was a common understanding that the Golden Rule was the highest form of moral decision making.'
But why is the Golden Rule the highest form of moral decision-making? You have addressed the what – and I agree with you. But you haven't at all addressed the why?
Elaine: 'Are you not claiming that only by accepting a higher divine authority that people will not live moral lives?'
No again you are confusing the what from the why. Modern American laws are based on certain old documents, concepts and events- your constitution, the doctrine of Parliamentary soveriegnty (from the English Civil War) and the magna carta (against wicked little King John) before that.
However, just because a modern person is not aware that these ancient documents does not mean they are ignorant of modern American laws and would attempt to flout them. Conversely, being an expert in ancient legal history does not necessarily mean one will by natural consequence be a more law abiding citizen.
In the same manner, a non-believer can be as moral, if not much more moral, than a believer. However, that is a different question from where the believer ultimately obtains that sense of morality, and whether one can even talk about unalienable human rights bestowed by God.
We have absolutely no input in who we are, where we were born, but there are some innate human characteristics that cross all boundaries of place and time. Humans value their own life (excepting the abnormal which is not being considered) and therefore realize that others have the same feeling about their own lives. No one had to tell Cain that murder was wrong and no one has to tell a child that taking his toy or hitting him is also wrong–at least only once when he gets the same treatement–because experience is the great teacher.
Do you believe hierarchy (monarchy) and intolerance are not evils? That form of government does not protect from tyranny. Intolerance places human in orders of higher to lower grades (see India).;
When you speak of "moral absolutes" these are basic principles common to all humans–the Golden Rule. Tell me, what immoral action can one take if that is his guiding principle? Christ seemed to believe that. Do we need more?
Common laws originated with Hammurabi's Code, if referring to the oldest on record. The Magna Carta was the foundation of English law, from which the U.S. borrowed liberally, as well as from the Enlightenment.
If you ever had a child that was never satisfied with an answer but continued to ask "Why," I'm beginning to feel that you must have had that habit and still retain it.
Can you give the answers to all the questions you asked me? Go ahead, I'm listening: How do you believe humans decided what was moral when there was no written law?
Elaine: '…there are some innate human characteristics that cross all boundaries of place and time.'
Again Elaine, I agree with you. However, with respect, I feel again you have only half-addressed the issue. Where does this innate human characteristic that sees the Golden Rule as the highest moral ehtic come from?
'Do you believe hierarchy (monarchy) and intolerance are not evils?'
As a loyal subject of Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Australia, to whom I swore an oath as a member of the Australian Defence Force – no, I don't see monarchy as evil.
'Can you give the answers to all the questions you asked me? '
Yes, my answer is simple – God. Read Romans 2. Even an atheist is made in the Divine Image, which is only wounded, not destroyed. Even an atheist has the Holy Spirit in his or her heart, which is to say the principle of love, which is the fundamental basis for all morality.
Love is best exemplified in alturism, in giving one's life for another – demonstrated best by Christ Himself (as just one example). The thing we call 'evil' is rooted in selfishness, and lack of empathy.
So my point is that the source of ultimate morality (being God) is different from saying one has to believe in God. They are not necessarily connected. An atheist can be just as moral as a Christian (more so often); however, that doesn't mean ultimate morality doesn't derive from the Divine.
Stephen,
One question: Where did you come from and where were you before your birth?
Why is that relevant?
Why would anyone be so concerned about their life here and hereafter if they are unconcerned where they came from? If the one fact of birth is irrelevant, everything in life is also irrelevant.
Are you seriously trying to say human beings don't or shouldn't care about an afterlife? There are some massive pyramids in the Egyptian desert that would suggest otherwise.
An interesting question then, since you seem to deny post-mortem existence like the Pharisees. Can one claim to be 'religious' if that 'belief system' rejects life-after-death? Or does it become a humanistic philosophy – 'soft atheism' if you will?
P.S. I wonder if your compatriot Dr Taylor also similarly rejects the afterlife? I do appreciate Elaine the candour, as it does make meaningful dialogue possible. And I am seriously listening to your views – not simply trying to talk past you like many do here. Just keep that in mind even if it seems I am strongly disagreeing with you – I really do enjoy your comments, as they do really challenge me.
Stephen,
Whether people have always been concerned about the afterlife, does not infer that they know where and what it is. Humans have the ability of imagination, and where there are no objective answers, they are very creative in making up answers.
I did not say that people shouldn't care about the afterlife, they are very interested; but that there are no absolute answers, depending on who is asked. Primitive peoples have answers; Mormons have answers; but one needn't accept those, as you probably don't.
The reason I asked about your existence before birth, is that no one seems concerned about where he might have been prior to birth, but extremely interested in where he is going after death. The answer for me, is that wherever I was before birth is where I will be after death. I hope my loved ones memories will keep me alive in their thoughts, but there is nothing more I can ask.
How many people who have lived are remembered today? Most do not even know their 5th generation ancestor, and our 5th generation descendants probably will not even know our names. Our world is bounded by each individual and his family, friends, and that is about all. The billions in the world know nothing about us and are only concerned about their own life as we are about ours. And concern about the afterlife shows that for some, we are extremely intersested in our own lives and where we eventually go.
Sorry that should have been a reference to the Sadducees, not the Pharisees, in denying post-mortem existence.
Happy to agree with you that there are no objective answers to the question of life after death. However, religion isn't about objective answers as far as I know.
I agree about memories of our ancestors – the Bible says as such in Ecc. So the TV-special answer 'He [or she] will live on in our memories' is pure bunkum.
I don't know for certain what will happen when we die; but religion gives us hope that there is some sort of afterlife. There is no way to disprove it either as atheists suggest. However, to deny the possibility of an afterlife seems to be contrary to the hallmarks of what religion is.
I get you point about pre-existence before birth and I do agree. But I don't necessarily agree with your own assumption that the place we were before is the same as the place we will go afterwards.
Do you at least accept there may in fact be an all-knowing God? And if God knows everything, every thought you had in your whole life, and this God exists outside of space and time (as space-time was itself created in the Big Bang), then you will kind of exist (both before and after death) in God's mind.
If nothing else, do you accept such objective immortality (as opposed to the regular subjective immortality most religions seem focused on)? John Haught and other process theologians are quite keen on the idea and I kind of agree with it (although I believe the Creator could also grant subjective immortality also).
Anyway, my major point is the afterlife is important to almost all human beings. Religion isn't about objective-scientific knowledge or certainty, it is about subjective-experiential knowledge and hope. For me personally, a life without hope is not a life worth living.
Elaine,
You have me puzzled with hierarchy being evil.
I would have said it was part of nature, and in that sense natural. Of course, open to abuse, particularly in the human arene.
Some examples of hierarchy in nature would be:
Bees. Queen etc.
Meerkats. Alpha pair etc.
Lions. Male/Coalition pride etc.
and the list would go on.
I guess, from a human perspective it is easy for us to attribute a quality of "good", "bad", "evil" etc to these things, but I don't think that, outside of abuse of hierarchy, we could call it evil. In fact, I think the elements of it are essential to humanity. What social structure is there within society that does not reflect a hierarchy in one sense or another? Even democracy reflects a hierarchy formed by the democratic will of the group.
Hierarchy places distinctive classifcations of humans. It separates the leaders from the followers.
Yes, there is a hierarchy in the animal world but there it is instinctive nature without choice. Man has a choice, something the animals do not have. In that sense the animal world is programmed for specific duties (bees).
This is how much of the world has functioned: classifications from rulers to the lowest caste, allowing other humans to designate specific roles which could not be altered. The power to designate one's position from birth is evil. If not, please explain.
Hierarchy places distinctive classifcations of humans. It separates the leaders from the followers.
Yes, there is a hierarchy in the animal world but there it is instinctive nature without choice. Man has a choice, something the animals do not have. In that sense the animal world is programmed for specific duties (bees).
This is how much of the world has functioned: classifications from rulers to the lowest caste, allowing other humans to designate specific roles which could not be altered. The power to designate one's position from birth is evil. If not, please explain.
Elaine,
"The power to designate one's position from birth is evil."
Well, first, that makes me wonder about the OT priesthood, along with many other OT hierarchial structures.
Secondly, no, I do not think we can say it is evil without qualification.
Wilbur's original point was this:
"Unfortunately it (religion) has also been used to justify hierarchy and the oppression of the common man by his “betters” and to validate the destruction or impoverishment of those who don’t share the preferred belief system."
Hierarchy has very clearly been a part of human culture and society in our evolution from the first caveman tribe. So has religion. Hence, in this context, religion has often become the motivator for oppression via the vehicle of hierarchy. So too have other ideologies.
Does this mean that hierarchy, or in your specific example, designation of position from birth is evil? I do not think so, rather it seems to me it is the way in which such privilege is applied that matters. It is this that can make from it good or evil. Caste, and a host of other such categorizations are religiously motivated or shaped. Hence we perhaps should take care to distinguish whether it is hierarchy itself or the forces of religion (or other ideologies within it) that produce an "evil" in any given structure, including hierarchy.
Even if the wonderfull day ever came where human civilization could have a universal ethical standard, based on human equality and respect, and not on religious voices from dusty, past their use by, books, I am not sure that there would be no place for hierarchy. Rather, I would suggest it is as integral to human nature as it is to nature itself. Religion is less integral. Other creatures and humans both have hierarchy. Animals don't have religion; only we humans have been blessed by its positives (are there any) and blighted by its evils. (there are many)
Thank you, Stephen Ferguson, for such fine articulate arguments. Sorry, Elaine. I'm just trying to keep it real here – telling it like it is. lol!
Elaine, I have never been able to figure out what tethers The Golden Rule for you, so that it has any constraining or motivating force beyond how individuals interpret it for themselves. In the JudeoChristian tradition, loving others as oneself is founded on loving God – a real Being – with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength. That's pretty intense.
But if its just Abdul and The Golden Rule, who has the authority to tell him that he's violating The Golden Rule by becoming a suicide bomber? If you want to take away 80% of my earnings, and redistribute it to those who live below the poverty line, who has the right to tell you that you are in conflict with The Golden Rule? I guess we'll just have to trust ethicists, government bureaucrats, and critical theory to reveal and deconstruct, if necessary, the penumbral truest and deepest meanings hidden within The Golden Rule. At least we won't have to be burdened by religious fanatics telling us what it means. I feel better already just talking about it.
You're welcome I have given you the opportunity to unload.
Nathan,
If the Golden rule is given its force and intensity by being founded in the authority of God, a real Being, then what happens to its force for the person who does not believe in that God, as many in this world do not?
If someone must first be convinced of both the God (the Judeo Christian one) and his authority to back the Golden rule, this world is in serious trouble imho.
I'm wondering, is it possible that the idea of a "loving God", and the "loving others as yourself" concepts actually play a key role in making "God" appealing and plausible in the first place? In other words, is it this "end product" which "sells" the idea of God in the first place? (Of course, we all know that the absence of love among proponents of this Judeo Christian position sometimes equally undermines the God being presented).
Now, my point is that if the concepts of "love your neighbor .." has the almost universal "appeal" that I suspect it does, do we actually have to tether it to God? Why can it not in fact be given the collective authority of human society by merit of the very fact that it is rooted in the human spirit? That is also pretty intense.
It seems to me that it is largely religion, with its competing "Gods" that actually stands in the way of this collective, universal approach to values. ie the Golden rule for example. Your Abdul is doing what he is doing because "his" God places different demands. Demands to which he has granted authority that overides the Golden Rule of someone else's God.
So, it seems to me that the very reason you want it rooted in and tethered to a God (Judeo C one), ultimately undermines its authority and value. Could we not take a short cut, and avoid the "God, and which God" questions, and allow the universal appeal of love your neighbor to have its own force. It seems to me it is only when religion and other ideologies are held too strongly that such force is inadequate.
btw, while I fully support the simplifacation of such principles into the "Golden Rule", even that concept is not as straightforwards as we like to think. I would also not limit understanding and application of its principles and values to the ethicists and the group you listed. That would be a good start, but not the end.
I know Stephen has raised the point above about who or what is, or is not right, and where does this come from, and his suggestion that, given the source is Divine, even if a person does not believe in God as such, the innate sense of morality is still present.
If this is correct, it still would not squash my suggetion above. We could still capitalize on this innate sense or morality without the God confusion. After all, as has been asked before: Who's God? Which God? etc. By recognizing and building on the universality of innate morality, absent the God confusion, humanity would perhaps be freer to move toward a universally agreeable application of love others as yourself. Take religion and the God confusion out of the equation and we would quickly have less bomb touting Abdul's around. That must be a start!
I should add. I am not so sure the source is Divine, but I don't think that really matters much. If we are willing to seek a universal ethic based on such a powerfull, innate sense as seen in humans, who cares where it came from. Why let that argument undermine is collective authority?
Correction: Why let that argument undermine its collective authority? probalby more typos but that one sticks out:(
—the source is Divine? "but I don't think that really matters much. If we are willing to seek a universal ethic who cares where it came from." Why should we not care? We seek ultimate foundations for all knowledge do we not?
When I say 'ultimate foundations' I totally don't mean figuring out which God is true to establish a ground for ethics, but simply to establish that ethics are not arrived at by collective agreement of the majority of beings (majority often wrong) but to posit that there is an ultimatly good Being that all goodness finds power and inmutability.
We do know by ancient records, that the Golden Rule arose spontaneously as the ideal ethical rule by realizing that failure to heed this rule, led to wars, killings, and all sorts of evil that was detrimental to any group. There is not always a "ultimate good Being" that must be behind such common reasoning, which is what it is. The Golden Rule is not some very difficult scientific problem that needed the world's greatest minds to discover it, but a very simple rule; and because of its simplicity, there are many who doubt, or cannot comprehend that humans arrived at this by themselves.
Humans have discovered most of what we think of today as simple ways of living, but they may not have been so simple when first discovered.
Humans are wonderful and wise. If this is as deep as it goes then I assume ethics are simply utilitarian-"the common good." This is ethics by majority opinion and extremely frightening.
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.”
“I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.”
“I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.”
“I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
“Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory.”
“I appreciate when someone says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory.” “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262-269).
All laws are determined by mutual agreement and understanding in a democratic society.
Democracy is not always the bastion of morality. Hitler ascended to power with a democratic vote. The Rule of Law (which protects the minority) does not always equate with the morality of the majority.
The Golden Rule as posited by Mrs Nelson is a false doctrine in that it cannot solve all mankind's problems. No – it won't! Man on his own has no power over sin and evil. The good that may come out of the human heart isn't good enough. Man is in dire need of salvation from sin and this remedy is only obtainable outside of himself. Christ's death in man' stead at Calvary is our only hope. The I'm good – you're good 'soft atheism' is just a feeble humanist attempt to excuse sin and degradation. It is contradictory at its core as it has no real basis to distinguish right from wrong. Evolution theory too has no real basis for morality and is without capacity to determine good or bad.
Elaine, we were not discussing 'laws' really, but one must remember that Hitler did what most of the nation found ethical and made that argument at Nurenberg. Yes, they were not the majority of all humans in this view, but what if the majority avow a certain ethic. Does that validate it? We can go no higher?
The Golden Rule is not a LAW in that is has been expressly been written and voted on. It is an internal moral principle by which man should live, and if followed, would be the ideal society. But, because there is no "ideal society" does not mean that we should no work toward improving the way we live, or enact laws to benefit all.
"an internal moral principle by which man should live" who says so??
I can only imagine what this "internal moral principle" would be like, since we are selfish in nature.
That should be 'matter on a transcendent' scale.
It is interesting, Chris – I did not argue that the Golden Rule achieves its force and intensity by being founded on the authority of God. What I actually said was that The Golden Rule is founded on loving God with all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength, which is pretty intense. Do you see a difference there? Obviously you do, or you would not have felt the need to misquote what I said. If I told you that I love my wife with all my soul, and all my mind and all my strength, would you describe our relationship as being founded on her authority? No wonder you are hostile toward religion!
I'm not so much arguing, Chris for God-based morality, as I am disputing the adequacy or meaningfulness of Golden Rule-based morality. The fact that the Golden Rule has universal appeal is of no greater ethical/moral value than the reality that self-sacrifice, love, courage, honor – the good, the true, and the beautiful also have universal appeal. Why is the Golden Rule superior to these values? As long as they are abstractions, without roots and branches – without a past or a future that have historically only been provided by culture and religion – they have no power or meaning.
Unfortunately, when they do become flesh in human lives ruled by the holy trinity of needs, wants and feelings, noble and virtuous abstractions, like the Golden Rule, become rationalized into very messy, and often very ugly, realities. That's human nature. Human nature creates religion just as it creates society, politics, and towers of Babel You can no more blame religion for conflict and evil that you can blame politics for conflict and evil. Neither you nor John Lennon can change that reality away with platitudes any more than King Canute could stop the tide from rising by his royal command.
Whether a self-sustaining Golden Rule culture of atheism will be possible after the religious hosts, from which it parasitically sucks its faux morality, are no longer around, is highly questionable. In even greater doubt is whether such a culture can produce anything of substantial enduring good or beauty – apart of course from the majestic work of Andres Serrano, ironically made possible only by religion. None of us will be around to find out for certain whether that is possible, though communism and fascism have provided strong evidence that it is not. So I would submit that considerable humility is in order when one makes audacious claims for The Golden Rule as an elixir to human evil and conflict.
Nathan,
I considered very carefully my use of the word authority in that context. You stated the loving God was a real being. You then went on to suggest there was a question of who, presumably in the absence of God, had the authority to tell Abdul right from wrong. The implicit argument you are making is based on God's existence and authority. Just because you take the human love response end of the stick does not really change the implication imho.
So, I don't think I'm missing your underlying argument, or at least a necessary corollary of your argument. If you are not ultimately invoking the "right" of that God to say what is and is not loving another…what else are you doing?
Not exactly, Chris. As I said, I'm not so much arguing for the existence and authority of God (that is of course my presuppositional foundation) as I am arguing for the inadequacy of an untethered Golden Rule as a moral guide. What I am pointing out is that our capacity to understand and apply The Golden Rule flows not from obedience to the will of a divine potentate, but from our understanding that a God who can be "known" tells us that as we love Him with all our soul, mind and strength, we will understand what "Do unto others…" means.
It is not a matter of God having the right to say what is and is not loving one another. For the Christian, loving God with all our soul, mind and strength doesn't give us definitional truth to find the right formula for loving one another. Rather it gives us insight and strength to know how God wants to relationally reveal the meaning of loving one another in our lives. It's more like "Love the Lord thy God…" is the operating system that enables us to run the "Do unto others…" program effectively.
It is my contention that secularists need to honestly acknowledge the operating systems they use to run the Golden Rule program, and that when they do, it will become apparent that The Golden Rule, without an operating system, is quite useless and meaningless, except insofar as it provides moral thrills to the person who promotes it.
Back to the beginning: There is no such thing as "an objective student of reality."
I missed that, Elaine. That really was pretty rich! "…an objective student of reality…" How preposterously self-indulgent! Not sure who would claim that title – maybe Richard Dawkins.
Sorry, I meant "Ella," not Elaine.
Without God Dr. Wilbur's mythology certainly is an interesting speculation that no doubt appeals to a lot of the gullible. With God everything is possible. Without God everything is probable.
I like this: With God everything is possible. Without God everything is probable.
However, I certainly don't think Dave is gullible.
One may understandably (but incorrectly) come to the conclusion that because someone is well educated in some school of thought or field of study that that they are therefore immune to being gullible.
A large majority of scientists (not sure of this – but that's what they claim), among others, have bought into the theory of evolution. This shows some major gullible tendencies here towards such an extreme position which is held (and aggressively defended) by such well educated people. They accept the concept of evolution theory as a de facto standard not on the basis of any real scientific credibility – but because if it being a 'non-God' theory by default. This to me shows how a non-God concept (or term) can hijack and qualify as the ‘official describer’ or ‘explanation’ of the actual natural processes found in the well designed phenomena of living organisms. To make this term sound scientific is easy. All they have to do is state this non-God concept in the jargon of scientific method.
A Trojan Horse indeed – if ever there was one – which got right into the heart of science by the back door. The fact that even the glaring existence of Intelligent Design is disregarded shows the extent of such gullibility.
This is a problem with stereotyping. You don't know Dave. He is far from gullible but has found it necessary to deal with some issues in print. No one is objective, and there is no such thing as an objective scholar either. But Dave is one of the most compassionate kindest people I knew when living in California, and we share many precious friendships there.
This is at the heart of the problem 22. The fact the evolution is a "de facto" position. Of course, a couple definitions of evolution are true. Change over time for example. No educated person on the planet would disagree with the fact that creatures change and adapt over time. So OK, things evolve.
But the 'de facto' you are talking about MUST include the dogma that NO creative force or Intelligence plays any part in the "Design" of life. This "rule" is said to be "science." By definition "evolution" Must be "Mindless." It is a child's game really and completely a philosophical position and not a scientific position. It negates itself. Is Absolute Naturalism true? It can't be true by its own rule, for the thing itself cannot be "scientifically" verified.
I want to support what you said 22, althought we probably disagree some items, you are completely correct in my view on this default definition of evolution that so many place there hope in. However many of those who are closest to the real evidence have given up on the neo darwinism. Many are explaining genetics as a "preprogrammed adaptive capacity"–James Shapiro, or as the "uncanny ability to navigate the appropriate solution through immense 'hyperspaces' of biological possibilities," as it were "channeled" to propitious end points– Simon Conway Morris. The well respected Stuart Kauffman embraces what he calls "natual magic." In a lecture at MIT he stated, "Life bubbles forth in a natural magic beyond the confines of entailing laws." This allows us to be "reenchanted" with nature and find a way beyond modernity." My only point is to say that the classic view of evolution preached from academia has been replaced by something at least somewhat more logical by many scientists on the cutting edge.
"My only point is to say that the classic view of evolution preached from academia has been replaced by something at least somewhat more logical by many scientists on the cutting edge." Mr. Lindenmith might want to talk to a real, research active, evolutionary biologist so that he might better understand the actual nature of the dialogue in mainstream evolutionary biology concerning current research on the mechanisms of evolution.
I am thinking that Mr Taylor has really no idea the 'actual nature' of the dialogue in mainstream evolutionary biology concerning current research on the mechanisms of evolution!
This is getting better and better. I keep getting advise to ignore people like him, but in this case, I'm going to make an exception. Stay tuned
Speaking of Absolution Naturalism. Can anyone tell me why Jerry Coyne's on the lack of free will is not true? Over at Why Evolution Is True he writes in the Chronicle of Higher Education ("Education is possible without free will????) anyway he wrote the following:
Why, then, did Jerry get up in the morning and write his essay? Here's what I mean.
Coyne's denial of free will is deterministic: he believes that our acts are determined wholly by genes and environment — physics and biological history. He leaves no room for libertarian free choices.
But what exactly is determinism? What does it mean to say our acts and thoughts are determined? The philosophical literature on determinism and free will is massive. But the definition of determinism is agreed upon by all: determinism is the metaphysical view that given our history and physics, at the moment of decision only one outcome is possible. The future is, with respect to the present moment of decision, a single line, not many possible lines.
We may not be able to predict with certainty what each decision will be, but at every moment, only one decision is possible.
Jerry is, as best I can glean from his less-than-rigorous assertions, in the "no-free-will-incompatilist" camp. He is a determinist and believes that free will and determinism are incompatible. I (and most people probably) are free-will incompatibilists — we believe that determinism and free will are incompatible, but that determinism is wrong, and free will is true. Sometimes this view is called "libertarian free will." Other views exist — that both determinism and free will are true, or that neither determinism nor free will is true, and countless permutations. It's safe to say that I've characterized Jerry's view accurately — determinism is true and free will does not exist.
Here's the problem with that view. If determinism is true, then all that Jerry does — having opinions, writing blog posts, getting out of bed this morning — is determined by two and only two things: his biological history (evolution, childhood learning, what he had for dinner last night… etc.) and physics (the current state of his neurotransmitters). In Jerry's free-will free world, his decision to get out of bed this morning had only one possible outcome — the outcome determined by his history and physics. So if Jerry did get out of bed, he could say "Of course I got out of bed. There was no other possible outcome." But if Jerry didn't get out of bed, he could say "Of course I didn't out of bed. There was no other possible outcome."
So why should Jerry get out of bed?
Surely he is capable of staying in bed, and if he did stay in bed, he could console himself (and his employers and students) with the assurance that it couldn't have been otherwise. To the complaint from his dean "Why didn't you show up for your class this morning?!" Jerry could answer "It couldn't have been otherwise. I'm determined."
So let's take Jerry's determinism a step further. Jerry writes his essays and blog posts denying free will. But of course, he couldn't have done otherwise. His free-will denial was determined by his biological history and the laws of physics and neuroscience. Perhaps his free-will denial was determined by a base pair substitution on the short arm of his 17th chromosome, or by that bit of toast he had before bed. His denial of free will was not determined by consideration of truth. One does not ascribe truth to chemicals — "13.7 picograms of dopamine in the cingulate cortex is true, but 17.4 picograms of serotonin in the pre-Rolandic gyrus is false." Chemicals and biological histories don't have truth values. They're chemicals, not propositions.
So Jerry's assertion that determinism is true and that we don't have free will is, simultaneously, an assertion that Jerry's opinions have no truth values, only chemical constituents.