My response to Von, which lacks any reference to sushi or pizza

I could not come up with any witty references, my apologies.

To start, I refer my children back to the introduction to a previous post on the topic. This has become a whole thread, you can tell by the photos of letters flying through the air.

In response to Von’s writing.

It's Not Pineapple Pizza

Dear Von,

A quick point of contention. You stated, ”The series began with his statement that believing in religion was no more important than liking pizza or sushi.”

What I actually said was as follows:

“Arguing over religion strikes me as the same as arguing over whether sushi or pizza is better. That really depends on the person you are asking, and I doubt there is any way to objectively answer the question. Does that mean I think all religions are created equal? No, but all most likely have value.”

This was immediately following a paragraph in which I explained that I doubt the church we attend has a unique claim to truth or wisdom, and that I suspected many large, well established religions still exist because they offer valuable metaphors and lessons for life, as well as a community to nourish, support and help us thrive. In my first response, I followed up by arguing that “I tend to be more literal in my understanding that Jesus is the way to heaven, not any one religion. And so I say, ‘Sushi, pizza, a hamburger, take your pick; just don’t starve to death.’” In this case starving to death would be rejecting all the benefits of religion, the wisdom therein, as well as the community offered by it out of a sense of pride or stubbornness.

I am not sure that really squares with the succinct summary statement from your last post.

You are correct, the use of moral in my statement, which I used in its modern iteration, does make my definition confusing. I was using it in the sense of “relating to principles of right and wrong" and accept the reiterated idea from your post: “A belief in the rightness or wrongness of a given action based on innate principle.”

From here, it seems we are saying a very similar thing, in different words. Yes, my explanations for ethical beliefs require reasons, and morality does not; the reason generally coming down to “God.” At that point, however, I am not sure that the reasoning I gave for those examples require additional reasons, and we are going to go full circle. Intentionally causing harm to others violates the Golden Rule, which is the presupposed reason for almost any ethical endeavor. You may argue the Golden Rule is morality, since it was taught be Jesus when he said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is a widely accepted belief and value that undergirds the actions of almost all ethical behavior, even amongst those with no belief in God or the Bible.

I am now going to follow the digression, and speak to fornication, as well homosexuality and sodomy, as they are not one and the same. Sodomy is, by definition, “anal or oral copulation with another person.” There is no requirement that it be between two males. Homosexuality is attraction to someone of the same sex, and also gets defined as sexual activity between two people of the same sex (again, no need to be male). There is also no actual need for sodomy to take place in a homosexual relationship for them to be qualify as a homosexual couple. As for fornication, that is sexual activity (often limited to intercourse) between two unmarried people, biological sex being completely irrelevant.

Thus, homosexuals might participate in sodomy, as may heterosexuals. Homosexuals, like heterosexuals, can fornicate. And currently, in 2024 in the United States, both hetero- and homosexuals can have sex without fornicating, as both groups can be married, although married people of either sex can still participate in sodomy.

From here, we have a lot of reasons (somewhat ironic to my view that reasons are given, especially as a lot of those reasons would need further reasoning, such as the idea that not being able to produce children is inherently bad) for why you believe sodomy to be bad, with some being more common sensical than others; but in the end, it comes down to “morals” in the sense of “God and the Bible say so.” The question then becomes, what of homosexual couples who do not engage in sodomy, due to the fact that some people are not interested in sexual activity? They are a very small minority, to be sure, but they do exist. Is this still a moral issue, and if so, on what grounds? The injunction to multiply and replenish the earth comes to mind as a possible explanation, but I will defer to you on that.

That is probably enough on the very long digression, back to the actual topic at hand!

This still leaves the question, what to do for those who do not have the same belief system, to persuade to act more ethically? What of those behaviors deemed immoral by the Bible, which get little to no mention, such as those in my last post?

I am not sure that ethics do rely on morals completely, and it was actually your statement “there have been moral systems (or at least cultures) which taught that those were good things” that got me thinking on it, albeit in reverse. Do ethical structures require a foundation in eternal morality, or can they be based on long running cultural values, so ingrained in a people and person that the foundation is strong enough to create a near universal understanding and framework of ethics and ethical behaviors?

This will not serve in a comparison between the values of say the Greeks and Japanese, each will obviously favor their own. Internally, however, it seems reasonable to assume that a fairly standardized set of values, beliefs and behaviors is possible. Sure, I believe sex between an adult and child to be wrong, and thus disapprove of behaviors that other cultures have accepted or currently practice. But to be quite honest, an appeal to God won’t back me on that, as the Bible has instances of that being a command. I think a culture that promotes monogamy over polygamy is stronger, more equitable and overall a better choice, but then again, that is obviously not a morality issue, as the Bible is somewhat muddled on that topic as well. I may have to chalk that up to the very human instinct to prefer that which we know and are accustomed to over novel and different practices.

The problem I see is that this not all that far off from different religions having different rules according to their own teachings of morality. Each claim to be correct, and superior, much like a cultural value system. Which leaves me wondering if my thought that we might be wise to “take the good from each and enjoy the richness of life” is all that far off.

I suspect you are correct that “nothing comes from nothing.” That does seem, however, to fall short of discrediting the ability to have very deep ethical beliefs and understandings some 300,000 years into our existence as a species. People existed and acted, those actions we observed, and over a very long time, cultures and values emerged. Perhaps ethics falls short, but ethics coming from nothing aside from objective morality does not seem a given.

I have read both “Mere Christianity” and “The Abolition of Man” and enjoyed both. Although it is unrelated to the topic at hand, I found “A Grief Observed” to be some of his best writing, and probably enjoyed “The Screwtape Letters” more than anything else. I shall revisit them at some point I am sure, as I found them thought provoking. He writes clearly and was obviously in possession of an incredible intellect.

The time may come when I have to make that choice, reject any sense of objective right and wrong or give up my atheism. I suspect for the time being I will continue to think about it, and reserve my judgment for later. I may miss that boat, I have no idea how much time I have left to wrestle over thoughts, but so be it. I am unwilling, currently, to believe there is no right or wrong. It would seem I also cannot currently locate a deep and abiding belief in God, as most people understand God to exist. The human condition is a difficult thing to work out, but continuing to work through it seems the best option.

I am happy to hear your very large family is growing and doing well! I am hoping my children decide to provide a large number of grandchildren, many years in the future. I am sure the holidays must be pure, chaotic, and joyous when they are around.

We have been very fortunate that since our early December scare, the family has been doing well. I constantly forget how quickly they grow at the beginning, and how little sleep is had. It is one of life’s greatest joys to watch each of them learn, grow and develop their own unique ways. Now I just need to convince my wife that more is better, at least when it comes to children.

All the best,
Fallible Father

P.S. At some point, we may need to do that. I find them fascinating, and one of my favorite nights of all time was spent in New York. I had just hitchhiked there right out of college, and received a tour of the city from a great man named Mickey. He had studied to be a Rabbi before changing course, and we spent quite the evening discussing the finer points of Jewish law, as well as how those have influenced modern religions, especially the one I was raised in.