Awe-inspiring pictures from the Hubble telescope sometimes leave me at a loss to understand people who can see this and tenaciously continue cling to a belief in a materialistic view of life. Enjoy the pictures, but before you leave this post, first read a beautiful poem about stars by Madison Cawein.

The Stars

These--the bright symbols of man's hope and fame,
In which he reads his blessing or his curse--
Are syllables with which God speaks His name
In the vast utterance of the universe.

Image © NASA/Associated Press)

Comments

[Benjamin Ady]

Kim,

could you talk more about what you mean when you say "a materialistic view of life"? How do the hubble pictures operate against such a view?

[Kim Moreland]

Certainly, Benjamin Ady.
If matter is all there is, was, or ever will be--if all feelings, thoughts, and the will can be explained as a purely materialistic phenomenon, then by rights we would not act as though life mattered.

Materialists always point to God and the problem of pain as reasons for unbelief, but I'd say the problem of beauty would cause the Materialist a bigger pain. If we're just mere automatons (matter), why is the world and the universe, as we see through the telescope, so delightfully beautiful?

[Stephen]

Certainly, it does seem hard to believe that all these specks of material came together so randomly to create something as beautiful as the heavens, a daffodil, or a baby's smile.

All these point to some creative force behind it all. For there is so much in the created order that is non necessary yet pleasurable: a thousand kinds of hues, textures, sizes, and shapes.

[Benjamin Ady]

Kim,

I'm still trying to get my head around materialism. I should have taken that philosophy 101 class at University!

Would it be reasonable to say that both materialists and Kim Moreland probably would agree that they have an experience of wonder and beauty when they look at the Hubble photos, but that they would perhaps try to explain the *why* of that sense of wonder and beauty in different ways?

Would most materialists agree with your saying that they act or should act as though life doesn't matter?

I'm still not clear on how the hubble images operate against materialism. Do the Hubble images somehow lead you to the conclusion that something other than matter exists? What is the pathway of that leading--can you describe the connection?

Stephen--*why* is it hard to believe that the stuff we see in the Hubble images happened "randomly"?

What does "non necessary" mean in the sense that you used it? Not necessary for what?

[Jason Taylor]

"Stephen--*why* is it hard to believe that the stuff we see in the Hubble images happened "randomly"?"

Ben he is talking like a poet, not a lawyer. If it pleases you to say that talking like a poet is illegitimate because it is easily dissected do so. But that would be rather like blaming a rifle because you cannot hunt birds with it or blaming a shotgun because you cannot hunt deer.

[Benjamin Ady]

Jason,

I hope that I don't think talking like a poet is illegitimate. =)

Does "talking like a poet" mean, in a sense, that the speaker would prefer not to be questioned about their talk? I'm ok with that.

[Jason Taylor]

Well, in any case when someone finds something difficult to believe he is at a minumum talking about someone else's thought processes and asking "why is it hard to believe" is meaningless.

If you desire to point out that the fact that someone finds something hard to believe does not make it so, you would be right. However that does not mean that people's instincts are not a valid piece of evidence however. There fallible. There are more things in heaven and earth.

Now if in fact you DON'T find it hard to believe, that is of course your affair.

[Benjamin Ady]

Jason,

I don't follow you at all. Alas--probably I'm totally missing something. I don't understand how asking why something is hard to believe is meaningless. I find it difficult to believe that billions of people are going to experience eternal conscious torment in hell. If someone asks me why I find this hard to believe, I hope I would imagine they were expressing curiosity about me, and I like to think I would be happy to attempt an answer.

Of course you are right that there is probably very little correlation between how difficult it is to believe something and whether or not that something is so.

And I totally agree with you that this doesn't mean that people's instincts aren't valid evidence. Sometimes it makes a great deal of sense to follow our instincts on something. Of course other times it is an incredibly foolish pursuit--following our instincts. Both of these cases have certainly been true for me. And of course "instincts" is a fascinating word. I think we're both talking about the same thing when we use the term in this context, although its technical sense has it something much narrower than what we're talking about.

I like the quote directed at Horatio. I especially like this version of it: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy. There are transformers, more than meets the eye. Transformers, robots in disguise."

As an amateur postmodernist, I find *lots* of things hard to believe =)

;-)

[Jason Taylor]

Actually what I am pointing out to you is that you are sacrificing strategy to tactics because however well you defend this piece of ground, it is totally unnecessary and you are better to let the point go by. Digging here on this position is counterproductive because by defending it you make yourself look like a pendant and like a little bit of a bully even. You are arguing like an "INT"(as Myers-Briggs calls them) but INTs comprise only about 2% of the human race and have to allow for that when arguing with non-INTs. I already learned that lesson however ill I sometimes apply it, that if you hurt your opponents pride or if you demand a precision in speech that most people do not in fact have, then it can be counterproductive to your argument. Or worse can escalate the argument in a flamable direction.

Furthermore, the statement, "I find it hard to believe" was an expression of wonder. And if materialism is true it matters far less that someone believe it to be true then that someone should continue to possess this laudible quality as I am sure you do not desire that the human race be turned into a collection of soulless Igors. Furthermore this argument was old when your father's father was young and will continue to be old when your grandson is young. A demonstration of dialectical prowess in this argument by the means of making a superficially easy, but paradoxically imprudent dissection simply isn't worth it.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin Ady wrote: "If someone asks me why I find this hard to believe,"

OK, I'll bite.

[Rolley Haggard]

Benjamin,

Whatever other things in Christianity you find hard to believe, I hope you will not find the centerpiece – Christ and Him crucified for us for love’s sake – incredible, except in the sense that it is “too good to be true.” It IS too good to be true – but, incredibly, it is true nonetheless.

Before you conclude too much about some of the mysterious debated points of Christianity, drink deeply of this stupendous, incontestable, undreamt of verity into which even the angels to this very day labor to comprehend -- that God loves us more than His own life. That is the meaning of the cross – that there is no price God is unwilling to pay, no pain He is unwilling to suffer, to have His beloved (us) restored back to Him.

“In all our afflictions He was and is afflicted.” (Isaiah 63:9)

With you, Benjamin, I too would co-opt Shakespeare for such sublime considerations –

“What kind of god art thou, that sufferest more
Of mortal griefs than do thy worshippers?”
-- Henry the Fifth, Act iv, Scene 1, 258-259

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee

You are a delight.

I'm going to have to rephrase. To me "finding something hard to believe" rings of either wanting to believe it, and being unable to, or else wanting not to believe it in the face of really strong evidence that it is true. Neither of these is the case for me with regards to so called "eternal conscious suffering of the lost" (hereafter ECSOTL).

I think it would be more accurate to say I *used* to find it hard to believe. Back then, I *thought* there was strong evidence for it, and yet very strongly didn't want to believe it. Since then I've realized there's no evidence whatsoever for it, and since I still don't want to believe it, there's really not much point in doing so.

I'm guessing Stephen's "hard to believe" is more along the lines of wanting not to believe it, but there being some evidence that it's true. Depending, of course, on what one means by "random".

[Benjamin Ady]

Rolley,

thank you for your gracious words. I find myself mostly just fairly confused/befuddled by most of the various takes on the death of Christ/death of God thing.

But yes, I *would* like to believe that there is a very powerful person who loves me and everyone else and is going to fix things up somehow in the end. So in that sense, I find the better takes on "the gospel" (that is, the ones that don't leave me confused/befuddled) incredible in the sense that they are too good to be true, just as you said. For instance I find the Christianity of George Macdonald very beautiful. I am just unable to believe it anymore. Perhaps if I *were* able to believe it, I would be a bit closer to being able to pull off really amazing stuff like what Rachel Corrie did. Alas.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin, you said so much in so few words. I'm impressed, I'll try to emulate.

"Lee You are a delight."

I find that hard to believe. ;-)

"ECSOTL"

Oh, so this is "I don't believe in God because I don't believe in Hell"? Well, that's taken us so far away from the majesty of the Hubble images that they'll have to send up astronauts to fix us. But I'll try to keep us in orbit.

To Rolley you mentioned Rachel Corrie. If you believe that what she did was "good", then the absence of "good" would be "bad". You can't have one without the other.

If there is no good or bad - if, as Kim said originally, life is simply materialistic for you - then beauty is just an evolutionary response to be attracted to things that help you survive. And indeed, a young woman of reproductive age giving her life for a political cause would be tragic - except, whoops, there's no tragedy because that would require the existence of "bad".

But once you admit the existence of "good" and "bad" - particularly when you realize that such ideas are not particular to Benjamin Ady, but are universal to humankind - you must admit the existence of ultimate "good" and ultimate "bad". And as Rolley indicated (far more poetically than I, as usual), ultimate good and ultimate bad collided on a Friday afternoon - and good won.

The alternative to this position is that beauty, the kind of beauty Kim pointed us to, is really an illusion. And for that, life would be boring - as boring as Hell. (And I do believe that the torment of Hell is largely boredom. See here for a Rolley-like take on it: http://servant.org/pa_oaf.htm )

But I understand where you're coming from. Whenever I've sinned, I desperately want to escape punishment. (Even now, I'm worried about the length of this post, and how to atone.) If there's no ECSOTL, then I don't need to worry. But then, neither would someone who murders my wife and gets away with it. So there is beauty in justice, although we rarely see examples of it on Earth.

And there is justice in beauty, too: life is not all suffering, since it can be temporarily alleviated by looking at images linked to so graciously by Kim.

[Kim Moreland]

Great discussion. One last thing I would like to post about the conflict in worldviews is something I found this morning while skimming through St. Anselm's *Cur Deus Homo.* It doesn't mention beauty but belief, faith, and dogma (after all, I'd say the drama in the dogma). I'm taking this from the Introduction by Sidney Norton Deane:
"[F]aith precedes all reflection and all discussion concerning religious things. The unbelievers, [Anselm] says, strive to understand because they do not believe; we, on the contrary, strive to understand because we believe. They and we have the same object in view; but inasmuch as they do not believe, they cannot arrive at their goal, which is to understand the dogma. The unbeliever will never understand. In religion faith plays the part played by experience in the understanding of the things of this world. The blind man cannot see the light, and therefore does not understand it; the deaf-mute, who has never perceived sound, cannot have a clear idea of sound. Similarly, not to believe means not to perceive, and not to perceive means not to understand. Hence, we do not reflect in order that we may believe; on the contrary, we believe in order that we may arrive at knowledge."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1033&layout=html

[Ben W]

LeeQuod said, 'But once you admit the existence of [universal ideas of] "good" and "bad" ... you must admit the existence of ultimate "good" and ultimate "bad"'.

LQ, can you flesh this out some for me? I don't see how B follows from A.

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee,

I'm going to say ditto to Ben W.

And also basically the same thing regarding "If you believe that what she did was "good", then the absence of "good" would be "bad". You can't have one without the other."

You're saying you can't have "good" without "bad"? Why? That sounds really depressing.

[LeeQuod]

Wow, both Ben and Benjamin together! But I'm still trying to be parsimonious with my word budget; a semester of Philosophy 101 in a tweet.

Gentlemen, the moment you apply the category "good" to something, you also create the category "not good", and the possibility of comparing items that fit into each category. (See my discussion of the Tao with Andy for what happens when categories are eliminated.) You can argue that "not good" could be neutral, but I could toss up examples (such as the death of Rachel Corrie) and ask if you truly feel neutral about them. If you try to avoid saying anything is "not good", you rob "good" of all meaning. It's like that line in the movie "The Incredibles", where Dash's mom says "Everyone's special," and he replies "Which is another way of saying 'No one is.'"

And as to ultimates, if Rachel Corrie had merely come away scared, would that be "more good" than if she had had her leg broken, which would still be "more good" than her dying? So "good" and "bad" are relative. To judge something as "good" or "bad" is to have a standard - an ultimate, unless you're willing to say that one thing can always be better than some previous thing, in a kind of Zeno's Paradox.

Materialism tries to throw "good" and "bad" out the front door, then sneak them in the side door by saying materialism is better than religion.

So, Ben and Benjamin, if you're true materialists then you're willing to say that your response to the supposed beauty of the Hubble photos is merely neurons in your brain firing in response to some evolutionary adaptation that equates certain patterns to high survival value, and has no more relation to a notion of "good" than your reaction to grisly photos of a murder scene relates to "bad".

I thought about not replying to either of you, but I decided that would be "bad". ;-)

[Ben W]

LQ says, 'To judge something as "good" or "bad" is to have a standard - an ultimate, unless you're willing to say that one thing can always be better than some previous thing, in a kind of Zeno's Paradox.'

Meh, I'm not a materialist, and I still have to disagree with you. First, I don't really understand how Zeno's is relevant here - why can't there be ever-increasing good things? We have positive and negative numbers, but there isn't a "most positive" or "most negative" number, only the concept of "infinity", meaning "without end". Or for something more sense-ible, most humans like the smell of baking bread, and most think poo smells bad. Does this mean that there exists ultimately bad or good smells?

Besides, you can have standards without ultimates. Good and bad can be measured relative to each other, not necessarily relative to ultimates.

Last, the essence of the Euthyphro dilemna: is a commandment good because God commands it, or did God command it because it is good? If the first, then good is arbitrary, and there is no ultimate good or evil, only God's will. If the second, then there exists a higher moral order that God has to abide by (even if we define good as part of God's nature).

[LeeQuod]

Ben W wrote: "I still have to disagree with you."

Good. ;-)

"why can't there be ever-increasing good things?"

If our minds could grasp infinity, our minds would be infinite. Are they?

"Last, the essence of the Euthyphro dilemna"

I'm with Aquinas; that should be "Euthyphro fallacy".

(chirp!)

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee,

It feels like you very much *want* there to be some ultimate standard of good and bad. Am I getting that right?

I'm not a materialist. At least I don't think I am. I wasn't trying to stake out a position. I was trying to understand others' takes on things.

Dividing things up into categories generally tends to break down, in my opinion. I mean it works to an extent, but ... it also tends to break down/stop working at certain points.

I don't agree with you about the good/bad thing. It makes sense to me that we can't really imagine a world with all good and no bad. But it also makes sense to me that such a world is possible. I mean even in the Christian story, wasn't that theoretically the state of things before the fall of Lucifer? I'm not saying there wouldn't be a *category* "not good". I'm just saying there could be nothing *in* that category.

I don't think one has to be willing to be pinned down on the materialism/not materialism thing. I mean to say that I think it's possible to hold what seem to be mutually exclusive ideas to both be true. I can both imagine that everything is random/extreme Darwinism etc. AND I can believe that some things are good and some things are bad apart from a purely Darwinian explanation for why they are good and bad. There's no need to nail things down so tightly and clearly, in my opinion. I can see, however, that others have that need more than I do (perhaps)

Maybe it's a sort of generational thing. It makes sense to me that my parents generation were more into having things nailed down and clear than my generation is.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin Ady wrote: "It feels like you very much *want* there to be some ultimate standard of good and bad. Am I getting that right?"

Absolutely not. My preference would be that it all be relative, and that I would get to choose for myself what is "good" and what is "bad", to benefit me. And, to choose for others, too, also in a way that benefits me.

But then, I'm the chief of sinners. (Move over, St. Paul.)

"But it also makes sense to me that such a world is possible."

And apparently that is the world that is to come after the Final Judgement.

"There's no need to nail things down so tightly and clearly, in my opinion."

It's only necessary to nail things down for life-and-death situations. (I'm assuming that were you in a horrific car accident - a strong possibility in Seattle, I'm sorry to say - you wouldn't want the doctors and nurses changing their minds or tossing a coin or dithering at length.)

But this *is* a life-and-death situation; your life, and the lives of all with whom you come into contact.

And several past and/or present Point bloggers are roughly in your generation, so it's not true that it's a generational thing. Clearly there are young people who care whether or not someone goes to Hell.

[Steve (SBK)]

*sigh*,
I see a disturbing trend in the conversations I join too late: they usually die.
Not reading too much into that, I'll plug ahead. (Maybe it's because I have a lot to comment on and things get WAY too long - if anyone out there reads this whole thing... Greetings).

B.Ady,
You asked Stephen: "*why* is it hard to believe that the stuff we see in the Hubble images happened "randomly"?"
Stephen had said: "Certainly, it does seem hard to believe that all these specks of material came together so randomly to create something as beautiful as the heavens, a daffodil, or a baby's smile."

Actually a very good, deep question. Doesn't it relate to our concept of beauty and purpose? That pieces of meat should look up or out or in and just *think* about them, and enjoy them, and wonder in them. "Hard", here is a relative term, but isn't it easier to believe purpose backs things we find beautiful? Isn't it harder to believe, not only that beauty (and not just interstellar cosmic dust, but a baby's smile) is random, but that our belief faculties are random? True, there may be a random explanation. But then, our knowledge of that randomness is also random, so whys and hows don't really matter.

I have to agree with LQ about materialism, which, if true, crushes the very concepts of good and bad - and that all is an illusion of meaning, purpose or importance. True, no one disagreeing with him claims to be a materialist, but materialists handwave when they bring in these concepts (and the very concept of concepts, if that makes sense).

But LQ,
I think I have to focus you more.
It might be sounding to some like you're promoting a good/bad dualism.
I'm pretty sure we could all agree that Bad is a negation of Good, just as Dark is a negation of Light, not the other way around. That is, Bad is an absence of Good just as Dark is an absence of Light. Light is not the absence of Dark. The concepts are defined by the existence of the positive. And I think that's what you're saying - it just might come across as 'dualistic'.

Ben,
you asked: "why can't there be ever-increasing good things? We have positive and negative numbers, but there isn't a "most positive" or "most negative" number, only the concept of "infinity", meaning "without end"."

I think the question is a little off because sequences are different from hierarchies, or, accumulations are different than category/kind. There's no reason why we can't have ever-increasing good things... and that's probably a good definition of heaven. But, unconditional love is always good, and always better than hating. It is just expressed in different ways. What kind of 'ever-increasing good things' were you thinking?

Ben,
you also said: "Besides, you can have standards without ultimates. Good and bad can be measured relative to each other, not necessarily relative to ultimates."
In other words, everything is relative to everything else. Which is the same as saying everything is equally valuable, which is that nothing is valuable. Assuredly, standards can be agreed to without ultimates... but ultimately, they are not standards.

which brings us to Euthyphro,
Euthyphro , I think, focuses too much on Divine Command Theory, and not enough on Divine Come-and-Die Theory.
That is, the whole talk of morality always gets bogged down into: Good = list of dos. Bad = list of don'ts. Good, Love, God - is more dynamic than that. He doesn't just say 'such and such' is good and must be done to be good. He loves us and dies for us. He *is* Good. God is Spirit, and His worshipers must worship in Spirit and in Truth.
(So, I think you're confused, Ben, when you say that something God *is*, is somehow apart from God, since God *is* the standard and the source of all Being and Category and UnCategory and yet, the Ineffable).

B.Ady,
You said: "I can both imagine that everything is random/extreme Darwinism etc. AND I can believe that some things are good and some things are bad apart from a purely Darwinian explanation for why they are good and bad."
Do you mean you can 'imagine' one scenario and 'believe' the other? Or do you 'believe' both scenarios to be true? I think it's lazy thinking to not follow your beliefs to their logical conclusion. Not only that, it's life-destroying to hold, consistently, that ultimately all is random and meaningless.

Finally, B.Ady, you said: "Maybe it's a sort of generational thing. It makes sense to me that my parents generation were more into having things nailed down and clear than my generation is."
Huh. Were I in LQs generation, I'd find that incredibly insulting.
In fact, I do find it incredibly insulting to my generation. Why?
"Maybe it`s a sort of ability to think things through thing". Maybe we're all a snotty-nosed whining generation who complain: "Boohoo, poor me, life is hard, why can't I always have all my wishes fulfilled continually?".
And *maybe*, it's our inability to nail something down, or to admit to the ability to nail something or Someone down (like to a cross - but that would be admitting to sin, and that discussion might be too relative... or relevant?)

[jason taylor]

Whether or not the statement that Andy's parents generation were "more into having things nailed down and clear" is an insult, it's truth is dubious. Avowed Relativists have often seemed to me to be paradoxically less "nuanced" then non-relativists. In any case the latest generation could remember that their parents generation went through Vietnam.

In any case things are never "nailed down and clear". Even The Greatest Generation fought at least as much for honor and revenge as to deliver the world from evil, the full measure of which had not yet been revealed. At that time Finland was theoretically on their side and Russia theoretically on ours. Pre-Israel was at war with Germany by default while almost being at war with Britain over the White Paper. And several of our allies cared more about fighting each other then fighting the Germans. Which points our grandfather's generation didn't really think about, so it may be true that they preferred things "nailed down and clear" as nuance was kind of a luxury item.

Be that as it may your father's generation at least did NOT live in a world where everything was nailed down and clear. And while there were those who thought it was, they were probably more common in the left then the right.

In any case, if you think your Father's Generation thought things "nailed down and clear" read a Blackford Oakes novel.

[Ben W]

Steve says, "In other words, everything is relative to everything else. Which is the same as saying everything is equally valuable, which is that nothing is valuable. "

You totally lost me on sentence two. "Relative" is not even remotely equal to "equally valuable". Even if you believe, as LQ does, that there exists an "ultimate" good and evil (I think I agree on good, not on evil), you probably still believe in some shades of gray in between. Take the tale of Robin Hood.. he steals from the rich to feed the starving poor. Not exactly an upstanding citizen, but more moral than letting the rich use the law to overtax the poor.

Jason is making some of my points for me. If the USSR was bad, then why weren't we fighting them during WW2? Obvious answer: even though they were bad guys, we needed them to defeat the Germans, who were worse bad guys.

I just disagree with LQ's statement: that once you believe in "good" and "bad", then you must admit there is an ultimate Good and Bad. And I'm not arguing the opposite is true; I'm not convinced either way.

[jason taylor]

"Obvious answer: even though they were bad guys, we needed them to defeat the Germans, who were worse bad guys."

Or at least they were more fond of war(as opposed to subversion) and therefore more directly dangerous to outsiders in the short term.

Yet at the same time they were nationalists rather then internationalists and therefore, though more appealing to Germans unappealing to non-Germans and therefore their Political Religion was limited enough to be eradicated by military means once those means were available.

Both of which were considerations of prudence rather then of the moral qualities of each regime.

[jason taylor]

And actually the tale of Robin Hood sounds suspiciously like a revenge fantasy like most of those "lovable rogue" stories. But whether it was less immoral then serfdom is beside the point. Not to mention that real outlaws were as apt to rob honest traders(who were the real counter to the Nobility)as they were to rob robber barons and probably more so.

[jason taylor]

And yes I do believe in "some shades of grey in between". Otherwise I would have to renounce the belief in Original Sin.

[Benjamin Ady]

Wow--I was reading through and the sentences that caught me and confused me were "In other words, everything is relative to everything else. Which is the same as saying everything is equally valuable, which is that nothing is valuable.". I was going to ask about it, but then I got down to Ben's comment, and I see he already did.

I seem to have gotten into some trouble with my statement about generations. I didn't mean to offend anybody or make any value statements. Do you guys think there are any big differences between those who grew up in the 50's and 60's, and those who grew up in the 80's and 90's, in terms of how they approach life, the universe, and everything? Or do you think trying to name such differences tends toward overgeneralization?

Seems to me that if you're not super committed to holding any position really strongly, then you need not necessarily follow your ideas through to their logical extremities. What works in moderation may not work in extremes.

[jason taylor]

"You totally lost me on sentence two. "

The point, Ben is that relativists can be quite dogmatic about their relativism at times. Whereas one seldom meets anyone who when pressed will say everything is either absolutely good(only God is absolutely good; even things which are not decayed from their purpose and therefore evil are still limited) or absolutely evil(there is no such thing). Most people say "this is better" or "this is worse". Moreover some of the same people that are most enthusiastic for relativism are the most apt to be self-righteous when it suits their political prejudices to be so.

[jason taylor]

"Moreover some of the same people that are most enthusiastic for relativism are the most apt to be self-righteous when it suits their political prejudices to be so."

When Reagan visited the German cemetery I could recognize two competing points of view. One was that they were fighting for Nazis and Nazis were Nazis. The other was that they were enemies that had died well and magnanimity is part of the warrior code.

But the thing was many liberals recognized only the first and not the second. And were quite shrill about that. Now of course a liberal is not the same as a relativist. Not to mention that politicians seek an opening when they can get it. But there is enough overlap between liberalism and relativism for one to think that many of the loudest were relativists at least when it became more fashionable. Not to mention if it happened today, they would be just as loud and still be relativists. And they would still not accept that there were two sides to the dispute; not just reject one side but not even accept that it is worth discussing. That is what I mean about relativists often being less nuanced.

[LeeQuod]

So Kim sees some beautiful pictures from the Hubble, and thinks "I'll post a link to these at The Point, with a small dig at those New Atheist types. Shouldn't be too controversial. It surely won't result in a discussion of the origins of aesthetics, differences in generational philosophical biases, medieval thief folk-heroes, or how Roosevelt and Churchill should have had Stalin shot instead of sitting with him and smiling."

Dunno how this works, Kim, but if you need help paying for the favors you now owe Gina, Shadow Editor, et. al., for all these comments they've had to approve, let me know and I'll send you a check. Lattes all around can get expensive.

Steve (SBK) wrote: "I see a disturbing trend in the conversations I join too late: they usually die."

Think of it as making such a brilliant point that it's unassailable, SBK. (OK, actually that's a troll to see if someone will quote Viscount Morley on compromise.)

"But LQ, I think I have to focus you more."

You're right; I did sound dualistic - which I did not intend. But my argument, which was already growing long, was not yet fully developed.

"Were I in LQs generation, I'd find that incredibly insulting."

I took it as a kind of begrudging compliment.

And I won't subject everyone to a rigorous analysis of why a subjective "good" must eventually have an ultimate "Good" as its point of reference. I'll refer everyone to the "Phaedrus" dialogue of Plato - as a start.

Finally (from me), a poem to go alongside Kim's:

When I heard the learn'd astronomer,
When the proofs, the figures, were ranged in columns before me,
When I was shown the charts, the diagrams, to add, divide, and measure them,
When I sitting heard the learned astronomer where he lectured with much applause in the lecture room,
How soon unaccountable I became tired and sick,
Till rising and gliding out I wander'd off by myself,
In the mystical moist night-air, and from time to time,
Look'd up in perfect silence at the stars.

-- Walt Whitman

[Steve (SBK)]

First off: Yay! The thread's still alive (and what a thread, as alluded lately by LQ)

Ben,
I agree that there is not 'ultimate' evil, as in 'supreme' evil (comparative to God, but opposite). I think we're all on the same page, and I think LQs emphasis was that, ultimately, something can be evil.

My point (in which I lost you and B.Ady) was that, *if* there are no absolutes/ultimates, everything is relative, and *if* everything is relative... (wait for it)... *everything* is relative. This means relatives are relative.

Let me explain...

Given relativism, value is only determined by perspective, and there is no *right* perspective, therefore there is no *right* value, therefore values are meaningless.
It makes not one whit difference whether someone values hurting or helping people.
Enjoying torture has no more or less value than enjoying shoe shining or canoeing, because a person's "health" and "human rights" have as much value as a supernova or a neutrino. Given relativism, it's not *wrong* to hurt someone, it's just relative to helping them. Given relativism, it`s not *right* to value not being tortured, it`s just relative to not valuing the taste of cotton-candy. Everything is relative, including the amount of value we place on things, from each relative perspective.

I`m not, of course, saying that there will not be moral dilemmas or shades of gray. But morality only makes sense where morals are ultimately moral, just as hues only make sense in a world of color. Relativism, riding on the coattails of materialism, cuts its own throat because it presents a single-shaded gray world where colors are an illusion.

I may be wrong but I'm pretty sure that's the way LQ was thinking of the term 'ultimate'.

B.Ady and LQ,
regarding the generations statement... yeah, I think I took it the wrong way. It sounded patronizing and condescending: "Just relax man. You're worked up over nothing." (I can see a begrudged compliment).
Perhaps though, the difference is something like less apathy in the older generations? "Meh, it'll probably work itself out. Pass the spritzer."
Yeah, I'll go with apathy.
That leads into your closing comments Benjamin:
"Seems to me that if you're not super committed to holding any position really strongly, then you need not necessarily follow your ideas through to their logical extremities. What works in moderation may not work in extremes."

You seem to want the truth, but aren`t really committed to pursuing it. Are you or aren't you? It *seems* to me that if a position is a bad one, because of what it entails, then it is worth the effort to think things through...

Nice Whitman poem LQ. Thanks.

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee,

Love the Whitman--thank you!

[Ben W]

Whoa, I didn't make the jump from "actions can be judged relative to each other" to Moral Relativism (in the same sense that I'm crazy for democracy, but not a Democrat). In fact, I don't think either Ben Ady or I ever said anything about Relativism. Extreme Moral Relativism says that there are no objective rights or wrongs, but I'm saying that some things are *more* wrong or *less* wrong.. this doesn't make them neutral, though.

In other words, actions can be judged relative to each other, not relative to personal or cultural opinions.

[kim moreland]

LQ, go for it! Gina is happy to do her editing thing which I can say because I've worked with her a lot of years now.

Steve SBK, I'm always happy to see your comments--if ever something dies out and you want to add something, I will start a new blog.

[Benjamin Ady]

"Given relativism, value is only determined by perspective, and there is no *right* perspective, therefore there is no *right* value, therefore values are meaningless."

Steve,

Does anyone actually buy into the type of relativism you are describing?

When I think of things like right and wrong, good and bad as being relative, I'm thinking about the fact that things happen in contexts, within systems, and those contexts and systems ought to be taken into account. I'm thinking about the fact that people have stories, and they do or don't do certain things within the context of those stories.

... For instance, Christian recording artist Ray Boltz, who publicly came out as gay last year, said in a recent interview with Tony Sweet that while the response of many Christians has been cold and unkind, he's not super stressed or disturbed by that--that it makes sense to him, because it took him (Ray, that is) 30 years to reach the point where he was able to be kind toward himself as a gay person. He said one could hardly expect his old fan base to make a transition which took Ray 30 years in one year, or in 5 years. He's putting their unkind reactions into a context.

Or another example. The soldiers who tortured and abused prisoners at Abu Graib have been called by some "bad apples". It's easier in a certain sense, to categorize them that way--"They are 'bad'". To me, it makes more sense to recognize that they were operating within a bad system--a system where the people in the very highest positions of authority were authorizing and encouraging the very types of behavior which they did. Yes, what they did was horrible, AND it was horrible within a system--relative to a larger system/story.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin Ady wrote: "Does anyone actually buy into the type of relativism you are describing?"

Educators.

"I'm thinking about the fact that people have stories,"

And when you put them all together, throughout all of history, do they make up a larger story? If so, what is *its* context?

[Benjamin Ady]

"And when you put them all together, throughout all of history, do they make up a larger story?"

Nope. =)

[Steve (SBK)]

Kim, thanks!

B-Dubya, allow me a detour, and I'll be back.

B-Ady,
"Does anyone actually buy into the type of relativism you are describing?"

Would you find this kind of relativism I describe... 'hard to believe'? *Why*?
All I'm saying is it is the direct result of a random, materialistic universe. I just thought we were all stargazing, big questions were being asked, and I was trying to focus them - in the larger context.

And that larger context is, believe it or not, denied by some people - they do buy into the relativism. They don't think we can condemn history's atrocities. They don't think people can be bad. They're just a product of their society. Who are we to judge?

But I agree with you two Bs about looking at the contextualization and degrees of actions.
I *think* it was Peter Kreeft who I first heard describing good moral actions as: the right behavior (intrinsic act) at the right time (context) for the right reason (motive).
Morality doesn't happen in a vacuum on cookie cut scenarios. Each person has a story. Our (humanity's) great pitfall is always trying to follow the Law and not the Spirit, thinking rules will make us good.

I don't really think we disagree, since we're all condemning Relativism.

And so, Ben W, I think I read you imprecise (like I did LQ). I was just trying to focus the point that actions cannot be judged relative to each other (or anything else), IF there is no ultimate arbiter/judge... because any human created standard is, ultimately, arbitrary. That is, I was focusing on the thread as "Life, the Universe and Everything", the Big (Hubble) Picture.

So, do we agree?

(And I just saw Benjamin's last comment (May 29,2009 9:21PM). . . are you serious Ben? Because honestly answering nope to LQs question is the Relativist position... or were you joking?)

[Benjamin Ady]

Lee,

Is there a sort of consensus among educators? None of the profs or teachers I know at all well would go in for what you describe.

[LeeQuod]

Benjamin Ady wrote: "Nope. =)"

Ah, I see. Well, since Rolley has been otherwise occupied of late, I'll have to supply his favorite Shakespeare quote from Macbeth, Act V, Scene v:

"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."

You and that Scot would be great fun at parties.

So you're saying, Benjamin, that individual stories have context that supply meaning, but that at some point meaning suddenly ceases. Or, that there are systems around contexts, but those systems do not integrate into a larger system. So we can only consider context-within-the-small, not context-within-the-large.

Well, surprise - you're not the only one who's read Kierkegaard. Neener, neener.

To take the most obvious counter-example, would you say that the Holocaust should have no meaning for Jews today, since they're not living through it? Similarly for slavery and today's African Americans?

Are you saying that Jason Taylor is wasting his time? I.e., that Santayana was wrong, and that there are no "lessons of history" to learn?

Golly. Are you *sure* you want to go there?

[Jason Taylor]

"Are you saying that Jason Taylor is wasting his time? I.e., that Santayana was wrong, and that there are no "lessons of history" to learn?

Golly. Are you *sure* you want to go there?"

The chief lesson of history is that Original Sin is the most verifiable doctrine in the Christian Faith. Other then that, "lessons" seem to me to be to a large degree mundane, notably adding to the Ruling Classes political, economic, and military bag of tricks. As T.E Lawrance said,"We have ten-thousand years of experience at fighting behind us and if we must fight we have no excuse for not fighting well." As American citizens are theoretically the ruling class and practically a check to the ruling class it at least behooves them to learn history for this purpose.

But lessons from history are a sketchy concept because there is to much temptation to learn the lesson you have already determined to live. There are to many complexities and the closer you look the more there are. One is talking about the interaction of billions of people for untold generations. Which is not to say there aren't lessons from history only to say that one should be careful about such things. Which perhaps is a lesson for itself.

In any case seeking knowlege for it's own sake and learning about the lives of people strange to you need not have a justification for it is an expression of civilization. It is a sign that society has reached the survivability that makes it practical to devote large ammounts of research to what is in large part a recreation, and a sign that humanity has a soul and is not limited to purely physical pleasures.

History is also about stories. I always thought the best spy stories were the "true" ones or at least the non-fictional(several of these have several versions which is natural to the vocation of people who fight for the American Way, hopefully Justice, but probably not Truth). I have long liked Herodatus' stories better then Homers(or at least the adaptations I have read; unfortunatly I haven't got around to even reading translations yet).

Furthermore, and related to this, history is about "The traditions of the tribe". This is easily abused and it should be made clear that it is not the same as scholarly research. At the same time it provides commonality and structure.

A crude example of this sort of thing is one incident where there were men from two British regiments drinking together in the same bar, and someone shouted out "broken square"*. This naturally could not be born and the only honorable way to settle it was to have a bar fight.

*Apparently there are very few instances of a British formation scattered by cavalry. As long as discipline holds a row of serried bayonets will usually scare horses away, horses never having heard of The Honor Of The Regiment.

[Ben W]

Hmm.. I think mankind definitely has (will have) a story to tell, but what its place will be in the entire universe, I can't say. And of course, if I'm wrong about Christianity and how everything ends, there may not be anyone around to tell it.

Steve says, "I was just trying to focus the point that actions cannot be judged relative to each other (or anything else), IF there is no ultimate arbiter/judge... because any human created standard is, ultimately, arbitrary."

Why can't you judge actions relative to each other? Of course, as we're imperfect, we'd end up with imperfect judgments, but that's what we have now anyway. Until Christ returns or we see God more perfectly, our judgments will be flawed.

But that's the problem - how are we supposed to judge things in the meantime, and is it even possible to convince non-Christians of the morality of our God, given the history of the church and O.T.?

[Jason Taylor]

Santayana's remark was a misquote according to Wiki though I don't know the original. In any case that quote is not completely right as in his old age a large part of the griefs of the time were caused by the abuse of history for the benefit of ideology(one of the chief ways of misusing "the traditions of the tribe"). This continues today and arguably many countries would be better off if they were as forgetful as Americans.

In any case, when one insists that history or any other discipline must have a justification other then the fact that people are interested in it, one has reduced civilization to the instrumental level. I am only wasting my time insofar as my talent is kept only to myself when it could give benefit(including pleasure) to others. And while it is difficult to arrange that as sometimes my soliloquys roll over people's heads, hopefully it is not impossible.

[Jason Taylor]

The "history of the church and the OT" you refer to Ben is a judgement by an interpretation of Christian standards. And the things you alude to are things which have plenty of counterparts among unbelievers but which are often not even considered worthy of remorse. If in fact unbelievers refuse to listen on that ground then they have already bought into part of Christianity.

In any case being shocked that the Church has sinners in it is like being shocked that the AA has drunkards.

[Benjamin Ady]

Let me back up a bit and say my "Nope" was in response to a question about the possibility of some sort of ultimate or overarching metastory. I'm perfectly happy to allow lower levels of meta-story. I'm not even really saying that there *definitely* isn't an ultimate meta-story. I'm more saying it must remain a purely hypothetical concept--much like n-dimensional space with n > 14. I just chose 14 for the heck of it, by the way. The point is, we can't really get our heads around even 5 dimensional space, even if we can do the math in it. There's more than enough super fascinating stuff right down here in 4 dimensions anyway. And we can't really get our heads around ultimate meta-story. As Jason pointed out, we have enough trouble getting much of anything at all right in much lower levels of meta-story.

Jason--I'm intrigued with this notion you seem to be presenting that those who judge "the history of the church and the OT" must necessarily be doing by way of Christian standards. Can you expand on that? It seems to be related to this idea that my aunt keeps trying to sell me that most/all the good stuff in the "West" is based almost entirely on Christian doctrine/teaching/ethics etc.

[LeeQuod]

To tie this to the "Open Book Thread", I'm reading Edward Feser's "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism". I'm only partway through, but the first two or three chapters have solid answers to many questions raised above.

And Benjamin Ady, you should go back through past threads at The Point to discover that indeed, educators (particularly at the elementary and middle-school levels) are indeed embracing relativism.

Jason, you always come through.

SBK, excellent contributions as expected.

I do think we need a Hubble huddle.

[jason taylor]

Benjamin, the concept that Crusades and Inquisitions are wrong is a function of the idea that such things are at odds with Christianity in itself. There is no particular reason for instance why someone should not fight for his religion instead of his country unless it is somehow felt that said religion itself would find such things uneasy.

And in any case saying sorry to Chinese and Moslems for being imperialistic, to Mahrettas for being warlike, or even to Iroquois for being vicious is more then a little eccentric. The real people who make such arguments tend to be secular humanists who were brought up in the West or their foreign imitators. In any case the sum of the complaint is, when one thinks about it, not that Christians are particularly sinful as humans go but that they do not as it happens have a continuous habit of being spectacularly holy. But in any case the general behavior of non-believers leads one to conclude that if they are irritated at "the history of the church and the OT", one must conclude that they are mouthing a tribal grudge or they are expecting the Church to abide by different standards. Which is of course how it is expected to behave, but criticism from non-believers in this point can be a bit cheeky.

And in any case collective repentance is often a dangerous habit as it rather focuses on other people's sins, which is an easy and rather pleasant exercise sometimes but not necessarily edifying. Of course the Pope has several times done this, but at least he is the constitutional monarch of the Catholic Church and thus a reasonable representative despite my Protestant dubiousness at the idea of a monarchial church.

As for the OT, one cannot pick and choose which parts of the Bible one accepts and the New Testament presumes the Old Testament. If one assumes the right to pick and choose, one ends up believing in Prevailing Opinion.

[jason taylor]

The point Ben is that "the history of the church and O.T." has so many counterparts among unbelievers(who often come from religions that condone such things)that their focusing on "the history of the church and the OT" must in fact be based not on the precepts of their own culture but on those of Christianity.

To take an example. If a bully hits me and I hit him back, that is what the bully would expect me to do(unless he is also a coward in which case he has fallen below general morality as well as specifically Christian). If my preacher reproves me that is his vocation. But if the bully finds out I am Christian and says, "Your supposed to turn the other cheek" then he is being absurd, because he is not in a position to rebuke me.