Pizza, gravity and sushi exist, and we generally know what they are. Specifics may vary!
But how do we use them?
To start, I refer my children back to the introduction to my last post on the topic. In the interest of brevity, I will leave this, as I think rehashing my statement is redundant and a waste of space. This will also be much shorter, as I have chosen to try to get to the heart of the disagreement, as opposed to disagreeing over a definition, which I do not see how we can resolve. A useful point in life, as illustrated by a recent Notes thread I was in, is that we must be using words in the same way to communicate effectively.
Dear Von,
Alas, I have branched off from the debate, because as far as I can tell, it comes down to the following…
It seems to me that we are in agreement on two big things, and disagree on a third big one. Sushi, gravity, pizza and morality exist. We also know what they are. There is no disagreement there. How we define them is completely up in the air, and that is where I shall focus the majority of this.
But first, to clean up a few things. There has been some disagreement about whether quoting or summarizing is a better course of action, to which I say, intent matters a lot. If the intent of a quote is to share the original argument, great. If the intent of summarizing is to try to understand and reiterate an argument, spectacular. If the intent of either is different, there may be a problem.
This is where I take a bit of issue, there are some quotes in your post which seem to ignore the argument being made, or the context of said quote, unless the point or context were completely misunderstood. For instance, I am not saying that games are solely a moral question, or morality is simply about games, or whether or not to play is inherently moral. That would be an absurd argument. I am stating that even in a task as simple as trying to negotiate play, an understanding of proper ways to behave naturally develops, is understood, and then enforced. Sure, kids stop playing together all the time for reasons that have nothing to do with unfair play. They also enforce rules and acceptable behavior by threatening to not play. Clearly.
At one point, regarding the universality of morality, the argument is made that it must not be universally understood, but understood by “the great mass of humanity, on their best day, by their best people.” The example of Jihadists murdering Jews is then thrown in as an example of why it cannot be universal, and that I must mean by “the great mass of humanity, on their best day, by their best people.”
The problem I take with this is that I directly respond to that situation, and how morality can absolutely be subverted, by religious or secular beliefs. I know I made this point, because it is quoted for a different purpose later in your post.
“Coincidentally, this is often done by people claiming that God wants something, and it is therefore correct. Jihad? God’s will. Crusades? Positive that they were just. Millions dead by communism? Obviously it was necessary, and a few eggs being broken does not negate the good outcome of an omelet.”
This quote is exactly to the point of whether people doing bad things undermines morality being universal. God being the source of morality does not protect us against a bastardized moral knowledge, and in fact, can lead us into this corrupted understanding. In fact, the fact that false morality can be implemented is readily acknowledged:
“We can set up edifices of false morality and bow down to them.”
-Von, The knowledge of Pizza, Definition of Sushi, and Existence of Food
Here lies my great issue with God being the source of all morality. I am arguing, in the above points, that false morality absolutely exists, and one major source is attribution to God with no attempt to further understand. If we take a book, or a “holy man” at their word, we can be led away from true morality. In fact, at times, the Good Book encourages it (please see the Old Testament, specifically Deuteronomy 20 and Genesis 34). Is there any difference between this and the belief that all Jews must perish in the land of Israel?
If there is, I fail to see it.
It seems to me that we are having two very different discussions. Perhaps I am wrong. I believe you are essentially arguing that no person can truly be moral without believing in God, and knowing His will. I am arguing that belief in God may help find morality, but must be combined with using our faculties, especially if they are God given, to be wise, and moral. I am also stating the belief that if we expect all humanity to be their best selves, and act as morally as possible, the most pragmatic way to do this is to meet them where they are. If they believe in the Bible, by all means, make a Biblical argument. If they are atheists, then try to help them be better, more moral, atheists. I will come back to this.
Morality exists, and we know a lack of it when we see it. So the question seems to be, does the definition matter?
You may define pizza as “an Italian food, made of round bread dough, smothered in tomato sauce, generally with cheese, meat and vegetables on it, skip the fruit please, which is baked and then cut into slices and eaten with our hands.” I may rebut, “Pizza is a food that originated in Italy, but has now taken hold in many regions and exists in many forms, including New York Style, Napoletana, Chicago deep dish, etc., and which may have tomato, pesto, alfredo or a variety of other sauces, and sometimes includes dairy, fruits, vegetables, canned fish and others meats.” The question is, are we both right, both wrong, or is the answer irrelevant? I would say irrelevant, if someone really needs to understand what pizza is, bake them one and let them find out. That will open the world to them, and they can explore from there!
The same might be said of sushi. You may limit the definition to sashimi, narezushi, or nigiri. I could expand it to include tobiko, baked rolls, and rolls with spicy sauces and fried foods. Again, it seems to me, get someone in the door of a sushi restaurant, and open their mind.
Eventually, by trying what each offers, we can pick the good (Yellow Tail sashimi and a solid spicy tuna roll) and leave the bad (pineapple pizza) of each option. Leave the crusades of early Christianity, take the forgiveness and hope. Reject the Jihad, and embrace the call to live up to one’s word encouraged in Islam. While we are at it, embrace the dualistic nature of Zoroastrianism, recognizing our immense capacity for good, with our terrifying penchant for destructive evil. Accept the Buddhist teaching that life is suffering, but all things pass, and enable a life of greater resilience.
Take the good from all that is offered, and leave the door open for improving oneself and one’s actions.
This will make better non-believers. It may do more.
By changing behavior to act more in line with what is right, the chances that they actually embrace a true Christian love, charity and morality increases. Maybe they never fully accept a Christian God; but I suspect they will be much closer than if they reject all transcendent beliefs. And, as I have already pointed out, good behavior is acceptable to Jesus whether it is done with knowledge or in ignorance.
“Jesus explains to His followers that upon judgment, those who cared for Him would be saved, and those who left Him in need would not. Was it literally a service offered to God? Apparently, in His words, any service to our brothers and sisters on this planet is a service to God. But more importantly, the intention to serve God is completely omitted from the equation. The people who failed to serve were ignorant of their actions, yet will suffer the consequences. Those who did follow the commandment to “love thy neighbor as thyself” were equally unaware, and welcomed just the same.’
-Me, in regard to the parable of the goats and sheep
We can limit morality to a definition that states it must be done because God wants it to be so. But that may be like discouraging someone from enjoying sushi simply because we are limiting “sushi” to be completely raw fish with no rice, sauce, seaweed or any other item. What good is done by this?
I suspect the response may be that God’s morality does not care, it is on us to accept the one true faith, and that is the only overarching good. To that I say, the invitation is, “Come and see.” It is an open invitation, and the first step is to take an action, which often includes acting in a more moral way.
And here, I veer off course just a tad. I am curious what form of Christianity we were each raised in, and how they differ. I will go first.
I was raised in a religion that proselytizes, that believed in inviting all to come unto Jesus. I left that religion, and now call myself a “practicing non-believer.” Not an atheist, as that involves a statement of certainty that I just do not feel is merited, just someone working through life and trying to learn and grow. A post on this exact idea started this back and forth. Apparently, you can take a kid out of the religion, but not the religion out of the kid. Again, you quote me:
“If there is no God, and our definition of morality requires God, there can be no hope. Let me go buy some heroine and pick up a prostitute, it is all for naught!”
This is expanded on at some length, later in my post.
“After that lengthy bit, alas, I must return to my confession. If we are discussing morality as defined in 1828, I have very little response. If morality is required, by the definition we choose, to include the term “obedience to divine will,” and “external” must mean God, then obviously I have no response. It does beg the question how we hope to motivate people who do not believe in God to do anything decent at all, however. If all behavior is immoral unless done because God said so, then wherein is the reason a person should choose to act well? If I will be punished equally for sex within a non-religious marriage, fornication, adultery and sexual assault, as they are all immoral, why would I choose to be married?
Is this your problem to deal with? Not exactly, except that I doubt many people want to live in a society in which the reasoning that all behavior is immoral unless done because we accept it as God’s will is taken to its logical conclusion… ….The most likely outcome, it seems, will not be more believers in God, but something closer to a nihilistic acceptance of the futility of making an effort to behave well and honorably.”
So sure, I will accept your definition of morality to be “obedience to divine will” and concede the entire argument. The only question left is quite simple; and now what? Scolding a person and telling them no matter how hard they try, they are still immoral unless they make every decision based on a Supreme Being’s will is unlikely to lead to a better-behaved world, and far more likely to lead to nihilism. At which point I shall reference the Bible, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” I wish to plant trees that bear the fruit of people behaving in a more just, upright, and moral (defined sometime after 1950) world, which involves setting an example while inviting others to behave better, even if it is not due to a fear of God’s wrath or a strong feeling of love towards God. What fruits will the argument that all hope is lost unless we first believe bear?
Can we factor in tradition, as your wonderful quote by GK Chesterton, encourages? Absolutely. We can and should look at what has worked through history, and encourage the propagation of traditions worthy of continuation. But at times, we must update, because some traditions were less than stellar (slavery was a fairly universal tradition that comes to mind, but so was stoning people for sins, or the whole Law of Moses for that matter). Again, it requires using our inborn, natural abilities of reason, logic, and conscience, to discern and have wisdom on when to prune the tree of tradition, and when to water it. Assuming all these abilities are God given, it would be odd to not utilize them and blindly accept all tradition merely because it comes from before our time.
In summary, it seems we are having two different discussions. You are choosing a definition that limits the meaning of morality, and I am choosing one that broadens it. I have fully conceded that if we accept your definition, I cannot rebut it. It seems to me that you have not attempted to address some of my arguments in light of a more modern definition, which is your prerogative. This is not an attack at the intent, merely a statement that it has always come back to an older definition. Which is fine, however I would be curious what your thoughts are on improving behavior in a world that does not universally accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.
In the end, I return to a pragmatic question; what is the end result?
I have skipped over a fair number of your points, which are all spectacular points, especially if taken in tandem with your stated definition of morality. Again, I fully concede that by your definition, there is no morality in the world outside of God. That is just not an awfully inspiring thought.
Love,
A guy who hopes for a better world!
P.S. I have skipped entirely the idea of honoring parents. It seems an unnecessary aside from the main questions I hope to understand, especially given my limited time (school, work and baby) and the fact that in general, I agree we should honor our parents, unless mitigating factors make that an unnecessary burden. I suspect you will never agree with my view, but I will also never move on the fact that if I want a good relationship with my children, I need to earn that through treating them well, I cannot be rude, insulting, or codependent and then claim, “But you must honor me.” I am more than happy to continue that conversation in a thread, or comments section.
