How nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!
You keep wasting everybody's time by making ridiculous claims that you don't even attempt to back up. If you want to keep posting on this blog, then improve the quality of your material.
You need to explain how you ground your moral assumptions within your worldview. You also need to demonstrate that Christianity "took around 19 and 1/2 centuries…to figure out that racism is wrong". Since the Bible, church fathers, and other Christian sources have referred to the equality of the races for many centuries, you'll have to explain why we're supposed to believe that your characterization of Christianity is accurate. As things stand at this point, you appear to be deeply ignorant of the Bible and church history, dishonest, or both.
How nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!
1. I agree with what Jason wrote.
2. This video isn't about "19 and 1/2 centuries [of] xianity" trying "to figure out that racism is wrong." The immediate context is John Piper's personal experiences with racism and journey away from racism. There's more to it than that, but again the immediate context is why an individual Christian named John Piper wrote the book he wrote.
3. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are racists today in our society. Many of them could benefit from reading the book.
4. Likewise it's not as if non-racists couldn't likewise benefit from reading a book about racism.
5. It's foolish to think simply because "societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong" means racism has been wiped out (if that's what you're implying). In fact, each generation could benefit from learning or re-learning the moral and ethical issues associated with racism.
6. Many Christians have been on the forefront in stamping out racism, slavery, and the like.
I ground my moral assumptions on the following facts:
I'm human. Humans are capable higher thinking. Humans are social animals. Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation. I can observe the consequences of my actions on others.
Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'.
Because we are social animals many of these actions have been codified in the legal codes of the society we live in as well as being taught to us as we grow up within the society at large. These moral and legal precepts help our society grow, thrive and evolve. They are not personal preferences, they are learned principles necessary for our society to function.
If my characterization of xianity is wrong, then my apologies. As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's. If the church has been 'referring to the equality of the races' for centuries - it srikes me as quite impotent as a means of social change. Perhaps you could provide me with some 8th, 10th, 12th or even 14th century xian writings that espouse racial equality.
Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'.
1. This doesn't ground your moral assumptions at all. It simply makes your moral assumptions subject to society.
For example, one problem is different societies can differ in what they deem as "promot[ing] the health and well being of all members" and therefore differ in what is "good" or "right." A modern Western society like the US might think it promotes the health and well being of all members of society to protect minorities like Jews in their society. But a society like Nazi Germany might think it harmful to the health and well being of all members of society to protect minorities like Jews in their society. So where does that leave you? Which society is "right"? How do we adjudicate between the two societies which apparently prioritize and/or allocate different "goods" in different ways?
Likewise, what happens if society accepts and legalizes rape in some cases since they agree these "promote the health and well being of all members of society"? Say they think raping some women and perhaps men some of the time is actually good for the fertility rates of the society overall so it's allowed and made legal. Would this then make rape morally licit in your view?
2. Also, what do you mean by "well being"? Is "well being" associated with happiness, joy, pleasure, etc.? What makes you prioritize "well being" in this way?
3. We could ask a lot more questions. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's. If the church has been 'referring to the equality of the races' for centuries - it srikes me as quite impotent as a means of social change.
1. Jason never claimed Christianity was "the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world." That's your claim. All he said was "Since the Bible, church fathers, and other Christian sources have referred to the equality of the races for many centuries..." You're trying to put words into his mouth.
2. Just because Christians have advocated racial equality in various places over the centuries doesn't imply they were in a position in all those places over all those centuries to effect change. For example, for the first few centuries Christians in the Roman Empire were largely persecuted.
3. At least as I understand it, racism tends to occur in places where there's more racial diversity than in places where there's more racial homogeneity. If this is true, if Christians lived in racially homogeneous places, then it'd seem to be less likely for them to have to deal with racism.
4. Anyway, rather than continuing with vague generalizations, let's provide a concrete example. Let's take the Atlantic slave trade, Africans, and racism among the English speaking peoples. Let's also consider evangelical Christians. If we consider all this, then Christianity so considered including Christians like William Wilberforce were instrumental in abolishing the slave trade. Although more would be done, this is an obvious victory against racism. It also meets your criteria of occuring before the 1960s.
5. By your logic, we could argue the following. Nematodes have been the most dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth if we define dominance in terms of numbers as well as ubiquity across the world's ecological habitats. As the dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth, it seems nematodes would have been able to abolish or at least substantially reduce earth's food supply before the 1960s. Yet the earth's food supply doesn't seem to be substantially reduced. If nematodes have been the most dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth, then nematodes strike me as quite impotent in reducing the earth's food supply.
The Nazi Germany example is a poor one. Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable.
Your second example is a straw man as well. If you know of such a society I'd be interested to hear of it. It doesn't exist. We've learned (higher thinking again!) that sexual violence against members of a society creates distrust and inequality. These things don't promote the well being of society;.
How do YOU define well being? I mean really? Is that your question? Do you not know that being healthy and happy and loved is a good thing without being told by and invisible man in the sky? How sad for you.
My question to you is this. If xianity provides you with such a wonderful moral framework. Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on.
William Wilberforce = 18th century. Please reread the question and try again.
I never said Jason claimed xianity was the dominant religious movement of the past 2 millenia in the western world. I made that claim. Jason claimed that xianity had been preaching racial equality for centuries and I wondered aloud at it's impotence in affecting societal change. Not all evangelicals were abolitionists.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
Your nematode example shows a lack of understanding about biology. Many factors prevent overpopulation of a species including lack of resources, disease and adaptation to niche environments. I don't really see the parallel with regards to societal attitudes and their changes over the centuries and nematode population either.
You refer to "survival" and what's "necessary for our society to function", but in your last paragraph you refer to how societies have existed for centuries with racism. Generalities about "our society" don't get you to an objective moral standard for the individual. Since you refer to what happens "in most cases", should we conclude that it's usually wrong to be racist, but sometimes acceptable? If my actions would eventually produce an effect considered harmful to society if those actions were taken by the society as a whole, it doesn't follow that my actions as an individual will produce that effect. It also doesn't follow that I should put the society's interests ahead of my own. You repeatedly use terms like "well being" and "help our society grow", which can be defined in contradictory ways by people with contradictory interests. How do you know what constitutes a "functioning" society? A dictator who lives in wealth and pleasure while executing his political opponents, raping women he's attracted to, etc. could say that he's functioning well. Why should he change his behavior? He can make a calculation about the likelihood that he'll be able to stay in power or avoid punishment if he falls from power. If the odds seem to be in his favor, why should he change course? Likewise, how do all of your references to "higher thinking", "our society", "growth", etc. convince your eighty-year-old neighbor to stop holding a racist view of a particular group? Why should he agree with your definition of "well being", and why should he be concerned with what happens to "our society" as a result of his racism twenty or a thousand years after he dies?
As far as the history of Christianity is concerned, asking me to give you "some 8th, 10th, 12th or even 14th century xian writings that espouse racial equality" doesn't substantiate your initial comments. Neither does objecting that Christianity didn't abolish racism or make it socially unacceptable. Christianity has had different levels of influence in different contexts. It's not the only influencing factor in society. The prominence of lying and fornication in the modern Unites States doesn't prove that Christianity is neutral about or supportive of those activities. And modern societies aren't the only ones influenced by Christianity. You need to start with the Bible and move on to the patristic era and other earlier contexts before you even get to a context like the United States. You could start by addressing Biblical passages like the ones discussed in the video Patrick posted. Did you even watch the video before you commented here?
You still haven't demonstrated that racism is objectively wrong within your worldview. You still haven't shown that Christianity took more than nineteen centuries to realize that racism is wrong. You've now put up a few posts in this thread, and you still haven't justified your initial comments.
The Nazi Germany example is a poor one. Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable.
"Higher thinking" helps us know what's right from wrong (epistemology). But it doesn't objectively ground morality for us (ontology). So what you've said doesn't even begin to respond to the problem posed. Try again.
Your second example is a straw man as well. If you know of such a society I'd be interested to hear of it. It doesn't exist. We've learned (higher thinking again!) that sexual violence against members of a society creates distrust and inequality. These things don't promote the well being of society;.
Again, this isn't responsive to the dilemma. But there's nothing illicit about posing a hypothetical like this. Philosophers and ethicists of all stripes (e.g. atheist) do it all the time. Just because you can't interact with the problem let alone answer it according to your beliefs doesn't mean it's a straw man.
How do YOU define well being? I mean really? Is that your question? Do you not know that being healthy and happy and loved is a good thing without being told by and invisible man in the sky? How sad for you.
Remember, this is your argument. Not ours. It'd behoove you to keep track of your own argument if you expect to have any sort of an intelligent dialogue. Of course, if you don't, then Jason was perfectly right about you from his very first comment here. You're just wasting our time.
If you define well being by feelings of happiness and love and the like, then someone like Jeffrey Dahmer felt perfectly happy murdering, sodomizing, and cannibalizing other human beings. Feelings of well being don't objectively ground morality.
My question to you is this. If xianity provides you with such a wonderful moral framework. Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on.
We've been over this ground so many times. Search the archives.
Your basic problem is you're desperately confused about epistemology and ontology with regard to morality and ethics.
More to the point, you're getting way off the subject of this post. We've entertained you for a little while. But you obviously can't even interact with our arguments. So why should we try and answer new questions when you can't even address old ones which were raised by your original comments? (BTW, this is a rhetorical question in case you didn't get it.)
William Wilberforce = 18th century. Please reread the question and try again.
Here's what you claimed: "As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's."
Wilberforce = "religious" Christian who helped "abolish" British slave trade which in turn helped in "racial tolerance."
18th century = "before the 1960's."
Not all evangelicals were abolitionists.
No one said otherwise.
Your nematode example shows a lack of understanding about biology.
Actually, the biology is perfectly fine as far as it goes. But your failure to grasp that this was pegged on your own argument in order to answer you on your own grounds demonstrates a serious lack of intellectual aptitude on your part.
Many factors prevent overpopulation of a species including lack of resources, disease and adaptation to niche environments.
Many factors prevent Christians from effecting social change about racism including persecutions, lack of power or influence in a society, etc.
Jason is perfectly right in his latest comment that you haven't even begun to justify what you've said.
In any case, instead of continuing to comment and continuing to display your ignorance on so many fronts, I recommend you study this stuff in at least a bit of depth before coming back again. At this point, you're just making yourself look inept by publicly commenting.
I think I've made my points. You see religion as the only basis for 'objective' (whatever that means) morality. I feel that reason, learning and shared societal experience is a perfectly valid basis for morality. You're 'rape society' scenarios would be laughable if they weren't so childishly dismissable.
Lucky for us we live in a society that was largely, though not completely, rejected racism as a social or moral norm. Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard. Xianity only changed it's tune when it became socially untenable not to. Thanks for all the quotes from centuries past!
I'm still waiting for the morality question unanswerable by the atheist. Clearly it won't be found amongst those who believe in Noah's ark.
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense can read or re-read this thread and see how poor your "points" (such as they are) have been since, for one thing, they decidedly fail to interact with legitimate questions we've raised.
You see religion as the only basis for 'objective' (whatever that means) morality.
1. Actually we've never said anything one way or the other about what we think is the basis for objective morality. This isn't about us. It's about you. In other words, the focus has been on you to make good on your claim: "I ground my moral assumptions on the following facts...Humans are capable higher thinking. Humans are social animals. Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation...Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'."
We've followed up with several reasonable questions for you. But you never adequately address our questions.
2. And, yes, you'd need to establish an objective grounds for morality if you're going to say stuff like: "How nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!"
3. Of course, you've been pretty dismissive from the very start. I take it disdain without reasonable argumentation must be your default posture since you can't interact with our questions.
I feel that reason, learning and shared societal experience is a perfectly valid basis for morality.
1. You continue to say "reason" and "learning" form the basis for objective morality for humans. But human "reason" and "learning" are dependent on other things like intelligence, consciousness, social conditioning, etc. You don't establish any of these on atheism, evolution, and other beliefs you hold.
2. Also, we've already pointed out your failure to distinguish even on a basic level between moral epistemology and ontology.
3. What happens if two well educated and reasonable people with properly functioning cognitive faculties differ on a moral issue like abortion or euthanasia? Or what if a well educated, learned, intelligent, reasonable, sane, etc. Nazi thinks it perfectly fine to kill Jews? Or what about Brian Godawa's "Cruel Logic" scenario? What grounds the objective morality or immorality of killing if one person's "reason" which tells him killing is always wrong (e.g. an absolute pacifist) differs from another person's "reason" which tells him killing or at least killing in some instances is right (e.g. self-defense)? What if a society consisting only of the Amish or Mennonites or Quakers comes into contact with a society consisting only of warmongers like the ancient Huns or Mongols? Or the Moriori vs. the Maori?
4. Earlier you said: "Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable." If so, then it'd imply before we "learned that [something e.g. murdering Jews] is morally unacceptable," it could've been morally acceptable.
5. If Plantinga's EAAN is correct, then it means the probability your cognitive faculties are reliable is quite low. If that's the case, then it would undermine efforts towards "reason" and "learning."
6. As we've pointed out, "shared societal experience" is subject to "society." As we've pointed out, it's quite possible for different societies to differ on their moral or ethical beliefs and values.
7. Anyway, we could go on and on and on. But since it's obvious you're not even familiar let alone know how to begin to handle the aforementioned issues, it's all unnecessary for us to do so.
You're 'rape society' scenarios would be laughable if they weren't so childishly dismissable.
1. If this is "so childishly dismissable," then why can't you "dismiss" it? In fact, you don't even try to seriously interact with it. You just scoff.
2. If you weren't so ignorant, you would be familiar with the literature on this topic. For example, an atheist like Michael Ruse has actually taken this "childishly dismissable" scenario seriously in his paper "Is rape wrong on Andromeda? An introduction to extraterrestrial evolution, science, and morality."
Or see his interview with the literary magazine The Believer where Ruse says: "I would say that within the baseball system, it is objectively true that three strikes and you're out. It is true, but I would not say it's objectively true that George Steinbrenner should keep faith with Joe Torre. This latter is a Michael Ruse judgment call. There is no ultimate, God-given objective truth about baseball. It is an invention. There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention — an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape — in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level — love your neighbor as yourself, etc. — is justifiable."
4. But, nope, according to David, an atheist and philosopher like Ruse would be "childishly dismissable" since he likewise brings up the "rape" scenario.
Lucky for us we live in a society that was largely, though not completely, rejected racism as a social or moral norm.
Unlucky for David he can't ground objective morality.
Lucky for us we don't live in a society based on David's groundless morality. Otherwise who knows if murder or rape or stealing or lying or whatever else would be objectively morally lict or illicit, permissible or impermissible!
Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard.
Just another assertion without supporting argumentation from David.
Xianity only changed it's tune when it became socially untenable not to.
While David sounds like a broken record, interested readers can read Jason's previous comments as well as mine (e.g. Wilberforce).
Thanks for all the quotes from centuries past!
Thanks for all the tendentious argumentation, bald assertions, and lack of any sort of serious interaction, David!
On the plus side, among village atheists, David would have a pretty good shot at being the chief.
I'm still waiting for the morality question unanswerable by the atheist.
David is referring to his previous statement: "Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on."
1. As we've already pointed out to him, but David is sadly too daft to appreciate, this has to do with how we know whether an action is good or bad. It doesn't have to do with how we objectively ground the morality or immorality of an action. The two are quite different. And the fact that David fails to grasp the elementary distinction is a detriment to his "argument" here.
2. Or to put it more practically, no one has said an atheist can't know what's moral or immoral using "reason and history," while a Christian can't know what's moral or immoral without the Bible. For one thing, it's not as if Christians don't accept the existence of a conscience. As such, there's no reason we should accept the terms of David's request including his strict limitation to use only the Bible and not to also use say our conscience.
3. It's dumb for David to bother to include "history" as a means to access objective morality. He's shooting himself in the foot. History is hardly a reliable guide since it catalogues so many different and conflicting moralities. There needs to be a way for us to adjudicate the rightness or wrongness of what's found in history.
BTW, as an example of how dumb this is, since David includes "history" as a means to "assess" morality, we could simply include the Bible as a historical document. This fits David's criteria.
Of course, David could object that other historical documents would differ with the Bible. But this only goes to prove my point that there needs to be a way to adjudicate what's moral from what's immoral in history.
4. Furthermore, although David didn't bring it up, it should be noted: no one has said an atheist can't behave morally, while a Christian can't behave immorally.
5. In any case, this is a trivial request from David. But here are a couple of "situations" where the Christian using only the Bible can assess as good or bad whereas the atheist using reason and history could not. The Bible says it's good to worship the Lord alone as God and bad not to do so. The Bible says it's good to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" and bad not to do so. The Bible says it's good to praise the Lord as God and to love his name and bad to take the Lord's name in vain. The Bible says it's good to delight in God's law and bad to spurn it. The Bible says it's good to "teach them [the Scriptures] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." The Bible says it's good to remember the Sabbath. This satisfies David's request. But would David find these morally acceptable? No, since he's an atheist. Plus, the sheer fact that I mentioned all this will probably cause him to go off on another one of his ridiculous tangents or shift the goal post or add this or that proviso even though I've responded to him on his stated terms.
6. Anyway, none of this the real issue. It's all just David's way of throwing out a red herring to try and lead people off the scent and away from the real issue. The real issue is what grounds objective morality on David's beliefs.
toodles
In other words, since David can't provide a reasonable and logical argument for his position, then he retreats. This is by far the wisest decision he's made in this combox!
"I ground my moral assumptions on the following facts: I'm human."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
"Humans are capable higher thinking."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
Bundy was very clever. That's what made him a highly successful, highly elusive serial-killer.
"Humans are social animals."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
"Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation."
Are you referring to the survival of individuals or the survival of the human race?
"I can observe the consequences of my actions on others."
Ditto: Ted Bundy
"Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'."
Why should an individual atheist care about the health and well-being of anyone other than himself?
"These moral and legal precepts help our society grow, thrive and evolve."
Why should an individual atheist care about the future? Why should he care about what happens to society after he's dead?
Like the Biblical passages John Piper referred to, the passages you still haven't interacted with? Again, did you watch the video before posting here? If you did, do you know what Biblical passages he was citing? If so, what's your response?
I can cite a lot of other material, which Piper didn't mention, from the Bible and from later Christian sources. Providing "quotes from centuries past" is easy. But you ought to reply to what you've already been given rather than ignoring it and demanding that we jump through whatever hoops you set up. As I said earlier, you have a history of behaving that way. I'm not interested in accommodating your evasiveness.
Issues related to racism were prominent in the ancient world and in ancient Christianity, as they are today. If ancient Christianity was racist, evidence for that fact ought to be explicit and widespread. Does Christianity trace different races to separate sources? Or to one set of parents? Does Christianity believe that all races will be represented in Heaven? Or just some, on racist grounds? Did ancient Christians only want to evangelize some races? Or all of them? Are there any Biblical passages that refer to the unity of the races? Or are some races excluded from human and Christian unity? In the Piper video, there's discussion of separate churches, separate water fountains, and other such things in twentieth-century America. Do we find similar things in ancient Christianity? When the ancient Christians are discussing baptism, do they tell us that the races should be baptized separately? That races should be divided up during communion? That races should meet for church services in separate locations? How do Christians of different races interact with each other? Do they treat each other as brothers and sisters with a common Father? Or do they avoid one another and condemn each another on racial grounds? Etc. There are many such questions we could ask. Anybody who claims that the answers to those questions make ancient Christianity comparable to America's racist past is ignorant or dishonest. Or if you want to argue that Christianity was only racist to a lesser extent, then make your case. As I said above, issues related to race are prominent in the world. They were in ancient times, and they are today. Whatever view you hold of ancient Christianity and racism, you ought to be able to cite evidence in support of it. Those of us who think ancient Christianity rejected racism can cite a high quantity and quality of evidence in support of that conclusion, like what Piper discussed in the video and what I've alluded to above. You keep ignoring that evidence while failing to offer any to the contrary.
How much do you know about ancient Christianity? Have you read the Bible? Or even a majority of it? How much of the patristic literature have you read? Have you read even a single patristic document in its entirety? When you make comments like…
"If my characterization of xianity is wrong, then my apologies."
and
"Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard."
…you come across as somebody who doesn't know much about what he's discussing.
How nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteYou keep wasting everybody's time by making ridiculous claims that you don't even attempt to back up. If you want to keep posting on this blog, then improve the quality of your material.
You need to explain how you ground your moral assumptions within your worldview. You also need to demonstrate that Christianity "took around 19 and 1/2 centuries…to figure out that racism is wrong". Since the Bible, church fathers, and other Christian sources have referred to the equality of the races for many centuries, you'll have to explain why we're supposed to believe that your characterization of Christianity is accurate. As things stand at this point, you appear to be deeply ignorant of the Bible and church history, dishonest, or both.
David said:
ReplyDeleteHow nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!
1. I agree with what Jason wrote.
2. This video isn't about "19 and 1/2 centuries [of] xianity" trying "to figure out that racism is wrong." The immediate context is John Piper's personal experiences with racism and journey away from racism. There's more to it than that, but again the immediate context is why an individual Christian named John Piper wrote the book he wrote.
3. At the risk of stating the obvious, there are racists today in our society. Many of them could benefit from reading the book.
4. Likewise it's not as if non-racists couldn't likewise benefit from reading a book about racism.
5. It's foolish to think simply because "societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong" means racism has been wiped out (if that's what you're implying). In fact, each generation could benefit from learning or re-learning the moral and ethical issues associated with racism.
6. Many Christians have been on the forefront in stamping out racism, slavery, and the like.
Jason;
ReplyDeleteI ground my moral assumptions on the following facts:
I'm human. Humans are capable higher thinking. Humans are social animals. Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation. I can observe the consequences of my actions on others.
Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'.
Because we are social animals many of these actions have been codified in the legal codes of the society we live in as well as being taught to us as we grow up within the society at large. These moral and legal precepts help our society grow, thrive and evolve. They are not personal preferences, they are learned principles necessary for our society to function.
If my characterization of xianity is wrong, then my apologies. As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's. If the church has been 'referring to the equality of the races' for centuries - it srikes me as quite impotent as a means of social change. Perhaps you could provide me with some 8th, 10th, 12th or even 14th century xian writings that espouse racial equality.
David said:
ReplyDeleteBased upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'.
1. This doesn't ground your moral assumptions at all. It simply makes your moral assumptions subject to society.
For example, one problem is different societies can differ in what they deem as "promot[ing] the health and well being of all members" and therefore differ in what is "good" or "right." A modern Western society like the US might think it promotes the health and well being of all members of society to protect minorities like Jews in their society. But a society like Nazi Germany might think it harmful to the health and well being of all members of society to protect minorities like Jews in their society. So where does that leave you? Which society is "right"? How do we adjudicate between the two societies which apparently prioritize and/or allocate different "goods" in different ways?
Likewise, what happens if society accepts and legalizes rape in some cases since they agree these "promote the health and well being of all members of society"? Say they think raping some women and perhaps men some of the time is actually good for the fertility rates of the society overall so it's allowed and made legal. Would this then make rape morally licit in your view?
2. Also, what do you mean by "well being"? Is "well being" associated with happiness, joy, pleasure, etc.? What makes you prioritize "well being" in this way?
3. We could ask a lot more questions. This is just the tip of the iceberg.
As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's. If the church has been 'referring to the equality of the races' for centuries - it srikes me as quite impotent as a means of social change.
ReplyDelete1. Jason never claimed Christianity was "the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world." That's your claim. All he said was "Since the Bible, church fathers, and other Christian sources have referred to the equality of the races for many centuries..." You're trying to put words into his mouth.
2. Just because Christians have advocated racial equality in various places over the centuries doesn't imply they were in a position in all those places over all those centuries to effect change. For example, for the first few centuries Christians in the Roman Empire were largely persecuted.
3. At least as I understand it, racism tends to occur in places where there's more racial diversity than in places where there's more racial homogeneity. If this is true, if Christians lived in racially homogeneous places, then it'd seem to be less likely for them to have to deal with racism.
4. Anyway, rather than continuing with vague generalizations, let's provide a concrete example. Let's take the Atlantic slave trade, Africans, and racism among the English speaking peoples. Let's also consider evangelical Christians. If we consider all this, then Christianity so considered including Christians like William Wilberforce were instrumental in abolishing the slave trade. Although more would be done, this is an obvious victory against racism. It also meets your criteria of occuring before the 1960s.
5. By your logic, we could argue the following. Nematodes have been the most dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth if we define dominance in terms of numbers as well as ubiquity across the world's ecological habitats. As the dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth, it seems nematodes would have been able to abolish or at least substantially reduce earth's food supply before the 1960s. Yet the earth's food supply doesn't seem to be substantially reduced. If nematodes have been the most dominant organism of the past couple of millenia on earth, then nematodes strike me as quite impotent in reducing the earth's food supply.
Jason
ReplyDeleteThe Nazi Germany example is a poor one. Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable.
Your second example is a straw man as well. If you know of such a society I'd be interested to hear of it. It doesn't exist. We've learned (higher thinking again!) that sexual violence against members of a society creates distrust and inequality. These things don't promote the well being of society;.
How do YOU define well being? I mean really? Is that your question? Do you not know that being healthy and happy and loved is a good thing without being told by and invisible man in the sky? How sad for you.
My question to you is this. If xianity provides you with such a wonderful moral framework. Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on.
William Wilberforce = 18th century. Please reread the question and try again.
Patrick:
ReplyDeleteI never said Jason claimed xianity was the dominant religious movement of the past 2 millenia in the western world. I made that claim. Jason claimed that xianity had been preaching racial equality for centuries and I wondered aloud at it's impotence in affecting societal change. Not all evangelicals were abolitionists.
"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., a Baptist pastor from South Carolina.
Your nematode example shows a lack of understanding about biology. Many factors prevent overpopulation of a species including lack of resources, disease and adaptation to niche environments. I don't really see the parallel with regards to societal attitudes and their changes over the centuries and nematode population either.
David,
ReplyDeleteYou refer to "survival" and what's "necessary for our society to function", but in your last paragraph you refer to how societies have existed for centuries with racism. Generalities about "our society" don't get you to an objective moral standard for the individual. Since you refer to what happens "in most cases", should we conclude that it's usually wrong to be racist, but sometimes acceptable? If my actions would eventually produce an effect considered harmful to society if those actions were taken by the society as a whole, it doesn't follow that my actions as an individual will produce that effect. It also doesn't follow that I should put the society's interests ahead of my own. You repeatedly use terms like "well being" and "help our society grow", which can be defined in contradictory ways by people with contradictory interests. How do you know what constitutes a "functioning" society? A dictator who lives in wealth and pleasure while executing his political opponents, raping women he's attracted to, etc. could say that he's functioning well. Why should he change his behavior? He can make a calculation about the likelihood that he'll be able to stay in power or avoid punishment if he falls from power. If the odds seem to be in his favor, why should he change course? Likewise, how do all of your references to "higher thinking", "our society", "growth", etc. convince your eighty-year-old neighbor to stop holding a racist view of a particular group? Why should he agree with your definition of "well being", and why should he be concerned with what happens to "our society" as a result of his racism twenty or a thousand years after he dies?
As far as the history of Christianity is concerned, asking me to give you "some 8th, 10th, 12th or even 14th century xian writings that espouse racial equality" doesn't substantiate your initial comments. Neither does objecting that Christianity didn't abolish racism or make it socially unacceptable. Christianity has had different levels of influence in different contexts. It's not the only influencing factor in society. The prominence of lying and fornication in the modern Unites States doesn't prove that Christianity is neutral about or supportive of those activities. And modern societies aren't the only ones influenced by Christianity. You need to start with the Bible and move on to the patristic era and other earlier contexts before you even get to a context like the United States. You could start by addressing Biblical passages like the ones discussed in the video Patrick posted. Did you even watch the video before you commented here?
You still haven't demonstrated that racism is objectively wrong within your worldview. You still haven't shown that Christianity took more than nineteen centuries to realize that racism is wrong. You've now put up a few posts in this thread, and you still haven't justified your initial comments.
David said:
ReplyDeleteThe Nazi Germany example is a poor one. Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable.
"Higher thinking" helps us know what's right from wrong (epistemology). But it doesn't objectively ground morality for us (ontology). So what you've said doesn't even begin to respond to the problem posed. Try again.
Your second example is a straw man as well. If you know of such a society I'd be interested to hear of it. It doesn't exist. We've learned (higher thinking again!) that sexual violence against members of a society creates distrust and inequality. These things don't promote the well being of society;.
Again, this isn't responsive to the dilemma. But there's nothing illicit about posing a hypothetical like this. Philosophers and ethicists of all stripes (e.g. atheist) do it all the time. Just because you can't interact with the problem let alone answer it according to your beliefs doesn't mean it's a straw man.
How do YOU define well being? I mean really? Is that your question? Do you not know that being healthy and happy and loved is a good thing without being told by and invisible man in the sky? How sad for you.
Remember, this is your argument. Not ours. It'd behoove you to keep track of your own argument if you expect to have any sort of an intelligent dialogue. Of course, if you don't, then Jason was perfectly right about you from his very first comment here. You're just wasting our time.
If you define well being by feelings of happiness and love and the like, then someone like Jeffrey Dahmer felt perfectly happy murdering, sodomizing, and cannibalizing other human beings. Feelings of well being don't objectively ground morality.
My question to you is this. If xianity provides you with such a wonderful moral framework. Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on.
We've been over this ground so many times. Search the archives.
Your basic problem is you're desperately confused about epistemology and ontology with regard to morality and ethics.
More to the point, you're getting way off the subject of this post. We've entertained you for a little while. But you obviously can't even interact with our arguments. So why should we try and answer new questions when you can't even address old ones which were raised by your original comments? (BTW, this is a rhetorical question in case you didn't get it.)
William Wilberforce = 18th century. Please reread the question and try again.
ReplyDeleteHere's what you claimed: "As the dominant religious movement of the past couple of millenia in the western world, it seems it would have been able to abolish, or at least make socially unacceptable, racial intolerance before the 1960's."
Wilberforce = "religious" Christian who helped "abolish" British slave trade which in turn helped in "racial tolerance."
18th century = "before the 1960's."
Not all evangelicals were abolitionists.
No one said otherwise.
Your nematode example shows a lack of understanding about biology.
Actually, the biology is perfectly fine as far as it goes. But your failure to grasp that this was pegged on your own argument in order to answer you on your own grounds demonstrates a serious lack of intellectual aptitude on your part.
Many factors prevent overpopulation of a species including lack of resources, disease and adaptation to niche environments.
Many factors prevent Christians from effecting social change about racism including persecutions, lack of power or influence in a society, etc.
Jason is perfectly right in his latest comment that you haven't even begun to justify what you've said.
In any case, instead of continuing to comment and continuing to display your ignorance on so many fronts, I recommend you study this stuff in at least a bit of depth before coming back again. At this point, you're just making yourself look inept by publicly commenting.
I think I've made my points. You see religion as the only basis for 'objective' (whatever that means) morality. I feel that reason, learning and shared societal experience is a perfectly valid basis for morality. You're 'rape society' scenarios would be laughable if they weren't so childishly dismissable.
ReplyDeleteLucky for us we live in a society that was largely, though not completely, rejected racism as a social or moral norm. Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard. Xianity only changed it's tune when it became socially untenable not to. Thanks for all the quotes from centuries past!
I'm still waiting for the morality question unanswerable by the atheist. Clearly it won't be found amongst those who believe in Noah's ark.
toodles
David said:
ReplyDeleteI think I've made my points.
I think anyone with an ounce of common sense can read or re-read this thread and see how poor your "points" (such as they are) have been since, for one thing, they decidedly fail to interact with legitimate questions we've raised.
You see religion as the only basis for 'objective' (whatever that means) morality.
1. Actually we've never said anything one way or the other about what we think is the basis for objective morality. This isn't about us. It's about you. In other words, the focus has been on you to make good on your claim: "I ground my moral assumptions on the following facts...Humans are capable higher thinking. Humans are social animals. Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation...Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'. Actions which are harmful to the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'bad' or 'wrong'."
We've followed up with several reasonable questions for you. But you never adequately address our questions.
2. And, yes, you'd need to establish an objective grounds for morality if you're going to say stuff like: "How nice! It only took around 19 and 1/2 centuries for xianity to figure out that racism is wrong. And what a coincidence! - it happened at the same time that societal and cultural changes deemed racism was wrong. Funny that!"
3. Of course, you've been pretty dismissive from the very start. I take it disdain without reasonable argumentation must be your default posture since you can't interact with our questions.
I feel that reason, learning and shared societal experience is a perfectly valid basis for morality.
ReplyDelete1. You continue to say "reason" and "learning" form the basis for objective morality for humans. But human "reason" and "learning" are dependent on other things like intelligence, consciousness, social conditioning, etc. You don't establish any of these on atheism, evolution, and other beliefs you hold.
2. Also, we've already pointed out your failure to distinguish even on a basic level between moral epistemology and ontology.
3. What happens if two well educated and reasonable people with properly functioning cognitive faculties differ on a moral issue like abortion or euthanasia? Or what if a well educated, learned, intelligent, reasonable, sane, etc. Nazi thinks it perfectly fine to kill Jews? Or what about Brian Godawa's "Cruel Logic" scenario? What grounds the objective morality or immorality of killing if one person's "reason" which tells him killing is always wrong (e.g. an absolute pacifist) differs from another person's "reason" which tells him killing or at least killing in some instances is right (e.g. self-defense)? What if a society consisting only of the Amish or Mennonites or Quakers comes into contact with a society consisting only of warmongers like the ancient Huns or Mongols? Or the Moriori vs. the Maori?
4. Earlier you said: "Again - we are capable of higher reasoning and learning. We have seen the effects of societies - such as the one in Nazi Germany and the negative effects that occurred as a result. We have learned that this is morally unacceptable." If so, then it'd imply before we "learned that [something e.g. murdering Jews] is morally unacceptable," it could've been morally acceptable.
5. If Plantinga's EAAN is correct, then it means the probability your cognitive faculties are reliable is quite low. If that's the case, then it would undermine efforts towards "reason" and "learning."
6. As we've pointed out, "shared societal experience" is subject to "society." As we've pointed out, it's quite possible for different societies to differ on their moral or ethical beliefs and values.
7. Anyway, we could go on and on and on. But since it's obvious you're not even familiar let alone know how to begin to handle the aforementioned issues, it's all unnecessary for us to do so.
You're 'rape society' scenarios would be laughable if they weren't so childishly dismissable.
ReplyDelete1. If this is "so childishly dismissable," then why can't you "dismiss" it? In fact, you don't even try to seriously interact with it. You just scoff.
2. If you weren't so ignorant, you would be familiar with the literature on this topic. For example, an atheist like Michael Ruse has actually taken this "childishly dismissable" scenario seriously in his paper "Is rape wrong on Andromeda? An introduction to extraterrestrial evolution, science, and morality."
Or see his interview with the literary magazine The Believer where Ruse says: "I would say that within the baseball system, it is objectively true that three strikes and you're out. It is true, but I would not say it's objectively true that George Steinbrenner should keep faith with Joe Torre. This latter is a Michael Ruse judgment call. There is no ultimate, God-given objective truth about baseball. It is an invention. There is no ultimate truth about morality. It is an invention — an invention of the genes rather than of humans, and we cannot change games at will, as one might baseball if one went to England and played cricket. Within the system, the human moral system, it is objectively true that rape is wrong. That follows from the principles of morality and from human nature. If our females came into heat, it would not necessarily be objectively wrong to rape — in fact, I doubt we would have the concept of rape at all. So, within the system, I can justify. But I deny that human morality at the highest level — love your neighbor as yourself, etc. — is justifiable."
4. But, nope, according to David, an atheist and philosopher like Ruse would be "childishly dismissable" since he likewise brings up the "rape" scenario.
Lucky for us we live in a society that was largely, though not completely, rejected racism as a social or moral norm.
Unlucky for David he can't ground objective morality.
Lucky for us we don't live in a society based on David's groundless morality. Otherwise who knows if murder or rape or stealing or lying or whatever else would be objectively morally lict or illicit, permissible or impermissible!
Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard.
Just another assertion without supporting argumentation from David.
Xianity only changed it's tune when it became socially untenable not to.
While David sounds like a broken record, interested readers can read Jason's previous comments as well as mine (e.g. Wilberforce).
Thanks for all the quotes from centuries past!
Thanks for all the tendentious argumentation, bald assertions, and lack of any sort of serious interaction, David!
On the plus side, among village atheists, David would have a pretty good shot at being the chief.
I'm still waiting for the morality question unanswerable by the atheist.
ReplyDeleteDavid is referring to his previous statement: "Please give an example of a situation that a xian, with only the bible as a guide, could assess as 'good' or 'bad' and an atheist, such as myself using reason and history as a guide, could not come to the same conclusion on."
1. As we've already pointed out to him, but David is sadly too daft to appreciate, this has to do with how we know whether an action is good or bad. It doesn't have to do with how we objectively ground the morality or immorality of an action. The two are quite different. And the fact that David fails to grasp the elementary distinction is a detriment to his "argument" here.
2. Or to put it more practically, no one has said an atheist can't know what's moral or immoral using "reason and history," while a Christian can't know what's moral or immoral without the Bible. For one thing, it's not as if Christians don't accept the existence of a conscience. As such, there's no reason we should accept the terms of David's request including his strict limitation to use only the Bible and not to also use say our conscience.
3. It's dumb for David to bother to include "history" as a means to access objective morality. He's shooting himself in the foot. History is hardly a reliable guide since it catalogues so many different and conflicting moralities. There needs to be a way for us to adjudicate the rightness or wrongness of what's found in history.
BTW, as an example of how dumb this is, since David includes "history" as a means to "assess" morality, we could simply include the Bible as a historical document. This fits David's criteria.
Of course, David could object that other historical documents would differ with the Bible. But this only goes to prove my point that there needs to be a way to adjudicate what's moral from what's immoral in history.
4. Furthermore, although David didn't bring it up, it should be noted: no one has said an atheist can't behave morally, while a Christian can't behave immorally.
5. In any case, this is a trivial request from David. But here are a couple of "situations" where the Christian using only the Bible can assess as good or bad whereas the atheist using reason and history could not. The Bible says it's good to worship the Lord alone as God and bad not to do so. The Bible says it's good to "love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind" and bad not to do so. The Bible says it's good to praise the Lord as God and to love his name and bad to take the Lord's name in vain. The Bible says it's good to delight in God's law and bad to spurn it. The Bible says it's good to "teach them [the Scriptures] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise." The Bible says it's good to remember the Sabbath. This satisfies David's request. But would David find these morally acceptable? No, since he's an atheist. Plus, the sheer fact that I mentioned all this will probably cause him to go off on another one of his ridiculous tangents or shift the goal post or add this or that proviso even though I've responded to him on his stated terms.
6. Anyway, none of this the real issue. It's all just David's way of throwing out a red herring to try and lead people off the scent and away from the real issue. The real issue is what grounds objective morality on David's beliefs.
toodles
In other words, since David can't provide a reasonable and logical argument for his position, then he retreats. This is by far the wisest decision he's made in this combox!
DAVID SAID:
ReplyDelete"I ground my moral assumptions on the following facts: I'm human."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
"Humans are capable higher thinking."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
Bundy was very clever. That's what made him a highly successful, highly elusive serial-killer.
"Humans are social animals."
Ditto: Ted Bundy.
"Our survival has and does depend upon social cooperation."
Are you referring to the survival of individuals or the survival of the human race?
"I can observe the consequences of my actions on others."
Ditto: Ted Bundy
"Based upon these facts one can conclude that (in most cases) actions that promote the health and well being of all members of society are deemed 'good' or 'right'."
Why should an individual atheist care about the health and well-being of anyone other than himself?
"These moral and legal precepts help our society grow, thrive and evolve."
Why should an individual atheist care about the future? Why should he care about what happens to society after he's dead?
David wrote:
ReplyDelete"Thanks for all the quotes from centuries past!"
Like the Biblical passages John Piper referred to, the passages you still haven't interacted with? Again, did you watch the video before posting here? If you did, do you know what Biblical passages he was citing? If so, what's your response?
I can cite a lot of other material, which Piper didn't mention, from the Bible and from later Christian sources. Providing "quotes from centuries past" is easy. But you ought to reply to what you've already been given rather than ignoring it and demanding that we jump through whatever hoops you set up. As I said earlier, you have a history of behaving that way. I'm not interested in accommodating your evasiveness.
Issues related to racism were prominent in the ancient world and in ancient Christianity, as they are today. If ancient Christianity was racist, evidence for that fact ought to be explicit and widespread. Does Christianity trace different races to separate sources? Or to one set of parents? Does Christianity believe that all races will be represented in Heaven? Or just some, on racist grounds? Did ancient Christians only want to evangelize some races? Or all of them? Are there any Biblical passages that refer to the unity of the races? Or are some races excluded from human and Christian unity? In the Piper video, there's discussion of separate churches, separate water fountains, and other such things in twentieth-century America. Do we find similar things in ancient Christianity? When the ancient Christians are discussing baptism, do they tell us that the races should be baptized separately? That races should be divided up during communion? That races should meet for church services in separate locations? How do Christians of different races interact with each other? Do they treat each other as brothers and sisters with a common Father? Or do they avoid one another and condemn each another on racial grounds? Etc. There are many such questions we could ask. Anybody who claims that the answers to those questions make ancient Christianity comparable to America's racist past is ignorant or dishonest. Or if you want to argue that Christianity was only racist to a lesser extent, then make your case. As I said above, issues related to race are prominent in the world. They were in ancient times, and they are today. Whatever view you hold of ancient Christianity and racism, you ought to be able to cite evidence in support of it. Those of us who think ancient Christianity rejected racism can cite a high quantity and quality of evidence in support of that conclusion, like what Piper discussed in the video and what I've alluded to above. You keep ignoring that evidence while failing to offer any to the contrary.
How much do you know about ancient Christianity? Have you read the Bible? Or even a majority of it? How much of the patristic literature have you read? Have you read even a single patristic document in its entirety? When you make comments like…
"If my characterization of xianity is wrong, then my apologies."
and
"Religion through the centuries was probably much more of a hindrance that help in that regard."
…you come across as somebody who doesn't know much about what he's discussing.
Much of what Michael Ruse says in his book review of Sam Harris' The Moral Landscape is relevant to David's comments.
ReplyDelete