6 May 2008
BarryA Responds to DaveScot
BarryA
In Bass Ackwards Darwinism (below) my friend DaveScott writes:
”Good people do good things. Evil people do evil things. Knowledge (like Darwinian evolution and the recipe for dynamite) is inanimate and can be employed by good people for good things and evil people for evil things.”
The issue is not whether “good” people do good things. Of course they do. That’s why we call them “good.” The issue is not whether “evil” people do evil things. Again, of course they do. That’s why we call them “evil.” The issue is what do we mean when we say “good” and “evil.” From the answer to that question everything else about our ethics follows.
Some people (mainly theists of various stripes) say ”good” means that which conforms to a moral standard that transcends place, time, opinion, personality, social constructs and everything else, and “evil” means that which does not conform to that transcendent standard. I will call these people transcendent standard advocates or TSA’s for short.
Other people say no such transcendent standard exists. I will call these people materialists.
Now here is the crux of the matter. TSAs may be wrong. There may not be a transcendant moral standard after all, and the appearance of such a standard (what C.S. Lewis calls the “Tao” in the Abolition of Man) may be an illusion. But at least they can give a rational account for the basis of their morality, i.e., the transcendent standard exists. All of our moral choices are either consistent with that standard or inconsistent with that standard. We can argue about the exact parameters of the standard. There will be gray areas. But to say that some areas are gray is very different from saying everything is gray.
On the other hand, after centuries of striving materialists have failed to provide a rational account for morality. Indeed, thoughtful and courageous materialists (I’m thinking of Frederic Nietzsche and Will Provine) have argued that the premises of materialism absolutely preclude a conclusion that ethics or morality have any firm foundation.
Turning back to DaveScott’s post, he says that he does “good” because he intuitively understands and abides by the golden rule. In other words, Dave bases his morality on his intuition.
Here is the problem with this formulation in classical terms: What is the Good? Dave and the TSAs agree that the Good is that which is desirable. So far so good (so to speak). But the more important question is “what is the desirable?” Dave believes the desirable is that which he actually desires based on his intuition about the golden rule. TSAs believe the desirable is that which Dave OUGHT to desire. If, as is the case with Dave, what is actually desired corresponds with what ought to be desired, there is no problem.
The problem for Dave’s philosophy is what happens when someone has a disordered desire. What if this person (let’s call him Bob) desires to have sex with little children. Dave will say to him “I have a strong intuition that sex with little children is profoundly wrong.” Bob will reply, “Why should I care what your intuition tells you? If I can get away with an activity that gives me pleasure, why should I restrain myself? Surely you are not suggesting your intuition, i..e, your opinion, is in any way binding on me.”
Dave might reply, “But Bob, it is plain that you ought not have sex with little children.” Now, if Dave means by “ought” that he has a strong intuition that sex with little children is wrong because it violates the golden rule, he has done no more than repeat himself using different terms. He has not answered Bob’s objection. On the other hand, if Dave means by “ought” that sex with little children breaks an obvious moral standard that transcends his and Bob’s opinion, he has not acted logically given his premise that no such standard exists.
At the end of the day, Dave can appeal to a standard that transcends his intuition or he can appeal to his intuition. If he does the former, he has implicitly admitted the TSA premise. If he does the latter, he has given Bob no rational reason for refraining from his activity. Dave has only said, “I do not agree with it.”
What does this have to do with Darwin? Darwin’s theory does not compel belief in materialism any more than ID compels a belief in God. But many people believed (especially in late 19th century Europe and North America) that Darwin’s theory was evidence of the triumph of materialist science over the superstition of religion. This had a profound impact on our social institutions.
In most of the recent posts this impact has been explored in the context of the holocaust. I will not add to that debate. Instead, I will give an example from my own field of the law. As I have written before, it is not an overstatement to say that the modern era of American law began with the publication in 1897 of “The Path of the Law” by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In this seminal work Holmes announced that it was time to jettison the notion that the law has anything to do with morality, because morality has no meaning. Holmes wrote, “For my own part, I often doubt whether it would not be a gain if every word of moral significance could be banished from the law altogether, and other words adopted which should convey legal ideas uncolored by anything outside the law.”
With “The Path of the Law” Holmes had founded the school of “legal realism,” and this theory gradually came to be the predominate theory of jurisprudence in the United States. “Legal realism” should more properly be called “legal materialism” because Holmes denied the existence of any objective “principles of ethics or admitted axioms” to guide judges’ rulings. In other words, the law is not based upon principles of justice that transcend time and place. The law is nothing more than what willful judges do, and the “rules” they use to justify their decision are tagged on after they have decided the case according to their personal preferences. At its bottom legal realism is a denial of the objective existence of a foundation of moral norms upon which a structure of justice can be built.
Why would Holmes deny the objective existence of morality? This is where the influence of Darwin comes in. It is one of the darker secrets of our nation’s past that Holmes, perhaps the most venerated of all our Supreme Court justices, was a fanatical – I used that word advisedly — Darwinist who advocated eugenics and the killing of disabled babies. I n Buck v. Bell Holmes wrote “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind . . . Three generations of imbeciles are enough.” As Phillip Johnson has written, Holmes was a “convinced Darwinist who profoundly understood the philosophical implications of Darwinism.”
“The Origin of Species” was published in 1859. By 1897, when Holmes wrote “The Path of the Law,” Darwinism had had become an unchallengeable scientific orthodoxy accepted as a matter of course by practically all intellectuals. Holmes thought he had no choice but to believe Darwinism and to accept uncritically the philosophical materialism that most people of this time believed followed inexorably from Darwin’s ideas, and his great contribution to American law was to reconcile the philosophy of law with the philosophy of materialism.
Once they were unleashed from any duty to actually apply objective “rules of law,” judges soon found they could impose their political views on the rest of us under the guise of interpreting the United States Constitution. The federal judiciary’s long march through our laws, traditions and institutions began slowly in the 1930’ss but rapidly gathered momentum until, in 1973 in the most stunning example of judicial willfulness in our nation’s history, the Supreme Court invalidated the abortion laws of all 50 states.
So you see legal realism was built step by step, precept by precept, upon a foundation of philosophical materialism that in turn rests upon the triumph of Darwin for its acceptance. And upon this foundation was built a superstructure of judicial willfulness that resulted ultimately in Roe v. Wade. Each link in the causal chain is plain to see for anyone who takes the time to look.
Obviously, I take for granted that abortion — the taking of an innocent human life — is immoral. In the discussion thread I will not debate this topic, as it is beyond the scope of UD. I will just say this: If you believe an unborn baby is not human you are ignorant. If you believe that taking that baby’s life is not immoral, you are deeply confused morally.
Print This Post
1
tribune7
05/06/2008
1:43 pm
Great post, Barry
2
Eric Anderson
05/06/2008
2:10 pm
Thanks, Barry. Very well thought out.
Your exposition is much more coherent and compelling than the self-defeating materialistic philosophy, which completely flounders in attempting to address the question of good and evil (unless one takes Provine’s view and follows it to the logical conclusion). I have found that most folks who loudly proclaim that there is no objective moral standard always fall back on one when pressed.
3
Ekstasis
05/06/2008
2:25 pm
Excellent concept. “Without God, all things are permissable” - Fyodor Dostoeyevsky. True, lacking transcendent standards, definitions of good and evil are afloat without an anchor.
But then, how do good and evil get defined. Sure, it may be intuition at the individual level. But what about society, how is it defined? How do we collectively decide?
Napolean refered to the rule of the bayonet. In the past, a society that had no allegiance to transcendent beliefs was simply ruled by force, with the powerful making and enforcing the rules. Simple and efficient.
But not today in America, generally speaking. So instead we get a two-tiered system that establishes and enforces the definition of good and evil. The first is the bottom up. It is exemplified by Oprah. It is all about emoting. Whatever can be sold emotionally to people becomes our idea of good and evil, de facto. It is all about marketing and presentation, appearances and feelings. And it can change like the wind. Create your own victim group and you too are good to go.
The second, the top down, is what is discussed in terms of judges. But it is a bit broader. It is our leaders that, once elected or appointed, manage to arrange things as they see fit, for the most part. This does not require paranoia or conspiracy theory to believe, just some observation of how leaders operate. They understand just what the Romans understood, bread and circus for the people and you pretty much are left with a free hand. And what are their goals? Public virtue? Individual freedom? Sorry, but no. Gaining, keeping, and expanding power, pure and simple. This is their definition of good.
Now, I don’t know about you, but I find both of these substitute good-and-evil creaters/enforcers as incredibly dangerous and distasteful.
And they say the bible is scary!!
4
sagebrush gardener
05/06/2008
2:26 pm
Thank you for the post, Barry. It reminds me of a new book I am reading now - The Reason for God, by Timothy Keller. I recommend it highly. One of his points is that secularism is based on unprovable assumptions just as much as faith is.
5
DaveScot
05/06/2008
2:28 pm
Barry
The problem with an objective moral standard given from a bearded thunderer is that unless the bearded thunderer makes a personal appearance then whatever those objective moral standards might be we mortals need to somehow agree on them and enforce them with laws and punishments.
6
Charles
05/06/2008
2:31 pm
Very well articulated.
OT: Barry, might you consider lending your legal opinion to a legal question posed by Scott Hatfield, a Fresno, Ca. highschool science teacher: THE HORRORS OF EVOLUTION-FRIENDLY BELIEF? Note also a couple lawyer responses to that original post.
7
mike1962
05/06/2008
3:11 pm
How do we know what the TSA morality is?
8
selectedpete
05/06/2008
3:11 pm
no. 5:
Assuming such a thunderer (shaven or no) exists, and that this thunderer rendered all that exists - what makes you think that you, commenter No. 5, gets to create the rules for how such a thunderer manifests his/her/itself?
But then this is not a very empirical rabbit hole we find ourselves in, now is it?
This is why naturalist thinking fails at its very core - it disallows the movement of thought into any other realm but the sensate.
We are capable of so much more than this. But that is a discussion best pursued outside of UD I believe.
9
StephenB
05/06/2008
3:18 pm
Barry A: This is an outstanding post.
If the objective moral law isn’t real, and if it is not recognized as the standard for jurisprudential wisdom, everything we hold dear is lost. Not only do we lose the rational justification for personal morality, we also forfeit the standards for freedom and a well-ordered society. If morality is reduced to a “feeling of nobility,” then there is no way to arbitrate the differences in feelings among individuals. We are left with a “war of all against all,” which is always followed by tyranny.
When Holmes, dedicated materialist/ Darwinist that he was, decided that we didn’t need the “natural moral law” as a standard for the rule of law, he was, in effect, militating against self government itself. Unless a government and its people acknowledge the reality of the natural moral law, which is written both in nature (design) and in the human heart (conscience), the individual can never claim to have a “natural” or “inalienable” right. If rights aren’t natural, then they can be given and taken away at the whim of the state.
How can I say I have a moral obligation and therefore a political right to follow my conscience if there is no such thing as conscience? How can I claim that I deserve to be free if I can’t know the moral law or if there is no moral law to follow? How can I ask for the privilege of self government if I don’t have to tools to practice it?
10
Charles
05/06/2008
3:27 pm
DaveScot @ 5:
And must that “beareded thunderer” make a personal appearance to everyone, without exception, before everyone, without exception, may agree on those moral standards?
If in spite of such personal appearance, those moral standards are disobeyed by any number of individuals, does their rejection/disobedience negate the moral standards established for everyone else?. Is a transcendent standard in fact not transcendent but merely whatever each individual is willing to accept?
Must enforcement of a transcendent standard be done at the behest and by equivalent means of those who disbelieve/reject the transcendent standard a priori?
Is it in fact true that no bearded thunderer ever personally appeared and presented a transcendent moral standard? Or is it merely that you require the designer to prove himself to you personally before you’re willing to admit the possibility of design?
11
Eric Anderson
05/06/2008
3:28 pm
DaveScot:
Two points:
(i) What if the thunderer has in fact appeared and provided some principles of an objective moral standard? Then perhaps our task is to listen and implement.
(ii) Even without an appearance, is there some understanding in our collective conscience about right and wrong? Oh, sure, we can think of some difficult examples and close cases, but for the most part people around the world seem to understand some basic concepts of morality. Is this purely concidental, and nothing more than the product of chance and our current societal structure? Perhaps. Yet it is also possible that it represents an innate sense, at a very basic level, of certain inalienable rights that should exist and should be protected. In other words, perhaps there is something already within us and a personal appearance is not needed.
Our challenges in understanding and implementing an objective moral standard do not mean one does not exist. Throwing out the idea of an objective moral standard because it it difficult to grapple with is a non-sequitur. Worse, it leads to a much more virulent incoherence, as well articulated by Barry.
12
Eric Anderson
05/06/2008
3:30 pm
Charles, you have some good questions. Just on correction, as you wrote:
“Or is it merely that you require the designer to prove himself to you personally before you’re willing to admit the possibility of design?”
I don’t think DaveScot is against the idea of design. This is a separate issue.
13
Charles
05/06/2008
3:36 pm
Eric:
I agree. I understand Dave to be an ID advocate.
The Designer might care to disagree.
14
StephenB
05/06/2008
3:40 pm
—–”The problem with an objective moral standard given from a bearded thunderer is that unless the bearded thunderer makes a personal appearance then whatever those objective moral standards might be we mortals need to somehow agree on them and enforce them with laws and punishments.”
What if the “bearded thunderer,” realizing that humanity is not ready for subtleties, really does makes an appearance and lays out the basic formula in the form of Ten Commandments? What if that same entity, in the spirit of continuity, makes another appearance and builds on the original framework, adding a few more nuances, such as the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes? What if all those standards are consistent with the natural moral law which the bearded thunderer has already written in nature and in the human heart? What if those teachings harmonize with the teachings promoted by philosophers and religious teachers all throughout history? What if those same standards have already been shown to promote human happiness at the personal level and fashion a well ordered society at the collective level?
15
specs
05/06/2008
3:45 pm
In my experience, Dave, such agreement is really quite unnecessary because most folks who argue for an objective moral standard are also quite willing, nay eager, to tell you exactly what those standards are, and in great detail. Your agreement is quite superfluous and you need to stop trying to apply reason to matters of revelation.
16
bornagain77
05/06/2008
3:48 pm
Great post I’m sending it to a friend of mine who is in law school. (He has already been deeply impressed by Phillip Johnson)
In regards to Dave’s statement:
“The problem with an objective moral standard given from a bearded thunderer is that unless the bearded thunderer makes a personal appearance”
He did make an appearance and left a life size photogragh:
excerpt page 232 “Portrait of Jesus:
Now, if the Shroud is a fake, then whoever fabricated it before 1357, by whatever unknown methods, had command of knowledge and abilities quite incredible for his time. He must have: known the precise methods of crucifixion of the first century; possessed the the medical knowledge of a modern expert surgeon; utilized an art process unknown to any great master, never duplicated before or since; been able to foresee and approximate principles of photographic negativity not otherwise discovered for several centuries; imported a piece of old cloth of Near East manufacture; used a coloring agent that would be unaffected by intense heat; been able to incorporate into his work details (that we have only recently discovered) that the human eye cannot see and that are only visible with the most advanced computer - scanning devices; been able to reproduce. flawlessly, on a nearly flat linen surface, in a single color, undistorted three-dimensional characteristics of a human body in “negative format” on the tops of the threads, while conversely showing the % ” as positive and soaking all the way through…This all had to be done prior 1357, for since that date the Shroud has a clearly documented and uninterrupted history. And even now with all the scientific knowledge and skills at our command, our scientists and artists cannot duplicate the Shroud.
17
Todd Berkebile
05/06/2008
3:55 pm
You discuss two possibilities, an appeal to a standard that transcends intuition or an appeal to individual intuition. This is a false dichotomy as other options exist. For example, you could instead appeal to majority intuition. If most people believe sex with children is wrong then codify that majority belief into, say, a law which is enforced on all people regardless of their individual intuition. This third choice seems completely compatible with materialism and would seem to yield the same conclusion that the TSAs reach.
18
Charles
05/06/2008
4:06 pm
Todd Berkebile @ 16:
But a majority is just the arithmetic total of each indidvidual’s opinion. Absent a transcendent morality, on what basis does each individual “believe” something is wrong? Do they believe it is wrong because the accummulated majority votes something is wrong? Does an individual’s opinion become right if majority reverse their votes, say, because enforcement is too costly? Or does each indidvidual form an opinion on their own belief, and on what is that belief based?
19
nullasalus
05/06/2008
4:09 pm
Majority intuition? The question isn’t whether you can assemble some structure of do’s and don’ts without reference to whether there is a real ‘moral’ and ‘immoral’ behind it. Provine would probably agree with as much.
It’s not a third choice. It’s the ‘there is no right or wrong’ choice, plus a structure without justification.
20
BarryA
05/06/2008
4:16 pm
Todd, if the majority intuition in Nazi Germany was that killing Jews was right,did that make it right?
In addition, you have just killed the idea of moral progress. The majority intuition of southern whites in the 1950’s was that “colored” folk should not have equal rights. I’m sure you will agree they were wrong, and the minority intuition was right.
21
BarryA
05/06/2008
4:24 pm
DaveScott, I give you C.S. Lewis in the Abolition of Man:
“I am not trying to PROVE [the validity of the Tao] by the argument from common consent. Its validity cannot be deduced. For those who do not perceive its rationality, even universal consent could not prove it.” Emphasis in the original
22
faithandshadow
05/06/2008
4:26 pm
It’s irrelevant what universal moral law a person or group actually follows or which is true, which Dave has already said. In this country, it happens to be the Christian ethic. In Arabia, it’s Islam. The point is, the people in those places live by it and are judged by it. In this nation, all men have inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. (In Arabia, you can cross Jews off that list.) In materialistic nations, such as the now-defunct USSR and Cuba, God isn’t their to subdue their consciences and the leaders can oppress their peoples without feeling guilty. (After all, the strong survive and the meek shall not inherit the earth.)
Perhaps we can look at it this way: theists can be hypocrites. Materialist can’t be hypocrites, but if they could be hypocrites, there would be nothing wrong with that. It would only be an issue of whether the hypocrisy (or murder or theft or whatever) gave them a survival advantage over the meek who consider such things wrong.
23
Rude
05/06/2008
4:31 pm
Yes, great post—and others making really good comments here too.
Anyway I think a connection can be made between the natural law of the theologians and the mathematical realism (Platonism) of the physicists. Most physicists sense from deep in their bones (so I’m told) a deeper, noncontingent aspect of reality than the particles and forces they seek to unearth—a reality that could be no other way and that is true in all possible worlds (hence they study hypothetical worlds where the laws differ but the mathematics doesn’t). Also, as probably I’ve already mentioned somewhere before, there’s the Peircean tripartite world of logic, esthetics, and ethics (with illogic, ugliness, and evil on the other side of the coin), and thus there’s beauty as a guide to truth and the glaring ugliness and illogic of nihilism (“There are no true statements” is illogical; “Death is eternal” is ugly).
One seldom hears these connected and hardly ever do we hear of mathematical realism except from physicists such as Paul Davies and Roger Penrose. Biologists and others seem to know nothing of the argument, and thus when Chomsky speaks of linguistic innateness we think that if it’s not in the gray matter there’s no such thing, having long ago ruled out the mind as a receiver for ideas that are “out there”.
Interesting that the same George Lakoff who would teach leftists to frame (to have “faith in the power of euphemism”) would also try to debunk mathematical realism. Interesting also that truth doesn’t seem to matter for those who think that mathematics isn’t real. (But let’s give Prof. Lakoff his due, for long ago he did do some important work on metaphor.)
Perhaps one could be an atheist and still be a mathematical Platonist—the laws of physics are written in the language of mathematics—and those laws are beautiful. But to move on to ethics—to natural law—which has to do with agency, not just chance and necessity—perhaps this presupposes an elemental nature of mind the atheist would not countenance.
But are they all connected—logic, beauty, goodness—and are they real? It’d be great to see some books come out with new insight on this subject—maybe by a few young ID sympathizers in the area of philosophy or law.
I also suspect that a society built on reason, even if based in natural law reasoning (not the the materialism that dominates today), it would still lack if God really had revealed the basics of his ethics at Sinai (as was so long supposed) and we spurn it.
24
BarryA
05/06/2008
4:37 pm
DaveScott, one more Lewis quote, this time from Mere Christianity:
“some people say the idea of [the Tao] is unsound, because different civilizations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teachings of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Creeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own . . . I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country were two and two made five . . . Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.”
Dave, the unspoken premise of your statement is that there is not already agreement as to the core of the Tao. But there is. Why we all agree on the core of the Tao and whether God has a beard are different questions. The fact that the Tao exists and that (I was about to say “deep down,” but truly it is not so deep) we know it exists is not reasonably subject to dispute.
25
DaveScot
05/06/2008
5:07 pm
BarryA
Lewis? Core of the Tao? Universal agreement?
I doubt it. I can’t even get many people to agree that killing other living things that are not causing you harm is, in principle, a violation of so-called natural law and rest assured that nothing will persuade me otherwise. My idea of natural law will always trump yours as far as I’m concerned. I’m not at all laboring under any burden of giving your notions of morality the same respect as I give my own. You might have me confused with someone who believes in a relative moral code. Like countless others I believe I know the transcendent moral code and relative moral codes is what I have to accept in compromise when your transcendent codes differ from mine.
And that’s the really the problem. This universal agreement you speak of is as non-existent as the settled science of anthropogenic global warming.
26
BarryA
05/06/2008
5:21 pm
faithandshadow writes:
“It’s irrelevant what universal moral law a person or group actually follows or which is true.”
Nonsense: This statement is logically incoherent. If the moral law is “universal” there cannot be more than one.
faithandshadow goes on: “ In this country, it happens to be the Christian ethic. In Arabia, it’s Islam.”
Nonsense. See the C.S. Lewis quote from Mere Christianity above. You are wrong. There is no such thing as a “Christian ethic” or an “Islamic ethic.” There is only the Tao. This might surprise you coming from a Christian. It should not. Jesus was a brilliant ethical teacher, but he himself said that what he was teaching was not new. His ethical teachings were there all along for those who sought them. Christianity is radically distinct from other religions theologically. But Jesus never purported to establish a “new” system of ethics.
faithandshadow goes on: “In this nation, all men have inalienable rights endowed by their Creator. (In Arabia, you can cross Jews off that list.)
Nonsense. A Jew in Arabia has the same inalienable rights as a Jew in New York. Whether those rights are respected is another question. If this were not so we would have no right to say an Arab in Arabia was wrong if he murdered a Jew. But I am sure you agree it is just as evil for an Arab to murder a Jew in Arabia as in New York.
faithandnonsense goes on: “In materialistic nations, such as the now-defunct USSR and Cuba, God isn’t their [sic] to subdue their consciences and the leaders can oppress their peoples without feeling guilty.
Nonsense. The issue is not whether Stalin felt guilty when he murdered millions of Ukrainians or whether Mao felt guilty when tens of millions died at his hands or whether Pol Pot felt guilty for the killing fields. This is the very point I made in the post. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot had disordered desires.
To Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot, the Good was the desirable and the desirable was what they actually desired, i.e., killing millions of their own countrymen to achieve their ends. As Lewis says in Mere Christianity, if the Tao does not exist or if it is not manifest to all, we have no more right to blame Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot for their killing than for the color of their hair. The Tao does exist and it is manifest. Therefore, I can say – in an absolute sense – that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were evil. And when I say they were evil I mean they were evil. I do not mean, simply, that at the end of the day I disagree with them.
27
BarryA
05/06/2008
5:30 pm
DaveScott, I can only say that, to me at least, you appear to be teetering on the brink of solipsism. Therefore, we have no common frame of reference in which to argue.
28
DaveScot
05/06/2008
5:36 pm
Barry
I say I won’t ever completely agree with you on what are transcendent values and all of a sudden we have no common frame of reference at all?
What a copout. We have more in common than not. You can’t deal with having to agree to disagree on some things?
29
StephenB
05/06/2008
5:40 pm
—–Dave: “I can’t even get many people to agree that killing other living things is, in principle, a violation of so-called natural law and rest assured that nothing will persuade me otherwise. My idea of natural law will always trump yours as far as I’m concerned.”
If you don’t accept the natural moral law, on what principle would you build a well ordered society? I take it you agree that Sharia law is not a good idea. Also, I am sure that you will not allude to “reason,” which is a totally meaningless answer, inasmuch as it begs the question about which ethic reason would have us use.
30
Jack Krebs
05/06/2008
5:44 pm
How about Mike’s question?
31
BarryA
05/06/2008
6:00 pm
DaveScott, go back and read what you wrote: You said: “I believe I know the transcendent moral code and relative moral codes is what I have to accept in compromise when your transcendent codes differ from mine.”
It seems to me that you are saying that transcendent morality is measured by what you believe. If that is not solipsism I don’t know what is. If I have misunderstood you, please let me know.
I believe I understand with near perfect clarity the core of the Tao:
Do as you would be done by.
Do not murder.
Do not steal.
Do not bear false witness, etc., etc.
But I know I have a fallen nature, and I know I am not able to understand how the Tao applies in every situation. Therefore, I approach some ethical questions (but by no means all) tentatively and with a sense of my fallenness, knowing that I could be wrong. I think this would be especially true if I came to an ethical conclusion that the vast majority of people disagreed with.
Take your “don’t kill innocent living things” principle. Where do you draw the line? Some wackadoodles are now advocating for plants rights! See the link at the end of this comment.
You do not seem to approach this ethical question with any sense that you might possibly be wrong and the overwhelming majority of humans throughout the history of the world might possible be right. That’s why I say you are teetering on the brink of solipsism and we have no common frame of reference.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....R=13A782CB
32
BarryA
05/06/2008
6:09 pm
Jack Krebs quotes Mike1962 “How do we know what the TSA morality is?” and asks:
“How about Mike’s question?”
The answer is: We just do. You can say it is written on our hearts if you like, but no one had to teach you that it is wrong, for example, to murder or steal. This not to say that there will not be hard questions. As I said above, we are fallen. But again, to say that there are gray areas is very different from saying everything is gray.
33
StephenB
05/06/2008
6:21 pm
—-”Jack Krebs quotes Mike1962 “How do we know what the TSA morality is?” and asks:
“How about Mike’s question?”
Assuming that you would be less than enthusiastic about the first three of the Ten Commandments (having to do with our obligation to God), which ones from four through tem would you challenge?
34
mentok
05/06/2008
6:31 pm
Dave
It doesn’t matter if all people can agree or not on a universal transcendental moral standard. That of course is not true and never has been. For example in many Islamic cultures honor killing is seen as morally good, whereas in the rest of the world you would go to prison or be executed by the state for honor kiling. That is all besides the point. The impact of Darwin’s theories on the elites of western civilization was to make all transcendental morality, in fact the concept of transcendental morality, regarded as outmoded and unscientific. They were free to become gods of their own world by using “SCIENCE” as their new moral guidance for their exploitative designs on the common masses. Of course “SCIENCE” is mute, it’s dead, knowing that they knew therefore anyone could invent any type of social policy and justify it as morally “good” through their invocation of “SCIENCE” and “PROGRESS” as the highest authority.
That was the goal i.e to replace transcendental authority which forbade them from their exploitative activity and which made them “sinners” in the vision of the masses. As long as the mass of people see the ruling elites as sinners before their Gods then the elites will be fearful of the masses coming to destroy them and their plans. The end of slavery made this reality very clear when religious people forced the end of slavery in the British Empire through which the British Empire had built it’s great wealth upon.
Darwin’s theories were jumped upon by an already godless elite class who saw the propaganda value of his theories as very valuable for changing mass public opinion about what is considered ultimate authority. This was why the Soviet Union outlawed religion, and why subsequent communist regimes attempted to so as well. The idea is to replace a transcendental authority with a human authority. In order to do that they needed to prove that transcendental authority was bogus because there is no supra-intellect supra-moral God to create or enforce a moral teaching or code. Darwin is what they used for that goal. That is simply historical reality. Ever since Darwin came on the scene his theories have been used in an attempt by elites in society to destroy belief in transcendental authority. And it is in fact the main ideology which is inspiring those who attack ID. They want to be free from transcendental authority and openly claim that they fear the ID movement is a “trojan horse” for the implementation of theocractic rule. Like in the past they are trying to use Darwin to destroy belief in God for political purposes. Dawkins et all are very open about this.
The Nazis were also using Darwin in order to gain acceptance for their immoral activities. Their role in the eugenics movement was greatly praised by leading academics and politicians outside of Germany before it became politically incorrect to do so. The goal was always to use “SCIENCE” as ultimate authority as a cover for their own exploitative actions. Darwin’s theory was needed to remove God as ultimate authority in order to install “SCIENCE” and “PROGRESS” as the new gods controlled by the elites of society.
35
Jack Krebs
05/06/2008
6:42 pm
StephenB writes,
That’s not the question being addressed. The question is how we can know that certain moral rules are transcendent standards. How does anyone know that their belief about some aspect of transcendent reality is true, or even that such a transcendent reality exists?
Barry says we “know it our heart.” I don’t believe that answers the question.
It is, in my opinion, irrelevant to claim that belief in transcendent standards is superior to lack of such a belief if in fact there is no way to know if one’s belief in the existence of such transcendent standards is true.
36
Rude
05/06/2008
6:50 pm
BarryA in 32,
Maybe it’s like mathematics—the axioms we just know—and we reason from there (the fundamental categores and rules of reason we just know). But the formalists deny any transcendence—it’s just a game we play.
Also is not our take on morality based largely on whether we believe there is a great Judge out there who will hold us to account? And whether or not there is life in the world to come? Otherwise I can balance my smarting conscience against my pleasure centers and make the choice I want because ultimately it doesn’t matter—and therein, I submit, Darwin has proven quite popular.
Anyway not every culture has developed mathematics, just as our post-modernist touchy-feelies now would abandon it and all logic. And so likewise morality is not always very well developed, and therefore, as it says, “For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.”
If there’s no God it all fails—meanwhile we must live in a world where the Deity can be ignored with no immediate consequences. But good will prevail as long as enough people care and speak out and do what they can—not to impose their way on all others but to insure that the life and liberty of all be respected.
And that’s what scares me!
Maybe Expelled will help turn the tide.
37
Eric Anderson
05/06/2008
7:00 pm
Jack Krebs wrote:
“. . . if in fact there is no way to know if one’s belief in the existence of such transcendent standards is true.”
Do you mean there is no way for an individual to know, or that there is no way for them to prove it to others?
Barry’s answer may not be satisfying, but it is a definite possibility. Indeed when one looks at the whole of history, there do seem to be some general principles that nearly all societies have tried to uphold. Why is that? Sheer dumb luck, an accident of societies, a coincidental societal contract that keeps repeating itself? Or perhaps it is a collective expression of what Barry suggests may be written in the heart (if one is willing to look there).
38
mike1962
05/06/2008
7:09 pm
BarryA: The answer is: We just do.
My take on this is that the morality we all might “just know” is really the morality that we feel that would benefit ourselves as well in a society that fully implemented it. “You shall not murder” is not only good for someone I might wish to kill, but it is good for me too that nobody kills me. Most of us would prefer a world where this sort of “fairness” is maximized for the benefit of all, including our selfish, self-preserving selves. These seems to me a plausible basis of the Tao that one might “know.”
39
Borne
05/06/2008
7:11 pm
BarryA : Great post. A lot of great posts. A lot of good reasonings.
Of course the only way I can say that is if there’s really a rule by which one CAN measure “good” reasoning.
If there isn’t, then this whole discussion is useless as no one can be either right or wrong.
40
mike1962
05/06/2008
7:13 pm
…in other words, “we just do”, translates into, “I want to be treated well, so I want to be part of a society that treats me well, and I will treat them well also, to our mutual benefit.”
“We just do” equates to an impulse to maximize mutual benefit.
41
specs
05/06/2008
7:13 pm
Indeed. And how valuable is a code, transcendent or otherwise, that, by Barry’s own admission, is full of gray areas. I would think a lawyer, like Barry, would value clarity in a moral code. Yet he seems to hold his moral code giver to a lower standard than he does his fellow members of the bar.
42
mike1962
05/06/2008
7:16 pm
As for why some societies, like Muslims extremists who hate Jews, don’t seem to “know the Tao” towards Jews, is because the young are vigorously indoctrinated, and the cycle perpetuates itself. Take any child and raise him in a home where the Golden Rule is revered, and I doubt he’s going to hate anyone, let alone Jews. Etc. In such a case, the Tao (which I consider the default condition) can flower.
43
Borne
05/06/2008
7:20 pm
Dave: “I can’t even get many people to agree that killing other living things that are not causing you harm is, in principle, a violation of so-called natural law and rest assured that nothing will persuade me otherwise” I’d like you to clarify that please. Are you saying no killing of any living thing is morally acceptable? In your view at least?
Do you eat? I presume so. Then what?
Thanks.
But you see, no matter what you answer, if there is no ultimate external rule governing life itself and declaring the value of life forms, it doesn’t matter in the least.
The ONLY way of measuring Right and Wrong is through a transcendent, objective Rule. And that rule is written on the heart by the Designer as sure as you exist. Only mind can have preferences. Only mind can will on thing over another.
You’re once again doing exactly what Lewis and others state that all those who deny an objective moral standard do - you’re confirming it by your assuming it. You assume it in your implications and underlying presumption that there really is a real Right and thus a real Wrong.
Otherwise why even defend your view? Or any view?
As I say elsewhere here, all debate assumes that truth and falsehood really exist. And all morality necessarily assumes a real objective Right or Ought - even when it is denied.
Again, if materialism is true then all rationality stems from non rational processes and thus has no meaning. But as Lewis said, “If whole the universe has no meaning then we should never have found out it has no meaning just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning”
“If nothing is self-evident, nothing can be proved. Similarly if nothing is obligatory for its own sake, nothing is obligatory at all.”
–The Abolition of Man
“Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. Two significant developments have already appeared - the hypothesis of a lawless sub-nature, and the surrender of the claim that science is true. We may be living nearer than we suppose to the end of the Scientific Age.”
M. D. Aeschliman C. S. Lewis on Mere Science 1998 First Things
Dave I think you’d really like Lewis’ Abolition of Man or Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain.
And here’s what I hope you’re ready to realize: “Until you have given up your self to Him you will not have a real self.”
44
specs
05/06/2008
7:20 pm
So, when we see cooperation between members of species (or between different species) in nature are they operating based on a transcendental moral code?
45
Barb
05/06/2008
7:32 pm
Every law has a giver. If there is a transcendant moral code, then logically there must be a transcendant moral code giver. There can be no legislation unless there’s a legislature.
46
StephenB
05/06/2008
7:39 pm
—–Jack Krebs: “It is, in my opinion, irrelevant to claim that belief in transcendent standards is superior to lack of such a belief if in fact there is no way to know if one’s belief in the existence of such transcendent standards is true.”
I submit the natural moral law is self evident to all reasonable people. Inasmuch as you evidently disagree with that statement, I must ask you again: Which of the Ten Commandments from four to ten is not self evident to you?
47
Jack Krebs
05/06/2008
8:08 pm
“Self-evidency” is not a very clear nor reliable criteria, and neither is the notion of “reasonable,” as clearly different people, learned and sincere, often disagree about what is self-evident and reasonable.
Not only that, being self-evident is not necessarily the same thing as arising from a transcendent source.
Your and Barry’s assertions about what appears to you as self-evident and written in the heart are not addressing the question of how do you know that what you strongly feel is true is in fact a transcendent truth?
Do you not see the difference? You and I might agree on a particular moral value, and we might even agree that it seems “self-evident,” and yet we might disagree about whether that feeling of self-evidency stems from anything transcendent.
48
PaV
05/06/2008
8:28 pm
How would we know if something were transcendent or not unless we ourselves are able to transcend the strictly material. If, however, we are able to transcend the material, then we have a capacity that itself is transcendent. This transendent/spiritual component of our being obviously did not come from the strictly material since it is able to transcend the strictly material. Hence, our nature is composed of that which is transcendent and that which is material. Put another way, “natural law” cannot possibly exist unless we have a spiritual nature. How do you think Darwin would answer? I have my ideas.
49
StephenB
05/06/2008
8:39 pm
“Self-evidency” is not a very clear nor reliable criteria, and neither is the notion of “reasonable,” as clearly different people, learned and sincere, often disagree about what is self-evident and reasonable”
—–”Your and Barry’s assertions about what appears to you as self-evident and written in the heart are not addressing the question of how do you know that what you strongly feel is true is in fact a transcendent truth?”
Self evident truths are the best and the most reliable of all truths. Science, for example, is based on the self evident truth that we live in a rational universe. Even if science was infalliable, and it is a long way from being that, it could be no reliable that the self-evident metephysical truth that it rests on.
It is the same with morality. All moral behavior is based on the assumption that moral truth is transcendent. It is not something that rational people prove; it is something that they assume. If there was no such thing as human conscience, there could be no such thing as self govenment. People can rule themselves only on condition that they can apprehend the natural moral law.
50
Jack Krebs
05/06/2008
9:04 pm
We are going around in circles, and obviously aren’t going to get any place.
For instance, Stephen says,
Well, no, all rational people don’t assume that. In fact some rational people are loath to assume things that are not knowable and might very well be false.
Now if you define rational to mean one who agrees with you and makes the assumption that the transcendent exists, then you are begging the question.
So what I gather is that your belief in the transcendent is so strongly held that you can not conceive of it being any other way: that it is “self evidently true and any rational person would assume it to be so” is self-evidently true … and so on forever with no further evidence or reasoning to back it up.
I, however, am a rational person, and the existence of the transcendent is not self-evidently true to me (nor is it’s absence self-evidently true to me, either, by the way), and therefore I do not assume it.
So it is clear to me that you don’t really know that the transcendent exists, but rather that you assume it, and then have build a circular chain of reasonings and feelings that make it seem as if what you assume must in fact be so.
51
bornagain77
05/06/2008
9:13 pm
The whole issue revolves around the primacy of transcendence.. To presuppose that lifeless dirt can give rise to the transcendent love that is required for the Golden Rule is as ludicrous as believing that one rock can “love” another rock.
Yet in materialism anything goes so it is of necessity to actually prove the physical reality of a dominant transcendent reality which has dominion over the material reality. This proof is accomplished partially through Dr. Anton Zeilinger’s work in quantum non-locality. He actually proves the transcendence and dominion of “spiritual information” over the material/energy realm. This in conjuntion with the failure of gravity to be tied to the material/energy realm and timeless (eternal) nature of light as well as the sheer poverty and discoherence of the “many world’s interpretation” in quantum mechanics, in my humble opinion, forces one to accept the reality of a higher, timeless, transcendent, dimension from which our “material” reality has its primary reality based.
Dr. Anton Zeilinger is even confident enough of the reality and dominion of this transcendent realm he manipulates in his quantum teleportation experments to state:
http://www.metanexus.net/Magaz.....fault.aspx
In conclusion it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Then the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: “In the beginning was the Word”.
Anton Zeilinger Professor of Physics
Transcendence of the material realm is now firmly established to overwhelming degree, thus why should we presuppose that any absolute moral standard such as the Golden rule would arise naturally from the material realm when it would be much more reasonable to presuppose that this absolute standard for moral conduct has its origination and primacy in the higher transcendent realm which gives rise to this “material” universe in the first place?
As well it just seems clear and reasonable to me that since love even exist in the first place, then of logical necessity there must be an ultimate source for love to come from. Indeed for me, love has an element of primacy that I would classify as almost being foundational and independent of any other “building blocks”!
52
DLH
05/06/2008
9:22 pm
The USA was legally founded by an appeal to transcendent moral law by the Declaration of Independence. (“USC The Declaration of Independence - 1776″ remains the first organic law in the United States Code)
King and Parliament breached the Colonists constitutional right of petition for redress of grievances as guaranteed by the Magna Carta #61.
All constitutional basis having failed, the American Colonists then appealed to the highest transcendent law:
Each of these clauses refers to transcendent moral values.
53
allanius
05/06/2008
9:30 pm
Fortunately the “transcendent standard” doesn’t depend upon a bearded thunderer, or upon opinion, or tradition, or culture, or upon the Tao, about which one must become enlightened.
The “transcendent standard” is life. As itself, life transcends mortal existence. Life is holy, since it cannot be divided and still be life. It is also the “light of men,” the good, since it alone among all values known to men is absolutely desirable (viz, we’re blogging).
The law and the prophets are neither arbitrary nor conditioned. They reflect the value of life. They are summed up in one command: to love one another. And this command is firmly rooted in the sanctity of life. This accounts for the similarity between moral codes; not the Tao, which is interpretable.
The ancient Hebrews were given only one name for God: “I am.” Note that the “I” and the “am” are joined together as a unity–pure subject and also pure object. There is no division between immanence and transcendence, as there is in methods of discerning “the good” that are rooted in intellect and its qualitative force of resistance.
That’s because, in the sacred text, “the good” is not intellect, as it was for the philosophers. The good is life, the light of wisdom and understanding and substance of the way.
54
DLH
05/06/2008
9:46 pm
For legal and historical background, see Defending the Declaration
Gary T. Amos, (1989-1994) Providence Foundation Charlottesville VA, ISBN 1-887456-05-8.
In Chapter 3, Amos traces the well established legal/historical usage and meaning of “Self Evident Truths”. e.g., via:
Matthew Tindal, Christianity as Old as the Creation(1730).
John Locke, Essay on Human Understanding (1690),
Thomas Aquinas, (1225-1274) in Summa.
St. John of Damascus (d. 749) in De Fide Orthodoxa.
Paul, Romans 1,2.
English “self-evident” is a translation of the Latin per se notum (”known through the instrumentality of oneself”). This in turn of the Greek phaneros en autois (evident in themselves) from Romans 1:19. Similarly, tois poiemasin nooumena kathoratai (by means of things that are made, being understood, being clearly seen) etc.
55
tragicmishap
05/06/2008
10:41 pm
Barry and Dave:
Lewis didn’t really believe there was a standard natural law which everyone believed. There was no standard code that everyone implicitly knows through their conscience. But he found it significant that everyone, despite the differences, BELIEVES in a code. That was the key point for Lewis. Everyone believes there is a code, and though there is no consensus, we are constantly arguing about what it really is. For him, the only reasonable explanation is that there is an existing code to which we have been blinded in varying degrees.
56
tragicmishap
05/06/2008
10:44 pm
He then logically deduced that if there was a law, there must be a lawgiver. Laws do not simply come into being of their own accord. There is a mind, or intelligence if you will, behind them. Lewis was a design theorist pertaining to morality rather than science.
57
StephenB
05/06/2008
10:55 pm
—–”Well, no, all rational people don’t assume that. In fact some rational people are loath to assume things that are not knowable and might very well be false.”
If one doesn’t agree that we live in a rational universe, then how can one be a rational person? Is it possible to be a rational person in an irrational universe? To be sure, it is POSSIBLE that objective truth is an illusion, but if it is an illusion, then rationality collapses.
—–”Now if you define rational to mean one who agrees with you and makes the assumption that the transcendent exists, then you are begging the question.”
No, I am simply pointing out that rationality has several starting points. If a person doesn’t believe that the whole is greater than the sum of all the parts, that a thing cannot be true and false at the same time, and that rationality exists independent of his biases, prejudices, and feelings, then he is not a rational person. These things cannot be proven anymore than the fact that anyone exists outside of our own mind can be proven. We simply accept it. These are self evident truths that all rational people assume without question.
—–”So what I gather is that your belief in the transcendent is so strongly held that you can not conceive of it being any other way: that it is “self evidently true and any rational person would assume it to be so” is self-evidently true … and so on forever with no further evidence or reasoning to back it up.”
You don’t back up self evident truths with evidence. Evidence is something that occurs once rationality is accepted. You can’t believe in evidence or science if you don’t believe in their metaphysical foundations. I suggest that you read “The Metaphysical foundations of modern science,” by Burtt.
—-”I, however, am a rational person, and the existence of the transcendent is not self-evidently true to me (nor is it’s absence self-evidently true to me, either, by the way), and therefore I do not assume it.”
Either truth and morality exist or they do not. If they do not exist, then there is no reason to discuss them or argue about them. By what standard do you challenge my assertions if there is no such thing as objective truth or objective morality. The very fact that you are arguing with me about it proves that you believe in objecitve truth. You are saying that my statements do not conform to “the truth.” Overwise, you would not attempt to refute what you perceive as my erroneous statements. If truth is whatever we want it to be, then there can be no rationality.
58
Bob O'H
05/06/2008
11:20 pm
StephenB -
It’s self-evident to me that you are an idiot. Is that a reliable truth?
(OK, I don’t think you are an idiot, but I hope you see my point)
59
William Wallace
05/06/2008
11:40 pm
Well, sir, this is a well written and well reasoned blog entry. I agree. Period. Thanks BarryA!
However, I fear that these very deep questions will lead to schisms.
Ah, never mind. We’re much bigger people than the close minded evolanders. We know that a seed planted today might take awhile before it sprouts, grows, and bears good fruit.
Meanwhile, who is afraid to disagree? Not this side.
60
Jack Golightly
05/06/2008
11:52 pm
WOW!!!
Some really good stuff here, Barry. I don’t think we’ll reach a satisfactory conclusion for everyone, but it is fun. Keeps the ol’ brain wavin’.
Question for Mr. Krebs:
So, where exactly do we start?
61
StephenB
05/07/2008
12:17 am
—-”Bob O’H: It’s self-evident to me that you are an idiot. Is that a reliable truth?”
—-”(OK, I don’t think you are an idiot, but I hope you see my point)”
A subjective impression or an interpretation of facts is not synonymous with a self evident truth. Think about what the words “self evident truth” really mean. Truth means that which happens to be the case. Self evident means that the proof is obvious upon inspection. What could be more reliable than that which is obviously true upon inspection?
Now you could argue that there are too few self-evident truths to be of any help. Or you could argue that a truth that is reputed to be self evident is either not true or not self evident. But you cannot reasonably argue against the proposition that a self evident truth is the best kind to have.
62
BarryA
05/07/2008
12:52 am
tragicmishap writes: “Lewis didn’t really believe there was a standard natural law which everyone believed.”
Actually, Lewis believed this very thing and stated as much in The Abolition of Man and Mere Christianity. You are simply wrong.
63
vividblue
05/07/2008
1:49 am
“Well, no, all rational people don’t assume that. In fact some rational people are loath to assume things that are not knowable and might very well be false.”
There is not one person alive of sound mind who does not assume something.
Please define “knowable”
Vivid
64
kairosfocus
05/07/2008
2:27 am
Hi Barry:
Excellent post, and it has sure provoked a striking series of comments on the roots of reason and morality.
STEP 1: On the first of these — WRT undeniably self-evident truths — I suggest Mr Krebs et al reflect on the claim that Josiah Royce drew so much from: “error exists.”
STEP 2: are there MORAL truths, more than mere personal or collective “values”?
ANS: Credibly, yes, and as will be shown shortly.
WHY: Lewisian observation — we quarrel, i.e disagree with vehemence, and try to show one another IN THE WRONG.