Thursday, March 22, 2012

Secular sentimentality

I’m going to comment on this article:


We “moralistic atheists” do not see right and wrong as artifacts of a divine protection racket.  Rather, we find moral value to be immanent in the natural world, arising from the vulnerabilities of sentient beings and from the capacities of rational beings to recognize and to respond to those vulnerabilities and capacities in others.

She fails to explain how moral obligations are generated by the vulnerabilities of sentient beings.

For instance, both the serial killer and his victim are vulnerable sentient beings. Do both have equal value? Are both entitled to equal treatment?

This view of the basis of morality is hardly incompatible with religious belief.  Indeed, anyone who believes that God made human beings in His image believes something like this — that there is a moral dimension of things, and that it is in our ability to apprehend it that we resemble the divine.  Accordingly, many theists, like many atheists, believe that moral value is inherent in morally valuable things.  Things don’t become morally valuable because God prefers them; God prefers them because they are morally valuable. At least this is what I was taught as a girl, growing up Catholic.

i) That’s a false dichotomy. Take a da Vinci painting. Because da Vinci was an artistic and scientific genius, his painting is a concrete expression of his genius. The painting has inherent value, but that’s because da Vinci transmitted some of his genius to the painting. The value of the painting is still derivative.

ii) Creatures aren’t valuable merely because God prefers them, but because God made them. God made morally valuable creatures. That’s a design feature of certain creatures.

It is only if morality is independent of God that we can make moral sense out of religious worship.  It is only if morality is independent of God that any person can have a moral basis for adhering to God’s commands.
Let me explain why.  First let’s take a cold hard look at the consequences of pinning morality to the existence of God.  Consider the following moral judgments — judgments that seem to me to be obviously true:
•            It is wrong to drive people from their homes or to kill them because you want their land.
•            It is wrong to enslave people.
•            It is wrong to torture prisoners of war.
•            Anyone who witnesses genocide, or enslavement, or torture, is morally required to try to stop it.
To say that morality depends on the existence of God is to say that none of these specific moral judgments is true unless God exists.  That seems to me to be a remarkable claim.  If God turned out not to exist — then slavery would be O.K.?  There’d be nothing wrong with torture?  The pain of another human being would mean nothing?


Notice that she’s assuming what she needs to prove. She’s hardly entitled to take that as a given, then premise her argument on that gratuitous assumption. 

Think now about our personal relations — how we love our parents, our children, our life partners, our friends.  To say that the moral worth of these individuals depends on the existence of God is to say that these people are, in themselves, worth nothing — that the concern we feel for their well being has no more ethical significance than the concern some people feel for their boats or their cars.  It is to say that the historical connections we value, the traits of character and personality that we love — all count for nothing in themselves.  Other people warrant our concern only because they are valued by someone else — in this case, God.  (Imagine telling a child: “You are not inherently lovable.  I love you only because I love your father, and it is my duty to love anything he loves.”)

i) But we don’t have equal concern for everyone. We don’t value everyone equally. Louise Antony surely values her own kids more highly than someone else’s kids. She surely has more concern for the wellbeing of her own friends than she has for perfect strangers.

Or, to put it crassly, a mother and a serial killer don’t place the same value on the mother’s daughter.

ii) Abortion proponents don’t ascribe inherent worth to their babies.

iii) Actually, there is something to be said for valuing someone because they are valued by someone else. Take a son who introduces his friends to his father. Because of what the son means to his father, the father befriends the friends of his sons. He values them because he values his son, and they are valued by his son.

What could make anyone think such things?  Ironically, I think the answer is: the same picture of morality that lies behind atheistic nihilism.  It’s the view that the only kind of “obligation” there could possibly be is the kind that is disciplined by promise of reward or threat of punishment. 

But that’s a typical atheistic caricature of Christian morality. Threats and rewards function as incentives or disincentives. They’re not the basis of morality.

Such a view cannot find or comprehend any value inherent in the nature of things, value that could warrant particular attitudes and behavior on the part of anyone who can apprehend it. 

Notice how she keeps begging the question. Yet that’s the very issue in dispute.

For someone who thinks that another being’s pain is not in itself a reason to give aid, or that the welfare of a loved one is not on its own enough to justify sacrifice, it is only the Divine Sovereign that stands between us and — as Hobbes put it — the war of “all against all.”

i) She has yet to establish how that in itself is a reason to give aid. Suppose a suicide bomber is hurting. Is that a compelling reason for me to come to his aid?

ii) On a secular basis, why is the welfare of a loved one enough to justify sacrifice? That has emotional appeal, but how is that objectively obligatory? For one thing, your loved ones aren’t my loved ones. Why should I sacrifice for your loved ones? Or is she admitting that it’s relative after all?

D.C.T. says that it is God’s command that explains why the good acts are “good” — it becomes true merely by definition that God commands “good” actions...This makes for really appalling consequences, from an intuitive, moral point of view.  D.C.T. entails that anything at all could be “good” or “right” or “wrong.”  If God were to command you to eat your children, then it would be “right” to eat your children.  The consequences are also appalling from a religious point of view.

i) That’s a straw man. There’s no reason to reduce Christian ethics to voluntarism. To some extent, moral obligations correspond to the nature God gave us. For instance, lions will kill the cubs of a rival lion. That doesn’t give me the right to kill the offspring of another man. For I’m not a lion. What’s permissible for lions isn’t ipso facto permissible for humans, given natural differences. And that, in turn, is grounded in how God designed different creatures.

ii) There is also the fact that, in varying degrees, creatures exemplify the goodness of their Creator. Like the relation of a painting to a painter. They reflect the wisdom of their designer.

If “good” is to have normative force, it must be something that we can understand independently of what is commanded by a powerful omnipresent being.

That confuses the ontology of ethics with the epistemology of ethics.

So what about atheism?  What I think all this means is that the capacity to be moved by the moral dimension of things has nothing to do with one’s theological beliefs.  The most reliable allies in any moral struggle will be those who respond to the ethically significant aspects of life, whether or not they conceive these things in religious terms.  You do not lose morality by giving up God; neither do you necessarily find it by finding Him.

She hasn’t shown that there are any ethically significant aspects of life to respond to. You’d expect a secular ethicist to begin her article by making a case for secular ethics, then compare and contrast that to Christian ethics (or Jewish ethics, or what have you). But she never does. Instead, she cites some emotionally appealing examples of what she takes to be paradigm-cases of morality or immorality. But that’s just sentimental. 

38 comments:

  1. She writes in the same way that Frans de Waal talks.

    He delivered a lecture on "Morality Before Religion" last year at USC, Columbia, SC.

    At no time in the talk did he define "religion" though he often used the term and asserted several times that morality, as we think of it it, is an outgrowth of religion but that "real" morality is actually biologically-based.

    During Q&A, when I pointed out that he had effectively done away with moral obligations, he asserted that moral obligation must exist and are generated by community relationships because chimpanzees exhibit reciprocity. That seemed to me a non sequitur .

    At least one other biologist in the audience thought so as well as evidenced by the Q&A summary I have in my notes (Q from audience member and A from de Waal):

    Q7: Aristotle and Plato defined morality in terms of universal and unchanging "ideal" properties rather than the sort of thing you presented [evolutionary quid pro-quo]. How does their definition connect with this presentation?

    A7: I don't believe that morality exists in an ideal sense. Principles like the golden rule do not apply to a lot of situations. I do not think that there is truth to be discovered. Morality happens primarily in community relationships. Things like the golden rule are an out-growth of evolved morality and are an imperfect summary of this "real" morality.

    If I hadn't been so busy typing, I would have laughed out loud in a most undignified manner.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Of course chimpanzees reciprocity applies only within thier group. They will happily kill outsiders. Burke had it right, nature is a patriot.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well who could blame her for not giving a "secular" ethical system first? Its not like her choices offer much help. Lets see - we should apply say egoism, ethical egoism, cultural relativism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, or we can go with historic atheism on this one and run with Hume and Hobbes's emotivism.
    I am trying real hard now to find any one of these that offers a concrete foundation for the notion that slavery is wrong. You could easily argue from all of them that slavery is not only allowable - but since it is so popular in world history even up to this day, then it must have evolutionary survival cash value and therefore be an aid to the species and therefore THE moral position. Now there is some human sentiment for you.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for this, Steve. Here are some comments of my own on this piece:

    http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2012/02/moral-significance-of-suffering.html

    ReplyDelete
  5. "he asserted that moral obligation must exist and are generated by community relationships because chimpanzees exhibit reciprocity"

    Well, some crustaceans are cannibals. I wonder if that means I should be wary of getting to close to Frans if he's feeling peckish.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well who could blame her for not giving a "secular" ethical system first? Its not like her choices offer much help. Lets see - we should apply say egoism, ethical egoism, cultural relativism, utilitarianism, pragmatism, or we can go with historic atheism on this one and run with Hume and Hobbes's emotivism.
    I am trying real hard now to find any one of these that offers a concrete foundation for the notion that slavery is wrong.


    And yet most secularists do not support slavery. Strange, isn't it? Conversely, I find it "real hard" to find any concrete foundation for the notion that slavery is wrong in the Bible. Can you point me to where slavery is denounced in Scripture?

    ReplyDelete
  7. To be fair, de Wall would not equate crabs and chimps. In fact, he has a continuum of "morality" that he has found in animals.

    He would say it is more rudimentary or absent in "lower" animals and more common in animals like mammals.

    He still doesn't have a way to generate moral obligation, however.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ZILCH SAID:

    "Conversely, I find it 'real hard' to find any concrete foundation for the notion that slavery is wrong in the Bible. Can you point me to where slavery is denounced in Scripture?"

    Rev 18:13.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thought I'd share this exchange here:

    Randal Rauser: (Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 10:33pm) "I think beliefs like “Being a serial killer is not a life well spent” are properly basic, and they set us off on a quest to identify what must be the case for that kind of belief to be objectively true."

    My response: Sure, they’re properly basic for you and I but they weren’t for Ted Bundy. On a subjective basis (in which the subject is human flourishing), I’m a Rauserian instead of a Bundyan when it comes to serial killing. However, what do you rely on to say that the Rauserian prohibition of serial killing is “objectively right” and the Bundyan proclivity to slaughter co-eds is “objectively wrong”?

    Rauser hasn't yet seen fit to reply to this question. I'm just wondering if you folks can help me out with something more than the Bible tells me so. Thanks. TAM.

    ReplyDelete
  10. From an evolutionary standpoint, serial killing might be properly basic. Man as killer ape.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Steve- I'll be the first to admit that I'm no Bible scholar, but how do you get from a list of things that merchants won't buy from Babylon any more, including bronze, wheat, and cinnamon, as well as slaves, to a denunciation of the practice of slavery? Must we consider the use of bronze, wheat, and cinnamon also denounced? Can you explicate a bit here?

    Rho- at your link, you say: A thing that is not good, in and of itself, may be morally permitted. Moral permission does not entail goodness in the thing permitted. So it is with slavery. Even though slavery, as a societal institution, is a bad thing in and of itself, it is not morally prohibited.

    So if slavery is not "morally prohibited" in the Bible, where's the denunciation? And where in the Bible does it say that slavery is even "bad", if not "morally prohibited"? This is simply dissembling- it's obvious on a plain reading that the Bible condones slavery, because it lays down rules on how it is to be done.

    Don't get me wrong- I'm sure that the Biblical passages that urge treating your slaves well were very humane for the time and place. But they are no longer considered enough by civilized people, Christian or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh, and Steve- you say:

    From an evolutionary standpoint, serial killing might be properly basic. Man as killer ape.

    Luckily for you and me, there's no reason for us to worship or live by the ways of life of our ancestors.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ZILCH SAID:

    "Steve- I'll be the first to admit that I'm no Bible scholar, but how do you get from a list of things that merchants won't buy from Babylon any more, including bronze, wheat, and cinnamon, as well as slaves, to a denunciation of the practice of slavery? Must we consider the use of bronze, wheat, and cinnamon also denounced? Can you explicate a bit here?"

    Because it's in judgmental context. Babylon is condemned for her lifestyle, including the slave trade.

    ReplyDelete
  14. zilch said...

    "Don't get me wrong- I'm sure that the Biblical passages that urge treating your slaves well were very humane for the time and place."

    You're using "slavery" indiscriminately to cover a range of very different situations, such as indentured servants or war captives.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Steve, you say:

    Babylon is condemned for her lifestyle, including the slave trade.

    So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it.

    You're using "slavery" indiscriminately to cover a range of very different situations, such as indentured servants or war captives.

    Sure, there are degrees from indentured servitude to slavery condoned for different groups of people in the Bible, just as there were in colonial America: while there were white indentured servants, there weren't any white slaves, as far as I know. Does this make anything any nicer?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Niceness and morality are two different things.

    ReplyDelete
  17. zilch said:

    "So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it."

    1. One of the things that's condemned is the city's greed.

    Related, merchants aren't so upset by the overtuning of the city as they are with their loss of trade and revenue.

    2. I read "slaves" here as suggesting that the merchants would even go so far as to sell humans for profit in their greed. Henry Barclay Swete comments in his The Apocalypse of St. John: "The world of St. John’s day ministered in a thousand ways to the follies and vices of Babylon, but the climax was reached in the sacrifice of human life which recruited the huge familiae of the rich, filled the brothels, and ministered to the brutal pleasures of the amphi-theatre."

    3. Compare this to Ezek 27:13 as well. See what was condemned in this passage too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Niceness and morality are two different things.

    Okay, Steve, so slavery is not "nice", but it's "moral". That's pretty much what Rho said.

    1. One of the things that's condemned is the city's greed.

    Related, merchants aren't so upset by the overtuning of the city as they are with their loss of trade and revenue.


    Okay, greed is condemned. That's pretty much how I read the passage too. Doesn't say anything about slavery being immoral.

    2. I read "slaves" here as suggesting that the merchants would even go so far as to sell humans for profit in their greed.

    And cinnamon. Where's the condemnation of slavery here?

    3. Compare this to Ezek 27:13 as well. See what was condemned in this passage too.

    Okay. Vessels of brass were also condemned, by your reading. How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ZILCH SAID:

    "So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it."

    You need to acquire a modicum of background knowledge about the ancient world, and what these items signified back then. 18:11-13 condemns the conspicuous consumption of Rome (under the guise of "Babylon"), and the means by which these luxury items were acquired.

    "Okay, Steve, so slavery is not 'nice', but it's 'moral'. That's pretty much what Rho said."

    That's an unintelligent reply inasmuch as you bundle a variety of different things under the same word: "slavery." You've already been corrected on that score. Try to learn from experience.

    "How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses."

    The entire chapter is a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. Slavery is one of the named items in the indictment. Why is elementary reading comprehension such a challenge for you?

    ReplyDelete
  20. I said:

    So wheat, cinnamon, and bronze are condemned too? I don't get it.

    Steve said:

    You need to acquire a modicum of background knowledge about the ancient world, and what these items signified back then. 18:11-13 condemns the conspicuous consumption of Rome (under the guise of "Babylon"), and the means by which these luxury items were acquired.

    So this is a condemnation of luxury. Still no condemnation of slavery here.

    Okay, Steve, so slavery is not 'nice', but it's 'moral'. That's pretty much what Rho said.

    That's an unintelligent reply inasmuch as you bundle a variety of different things under the same word: "slavery." You've already been corrected on that score. Try to learn from experience.

    I'm just following Rho, who said, in the link above:

    (Note: In the following, I define "slavery" to refer to so-called "chattel slavery," as formerly practiced in Rome and the United States, which as an institution consists of the following components, in whole, or in part: 1) The master-slave relationship entails ownership of the slave, 2) the period of slavery is indefinite, 3) slavery is generational, such that one can be born into slavery, and 4) the slave is not considered to be fully-human or have the basic human rights accorded to free men in society. )

    ... and went on to say:

    1. Slavery, as a societal institution, is not morally prohibited in Scripture.

    As I pointed out, with no rebuttal so far, there are no injunctions in the Bible against slavery in Rho's sense, if the slaves consist of the "right" people.

    How in the name of Darwin do you get a condemnation of slavery out of this? I guess you have to have the right kind of glasses.

    The entire chapter is a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. Slavery is one of the named items in the indictment. Why is elementary reading comprehension such a challenge for you?

    I guess elementary reading comprehension is a problem for me because I'm an atheist- what other answer could there be? And you're right- the entire chapter reads as a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. But the practice of slavery is not indicted; it only says that no one will buy Babylon's slaves, or her cinnamon or iron or wheat, etc, any more.

    Babylon is indicted for luxury and greed, yes; but the practice of slavery is not condemned, any more than the practice of eating wheat or working iron is condemned. I honestly don't see how you can squeeze that meaning out of the passages in question, except by very powerful wishful thinking.

    And it's a good thing that bronze and iron and vessels of brass are not indicted, because if they were, I'd be in big trouble, having plenty of all of these in my workshop. No slaves, though. But not because of the Bible. If God didn't look upon slavery with favor, why didn't He simply say "thou shalt not hold slaves", just as He said "thou shalt have no graven images" or "thou shalt not work on the Sabbath day"? I guess He works in mysterious ways.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Most secularists condemn slavery? Maybe I am misreading the statistics, but isn't the rise of the sex slavery network in the formerly Christian Europe (whatever that meant) now estimated to be higher than at any time in human history? I am just wondering how secularism gives a foundation to say that it is wrong - you are quibbling over what the Bible says with others here and thats fine - Just tell me which ethical foundation you want to land on which can do the job you insist on?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Bill- you ask:

    Most secularists condemn slavery? Maybe I am misreading the statistics, but isn't the rise of the sex slavery network in the formerly Christian Europe (whatever that meant) now estimated to be higher than at any time in human history?

    Okay, I'll admit that I don't know of any recent poll asking secularists (or anyone else) about their views on slavery. I'm just going by the fact that slavery is now illegal in every country in the world, and that I don't know anyone personally, secular or not, who is for slavery. The fact that slavery still exists or has sprung up again, in Europe, the USA (see here) and elsewhere, is a tragic reality; but I doubt that it is supported by most modern civilized people.

    I am just wondering how secularism gives a foundation to say that it is wrong - you are quibbling over what the Bible says with others here and thats fine - Just tell me which ethical foundation you want to land on which can do the job you insist on?

    Bill, you're right to characterize my interpretation of Scripture here as "quibbling". While I still think the Bible pretty obviously condoned slavery, it's far more important to me that slavery today be fought, and if Christians interpret the Bible in such a way that motivates them to fight slavery, more power to them. As far as what I consider to be my ethical foundation for fighting slavery goes, it's nothing new: I don't want people to suffer needlessly or unfairly, and slavery is needless and unfair.

    Why I want that is the result of many factors: my genetic heritage as a social animal, my cultural heritage reflecting democratic and religious values placed on human lives and happiness, and my rational mind and love for life. These are enough for me, and for many others, to reject slavery, without recourse to any "absolute" decrees, which may or may not exist.

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  23. zilch said:

    "Why I want that is the result of many factors: my genetic heritage as a social animal, my cultural heritage reflecting democratic and religious values placed on human lives and happiness, and my rational mind and love for life. These are enough for me, and for many others, to reject slavery, without recourse to any 'absolute' decrees, which may or may not exist."

    Hm, but those who enslave others could just as well say that they want to enslave people because of their genetic heritage as social animals, their cultural heritage reflecting tribal and pagan values placed on human lives, and their rational mind and love for money. Or something along those lines.

    So maybe what you happen to believe simply reflects a man of your time and place and culture. And maybe what they happen to believe simply reflects a man of their time and place and culture.

    If there are no "absolute" moral truths or values, then there's nothing right or wrong with slavery. You may not like it as a 21st century Westerner. But I'm afraid I can't see how you can say it's objectively morally or ethically wrong when a 21st century Somali pirate or a 10th century Muslim slave trader engages in slavery.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rocking, you say:

    Hm, but those who enslave others could just as well say that they want to enslave people because of their genetic heritage as social animals, their cultural heritage reflecting tribal and pagan values placed on human lives, and their rational mind and love for money. Or something along those lines.

    Sure, maybe some would reason along those lines. I would still fight them, wouldn't you?

    So maybe what you happen to believe simply reflects a man of your time and place and culture. And maybe what they happen to believe simply reflects a man of their time and place and culture.

    That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude.

    If there are no "absolute" moral truths or values, then there's nothing right or wrong with slavery. You may not like it as a 21st century Westerner. But I'm afraid I can't see how you can say it's objectively morally or ethically wrong when a 21st century Somali pirate or a 10th century Muslim slave trader engages in slavery.

    I don't see how regarding something as wrong, as I do slavery, gains any force or authority by appending the label "objective" to it, unless you happen to believe in God. And lots of people who believed in God held slaves. As I said, I don't really care what motivates people to oppose slavery, but I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. Sure, most of the abolitionists in antebellum America were Christians, but most of the slaveowners were too. Handsome is as handsome does, at least to me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. The abolitionist movement in England was just as Christian as the one in America. Is that mere coincidence?
    The fact that most modern civilization oppose slavery according is not helpful to your argument. On the one hand statistically most modern people are religious as well or one could say that given the secular status of most of Europe and sadly as well much of the USA - perhaps that explains the growing sex slave trade?
    Your arguments seems to be just a form of emotivism. You don't like it (its yucky!) because of your background, genetics, friends, whatever. The appropriate response already given is that someone (and obviously this is a lot of someones) else could respond that all those same types of factors cause him/her to say that slavery is yummy. So you have your perspective and he has his. Thats why the notion of "objectivity" which you dismiss becomes important - i think Nietzsche sums this up best - God is dead - there is no good or evil. there is only perspectivalism. So if the laws were to change tomorrow and legalize slavery accross the western world - what would be your best argument? It doesn't feel right to you? And others should care about that WHY?
    If there is no objective standard, then there is no foundation for any moral principal other than your own feelings. And those can change with the wind and have no weight with anyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  26. zilch said:

    "Sure, maybe some would reason along those lines. I would still fight them, wouldn't you?"

    You keep missing the point. It could simply be because we're both men of our times. On atheism, the fact that both you and I would fight slavery doesn't tell us anything about whether slavery is actually worth fighting against, morally speaking.

    "That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude."

    You keep repeating this canard.

    Again, see above.

    "I don't see how regarding something as wrong, as I do slavery, gains any force or authority by appending the label 'objective' to it,"

    You were the one who introduced "absolute." What else could you mean by "absolute" in context other than that which is "objective"? If you have an alternative, then I'm all ears!

    "unless you happen to believe in God. And lots of people who believed in God held slaves. As I said, I don't really care what motivates people to oppose slavery, but I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. Sure, most of the abolitionists in antebellum America were Christians, but most of the slaveowners were too. Handsome is as handsome does, at least to me."

    This is so confused.

    For one thing, you're way too vague when you say stuff like "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." Which "religion" are you referring to? Not all religions subscribe to the same God or set of ethical values.

    And where's your argument that religion hasn't "done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery"?

    For another, if you're referring to Biblical Christianity, then the Bible allows for the fact that not all who call themselves Christians are necessarily Christians. Not to mention the Bible allows for the fact that Christians are far from perfect. Christians don't necessarily always do what the Bible commands.

    Also, the point of all this was to make an internal critique of your atheistic secular values. Say you somehow can prove your claim "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." So what? What about secularists and atheists? I could just as easily say like you that I don't see that atheists have done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. In other words, it doesn't change what I said in response to you in my preceding comment.

    Anyway, you could start with William Wilberforce.

    ReplyDelete
  27. ZILCH SAID:

    "I guess elementary reading comprehension is a problem for me because I'm an atheist- what other answer could there be? And you're right- the entire chapter reads as a gleeful taunt-song on the downfall of Babylon. But the practice of slavery is not indicted; it only says that no one will buy Babylon's slaves, or her cinnamon or iron or wheat, etc, any more...Babylon is indicted for luxury and greed, yes; but the practice of slavery is not condemned, any more than the practice of eating wheat or working iron is condemned. I honestly don't see how you can squeeze that meaning out of the passages in question, except by very powerful wishful thinking...And it's a good thing that bronze and iron and vessels of brass are not indicted, because if they were, I'd be in big trouble, having plenty of all of these in my workshop."

    As an expat American living abroad, you ought to appreciate the need to understand a foreign culture on its own terms.

    Rev 18 isn't merely a condemnation of Rome. It also details the basis of the condemnation. The concentration of wealth and power in Rome, on the backs of her vassals. And the means by which Rome acquired her status.

    For instance, wheat was diverted to feed the vast appetite of the imperial city, thereby starving the provinces.

    Likewise, because iron was harder than bronze, that was the preferred metal for weaponry. So that alludes to Roman military might, by which Rome subjugated the ancient world and maintained her rule through brute force. Literally "iron rule."

    Roman military and economic power went hand-in-hand. Empires exploit the conquered peoples for their resources, viz. tribute, taxation, and plunder. Or the use of forced labor in mining.

    Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Bill, you say:

    The abolitionist movement in England was just as Christian as the one in America. Is that mere coincidence?

    Most people, abolitionists and slaveholders alike, in England and America, were and have been Christian for many years. That's just a fact of history. How many atheists, or Muslims or Buddhists for that matter, were there in 19th century America and England?

    The fact that most modern civilization oppose slavery according is not helpful to your argument. On the one hand statistically most modern people are religious as well or one could say that given the secular status of most of Europe and sadly as well much of the USA - perhaps that explains the growing sex slave trade?

    I doubt it. If the majority of people are religious, why is there a growing slave trade? Do you have any evidence that atheists are responsible for it?

    Your arguments seems to be just a form of emotivism. You don't like it (its yucky!) because of your background, genetics, friends, whatever.

    Why do you find slavery yucky, then, Bill? As I've said, there's no place in Scripture that treats slavery as yucky, and even rhology has said that slavery is not morally prohibited in the Bible. I'm open to correction.

    The appropriate response already given is that someone (and obviously this is a lot of someones) else could respond that all those same types of factors cause him/her to say that slavery is yummy. So you have your perspective and he has his. Thats why the notion of "objectivity" which you dismiss becomes important - i think Nietzsche sums this up best - God is dead - there is no good or evil. there is only perspectivalism. So if the laws were to change tomorrow and legalize slavery accross the western world - what would be your best argument? It doesn't feel right to you? And others should care about that WHY?

    It's a problem, innit? That's why we still have people, including Christians, other religious people, and atheists disagreeing about stuff. But somehow, sometimes, stuff still gets done- for instance, the thirteenth amendment to the Constitution in the USA. I'm all for that, even in lack of an "objective" reason. Is that bad? Does it not work?

    Neither of my two children, both atheists, is in favor of slavery, partly because of how I brought them up. Why is some sort of intangible theoretical "objective standard" important- don't we simply want to eliminate actual slavery in the actual world?

    If there is no objective standard, then there is no foundation for any moral principal other than your own feelings. And those can change with the wind and have no weight with anyone else.

    Moral feelings do change, undeniably- for instance, most Christians in the US supported or at least condoned slavery in the 18th century, and nowadays most Christians don't support slavery. But as I've said, what does it help to append the adjective "objective" to moral standards? All that does is say "God is behind my morals". History has shown that the results of this attitude have sometimes been laudible, but have often been horrific.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Rocking, you say:

    On atheism, the fact that both you and I would fight slavery doesn't tell us anything about whether slavery is actually worth fighting against, morally speaking.

    That's true, as far as it goes. But as I believe I've already said, I'm against slavery, and thus find it worth fighting against, because it causes unnecessary pain, and because it's unfair.

    I said:

    That's why the Bible condones slavery- it's a product of men of their time and place in culture. But luckily, most people have moved on from this attitude.

    You replied:

    You keep repeating this canard.

    How is this a canard? It's a fact that the Bible condones slavery: it lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowhere forbids it. And it's also a fact that most people have moved on from this attitude: slavery was legal in much of the world in Biblical times; it's now illegal everywhere (as far as I know).

    For another, if you're referring to Biblical Christianity, then the Bible allows for the fact that not all who call themselves Christians are necessarily Christians. Not to mention the Bible allows for the fact that Christians are far from perfect. Christians don't necessarily always do what the Bible commands.

    Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument. Sorry, but since I'm not God or even a Calvinist, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" Christian or not- I can only judge people on what they say and how they behave. Thus, for me, the effect of the Bible on how people behave has nothing to do with whether or not they are "true" Christians, but only on what they actually do. And some people calling themselves Christians have done things that are (to my untutored atheist mind) good, and some have done bad things. Christians (and other theists as well, of course) have gleefully established thousands of sects dedicated to separating the "true" beleivers from the "false"; but I'm afraid I'm unequipped to distinguish which are which. And reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages. But I guess that's a whole nother topic, isn't it?

    Also, the point of all this was to make an internal critique of your atheistic secular values. Say you somehow can prove your claim "I don't see that religion has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery." So what? What about secularists and atheists? I could just as easily say like you that I don't see that atheists have done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery. In other words, it doesn't change what I said in response to you in my preceding comment.

    You're right there- no one has done a bang-up job of eliminating slavery, or it wouldn't still exist. I'm not claiming that atheists invest the high moral ground here by any means. But I don't see, as I've said already, that merely claiming "objective" standards has done any better.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Steve, you say:

    As an expat American living abroad, you ought to appreciate the need to understand a foreign culture on its own terms.

    I try my best, but sometimes my American upbringing still comes out- for instance, I bristle when I have to deal with the gratuitous unfriendliness of, say, telephone operators here.

    Rev 18 isn't merely a condemnation of Rome. It also details the basis of the condemnation. The concentration of wealth and power in Rome, on the backs of her vassals. And the means by which Rome acquired her status.

    For instance, wheat was diverted to feed the vast appetite of the imperial city, thereby starving the provinces.

    Likewise, because iron was harder than bronze, that was the preferred metal for weaponry. So that alludes to Roman military might, by which Rome subjugated the ancient world and maintained her rule through brute force. Literally "iron rule."


    Yes, Steve, I really get this. As you and I believe rocking said, it's a condemnation of luxury and greed. But it's not a condemnation of slavery per se, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron per se.

    Roman military and economic power went hand-in-hand. Empires exploit the conquered peoples for their resources, viz. tribute, taxation, and plunder. Or the use of forced labor in mining.

    Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany.


    So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted? Again, I can see that this is a list of burdens Babylon (or Rome) placed on her vassals in her greed and luxury; but that's not the same thing as saying that slavery is forbidden or even discouraged in general, any more than any other item in the list is. If you believe this is a general indictment of slavery, then you need a justification for your eating wheat or working iron.

    I'm still waiting for rho to weigh in here, since he said "slavery is not morally prohibited in the Bible". Do you agree with this, Steve?

    ReplyDelete
  31. zilch said...

    "But it's not a condemnation of slavery per se, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron per se."

    That's because you have a rubbery definition of "slavery," as I noted early on. There's no such thing as "slavery per se."

    "So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted?"

    An illogical question. Try to think.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I said:

    But it's not a condemnation of slavery per se, any more than it's a condemnation of eating wheat or working iron per se.

    Steve said:

    That's because you have a rubbery definition of "slavery," as I noted early on. There's no such thing as "slavery per se.

    Steve, you are the one claiming that "slavery is indicted" in Rev 18. How about you telling me exactly what kind of slavery was meant here?

    So only the last item in the litany is considered indicted?

    An illogical question. Try to think.

    Again, you are the one making the claim, which was "Rome prospered at the expense of her many victims. And that includes the slave trade–accentuated by the emphatic position of at the end of the litany." Since being at the end of the litany is the only way in which the slave trade was in any way differentiated (if you can even consider it so) from other items in the list, including iron and wheat, that prompted my question. Again- how do you get a condemnation of slavery (you tell me what kind) and no condemnation of eating wheat out of this?

    ReplyDelete
  33. ZILCH SAID:

    "Steve, you are the one claiming that 'slavery is indicted' in Rev 18. How about you telling me exactly what kind of slavery was meant here?"

    Chattel slavery.

    "Again- how do you get a condemnation of slavery (you tell me what kind) and no condemnation of eating wheat out of this?"

    All the listed items are condemned.

    You continue to simple-mindedly cite "eating wheat" when I already explained the context of that indictment. Try to keep more than one idea in your little head at a time.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Steve, you say:

    All the listed items are condemned.

    Okay. Do you eat bread?

    You continue to simple-mindedly cite "eating wheat" when I already explained the context of that indictment. Try to keep more than one idea in your little head at a time.

    I continue to cite "eating wheat" because it is listed in Rev 18, and if you insist that Rev 18 is an indictment of chattel slavery, then I don't see how you can, in good conscience, eat wheat. And please, Steve, lay off the childish insults- I'm trying to understand what you believe, and also trying to understand what I believe, and this just gets in the way.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Oh, and by the way, for any Christians still following this thread- I'm still curious if you agree with rho's statement that "Slavery [chattel slavery], as a societal institution, is not morally prohibited in Scripture."

    cheers from sunny Vienna, zilch

    ReplyDelete
  36. ZILCH SAID:

    "I continue to cite 'eating wheat' because it is listed in Rev 18, and if you insist that Rev 18 is an indictment of chattel slavery, then I don't see how you can, in good conscience, eat wheat."

    I already explained that to you. You lack adaptive intelligence. You repeat the same objections ad nauseam like a tape recorder on playback, without regard to the explanations. It's a waste of time debating someone who lacks the rational capacity to update his objections in light of counterarguments.

    Go back and read what I said about wheat @ 3/25/2012 8:17 AM

    You seem unable to address anything that doesn't fit on your 3x5 cue cards. Learn how to take what I say into consideration and modify your objections accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  37. zilch said:

    "That's true, as far as it goes. But as I believe I've already said, I'm against slavery, and thus find it worth fighting against, because it causes unnecessary pain, and because it's unfair."

    On atheism, we could have someone with your tolerant moral scruples, or we could have someone with Jeffrey Dahmer's moral scruples. On atheism, who's to say Dahmer is wrong and you are right? On atheism, who's to say it's wrong to cause "unnecessary pain" or it's "unfair" to treat others a certain way?

    "How is this a canard?"

    Because it's not true the Bible "condones slavery." We've given you reasoned argumentation, but you don't interact with our argumentation. Rather, like I said, you just keep repeating this canard.

    "It's a fact that the Bible condones slavery: it lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowhere forbids it."

    Once again, care to cite and exegete the relevant passages where the Bible "lays down rules on how it is to be practiced, and nowwhere forbids it"?

    "And it's also a fact that most people have moved on from this attitude: slavery was legal in much of the world in Biblical times; it's now illegal everywhere (as far as I know)."

    On atheism, the fact that "most people have moved on from this attitude" doesn't tell us whether slavery is objectively right or wrong.

    Also, what's legal or illegal isn't identical to what's moral or immoral.

    "Ah, the "not a true Christian" argument. Sorry, but since I'm not God or even a Calvinist, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" Christian or not- I can only judge people on what they say and how they behave. Thus, for me, the effect of the Bible on how people behave has nothing to do with whether or not they are "true" Christians, but only on what they actually do. And some people calling themselves Christians have done things that are (to my untutored atheist mind) good, and some have done bad things. Christians (and other theists as well, of course) have gleefully established thousands of sects dedicated to separating the "true" beleivers from the "false"; but I'm afraid I'm unequipped to distinguish which are which. And reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages. But I guess that's a whole nother topic, isn't it?"

    You say you "can only judge people on what they say and how they behave." Yet you ignore someone like William Wilberforce (mentioned above) who was a devout Christian and central to abolishing slavery in British lands.

    Also, you say "reading the Bible doesn't help much, since it has such mixed messages." But when we actually attempt to begin to interpret the Bible (as others have done above), you don't actually interact with what we say. You just keep repeating your same old tired tales.

    If you're going to judge Christianity based on what the worst "Christians" say and do, then I could just as easily judge atheism based on what the worst atheists say and do. I could take someone like Stalin or Pol Pot or Kim Jong-il. After all, I'm in no position to know who is a "true" atheist or not - I can only judge people based on what they say and how they behave. After all, communists like Stalin, Pol Pot, and Kim Jong-il say they don't believe God and they behave like it. So according to your logic, they're representative of atheism.

    ReplyDelete