I’m happy to report that although reason was pretty much absent inside the rally, it was spotted out on the surrounding sidewalks.
Weekly apologetics cartoons for the faithful, the faithless, and the full-of-its.
I’m happy to report that although reason was pretty much absent inside the rally, it was spotted out on the surrounding sidewalks.
Okay, this is unreal, and really cool, given you don’t know about it. Not only did I post up a video of Jeff Durbin at the Reason Rally on my Facebook page today, it was this same video. On the same day. What do you know, Josh? God is sending us the same message! =D
Anyway, street-level apologetics has always fascinated me, because defending our faith is the easy bit, but what many people forget about 1 Peter 3:15 is the equally relevant call to do it “with gentleness and respect”. Its importance cannot be stressed enough. And here, Jeff, a wonderful man of God and one of the most gifted men I know in street-level apologetics, shows that our faith can be shared with heartfelt sincerity and love, even in the most hostile of environments. A timely reminder for all of us, no doubt.
Can’t wait for the full documentary to be out. =)
That is pretty awesome!
I completely agree, Getic.Apolo. In fact, in person, this is the way I go about it. But sometimes the online interactions may make us appear more insensitive or hateful than we actually are. :(
Joshua
As a bag of fizzing stardust why do you care about anything?
What a terrible question. Can you spot the non sequitur? As a Caucasian, why do you care about anything? As a mammal, why do you care about anything? As a non pigmy, why do you care about anything? As a scientologist, why do you care about anything? How does the caring directly follow from the identifier? Obviously, it doesn’t, which is why you substitute just about anything you want here without changing the real question about why we care. This is a simpleton’s move to lay claim to an authority, that the caring is caused by being Caucasion, caused by being a mammal, caused by not being a pygmy, caused by being a scientologist. This kind of argument is intended to provide a platform assumed to be true – that belief in the christian god causes moral authority – to avoid the burden of proof to link the assumed cause -god – to the effect – morality. (It’s just another version of It’s dry. I dance. It rains. Ah Ha! I can safely assume that my dancing caused the rain! Now prove it didn’t, all you atheist Mr Know-it-alls)
A much better question would have been, Can anyone who does not believe in my version of the christian god be moral? If the answer is Yes but with religious caveats or even No, then the burden of proof is clear: show how this particular christian version of god (or its version with religious caveats) causes morality and let the tens of thousands of differing religious viewpoints spend eternity arguing amongst themselves how a particular religious authority is more deserving than all the others as a claim to what’s true in reality.
In the meantime, we non believers can just carry on being moral agents who care based on good reasons and compelling evidence and allow the religious to stew in their own pious juices until they’re done. When one cohesive religious answer emerges (which ain’t never gunna happen), perhaps it will be worth rational consideration… at that time and no sooner.
Please explain for us how and why something is “wrong” according to you in 2 paragraphs or less.
Joshua
Right and wrong are categories of values we place on reality. When we talk of morality, we are talking about establishing a comparative metric on which to base our measurement along a spectrum where we find right at one end and wrong at the other. When asked why we consider something or some action to be wrong, we are really being asked to explain why we use the metric we do. I think – after much study – the most useful metric is well being, with an emphasis of consideration given to things that are conscious. After all, there is nothing to talk about if we rule out consciousness for that is where comparative values come into being. I like to use the analogy of elevation to morality where highest and lowest – like right and wrong – make no sense as meaningful terms unless they are relative to each other in some commonly accessible and understandable spectrum (perhaps in feet or miles or in meters, it doesn’t really matter) but all relative to a comparative metric (sea level for elevation, well being of conscious creatures for morality). It is the comparison that matters to establish why something or some action is wrong or right or somewhere in between and it is the common metric we use that determines morality’s value. Some metrics are far better informed and useful and even measurable than others to provide compelling evidence why an ought is a more valuable consideration than an is and worthwhile to pursue. Human well-being is an excellent common and easily comparative metric to value.
In essence, the morality that exists within your brain doesn’t exist apart from it, unless other people using different brains agree with your conclusions on what is right and wrong. Am I right?
So, in your sphere of morality, is it right or wrong to impose (or try to impose) your beliefs about morality on others? If yes, why and how? If no, then how do you deal with people whose conclusion about morality differ from yours, especially if they say the derived them from the same source as you?
Thanks,
Joshua
Morality is not a thing; it is word we use to describe a comparative category in the same way that elevation isn’t a thing that exists. The comparative category is what we use to determine the instrumental value of actions. Values can be agreed upon and be shown to further goals and process that have greater or lesser benefits. That’s why the same action can have different moral values depending on which goals and processes are used for the comparison. Sometimes it is right to kill; sometimes it is wrong. We do our best to try to incorporate a set of social rules that allow the greatest net benefit of certain commonly desired goals, like the security of self. These goals can be compared and contrasted and curtailed by other considerations, which is why law, for example, does not determine what is right or wrong but what is legal and illegal. The verdict of Not Guilty in our legal jurisprudence, for example, does not mean Innocent; it means the charges laid have not been substantiated enough to validate them. In every human endeavor that affects another, we have competing values at work and we use an assortment of ways and means to find workable solutions… none of which are right and wrong in and of themselves but by which they address – for better or worse – the comparative values in play. That’s why even the most commonly held moral values can and do shift over time.
tildeb, I’m not going to ask you specific questions, not get specific answers and then move on to the next discussion anymore. Let me put them here again:
1) According to the morality that exists in your brain, is it right or wrong to impose (or try to impose) your beliefs about morality on others? If yes, why and how?
2) If it is not right to impose your beliefs about morality on others, then how do you deal with people whose conclusion about morality differ from yours, especially if they say the derived them from the same source as you?
NOTE: I specifically said “the morality that exists in your brain” in the previous comment. I didn’t ask you to put it in a jar and paint it orange for me.
Joshua
Joshua, I’m not trying to be difficult. I’m trying to answer your questions as best I can. The difficulty presented to me is that their quality is based on assumptions about morality that I do not share. I think this problem is endemic to those who seek some outside authority for what they themselves call morality… neither understanding nor appreciating that the source of those instrumental values resides within themselves first and is then imposed on reality. This is why you know the genocides and mass murders ordered by the OT god described in Numbers, for example, are not morally defensible by any comparative standards you yourself hold. This shows that your morality clearly precedes your scriptural instruction. So the authority to whom you wish to appeal morality as a comparative value is a secondary source at best, meaning an ‘objective morality’ remains as elusive as ever.
So this introduces the behaviour among and between social animals such as H.sapien that involves exercising these values and dealing with their effects. To answer #1, sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong to impose certain values on others depending on the goals trying to be achieved. It cannot be answered accurately as a yes or no question. Nor can #2. That’s why morality is always on ongoing difference of opinion between the values some people hold compared to others. That’s why the issue of slavery, for example, has gone from being somewhat condoned by western countries to outright condemnation. The values that informed these moral positions have evolved.
Thank you for answering my specific questions with specific answers, tildeb.
So, in your view of morality, who can stand as an expert on what does and what doesn’t give “the greatest net benefit of certain commonly desired goals”? How big does the group have to be? Anyway, there are plenty of examples of evil done in the name of “the greatest net benefit of certain commonly desired goals”. I’ll just mention one: eugenics.
Well, again, those passages are not trying to convey the idea that “genocide” and “mass murder” are OK. Read in context, it’s obvious. Besides, calling the events recorded in the Old Testament “genocide” and “mass murder” is a misuse of language; it’s like making no distinction between capital punishment and murder. The people were being judged for their sins (wrongs), just as Israel itself was held accountable and judged in the exact same way for the exact same sins (wrongs). (In fact, they became worse than the people who they displaced.)
If I might add, I find it odd that you’d say that sometimes killing is right and sometimes it is wrong (and I agree!), yet you won’t extend the courtesy to a group of people in the Middle East a few thousand years ago. This is especially curious to me since you said that your sole standard for what is and is not right is whatever “rules that allow the greatest net benefit of certain commonly desired goals, like the security of self”. As it relates to the examples you mentioned, there were groups among the Canaanites (a generic word for the people who inhabited Canaan) who attacked Israel unprovoked (Ex 17:8-16). At the very least, they were fighting for their very own self-preservation, something they certainly desired collectively.
Thanks!
Joshua
tildeb:
“I like to use the analogy of elevation to morality where highest and lowest – like right and wrong – make no sense as meaningful terms unless they are relative to each other in some commonly accessible and understandable spectrum (perhaps in feet or miles or in meters, it doesn’t really matter) but all relative to a comparative metric (sea level for elevation, well being of conscious creatures for morality).”
“Some metrics are far better informed and useful and even measurable than others to provide compelling evidence why an ought is a more valuable consideration than an is and worthwhile to pursue. Human well-being is an excellent common and easily comparative metric to value.”
I take it from your reply that you subscribe to a relativist view of morality, in which case, I’d like to ask a few questions:
1) Kindly define “human well-being” as you see it within your materialist worldview.
2) I’m having real trouble seeing how you derive an objective “ought” from a “comparative metric” that is morally relativistic. If the metric is relativistic, why exactly OUGHT we do anything in a materialist worldview, and not just whatever we PREFER doing?
3) Tell me tildeb, do you think torturing babies for personal pleasure is right or wrong?
P.S.: Josh, I loved the emails you wrote me, I’ve read them, and I apologise for not replying, what with all my work commitments. Give me a few days, and I’ll make sure to get down to it. God bless. =)
Good to see you again, Getic.Apolo!