Morals and the Relationship to Religion: A Response to Paul

To read the comments that sparked this post click here. Paul, there are times I appreciate sarcasm, so I will make my comments assuming that you have a serious point (rather than being flippant or simply an ass). Although I admit my post was loose, I was trying to draw attention to the questions and issues more than taking sides. For the record, the last thing in my experience to help morals is “organized religion.” However, I think that a culture of true spirituality (for lack of better words) will create more religious people as a result. With respect to your comments this seems to be sufficient justification for my post and the article that inspired it.

On the other hand, with respect to religion, the very idea of a moral code seems to me religious. What I mean is that moral codes generally assert a set of values based on an ultimate principle. By ultimate principle I mean that is accepted without any other argument (read CS Lewis Abolition of Man). In short, moral codes generally take certain values by faith. This seems to be the nature of worldviews. So, I do not assume Christianity is necessary or the Old Testament literature for humanity be moral.

However, in defense of the Old Testament I must say that if its account is true, then nothing is excluded with respect to time. The Old Testament begins with the creation of the universe, so their would be no “prior to” the timeline of its account. What is not debatable is that moral people existed before Moses wrote down the initial books. In fact, there are many moral Old Testament figures that make moral choices and are held accountable for infractions before Moses and the big ten (Adam comes to mind).

It is obvious that not everyone in the past was murdered (hello!). But, need we have anything like a moral code or morality not to kill other people? Also when do we start counting people as everybody? Why not start with ants? Where should we draw lines? If you don’t think we should, why not draw the line around various obnoxious people and wipe them out? It seems like the wrongness of that just emerges. If it does not, then what grounds do we have to call it immoral or moral? I think there are a few possible explanations of moral people before Moses, and some of them seem probable or sufficient. When you speak of morals how do you avoid the problem of the criterion?

Along another train of thought, what is “statistical truth?” When using any sort of induction or abduction (argument from the best explanation) (including your comments) one does not (and cannot) guarantee the truth of what he or she is saying; thus, some sort of probability (with chances less than one and greater than zero) of the event must be mentioned. I am trying to make sense of “statistical” because it seems rational for me to think in terms of probabilities when speaking of the future based on the past (contra the impression from you comment). Further, my my post was mostly a set of questions designed to “prime the pump” for the link I provided. What exactly are you referring to, and do you mean in my post or Vitagliano's?

Moreover what do you mean by “truth?” I am assuming a correspondence theory (what are you assuming?). I don’t think that truth is a degreed property. Something is either truth, false or neither. I could be wrong about that, but the counter examples I know of can defeated. In this case either the statistics are true or false. Actaully, it is the inference from statistics at issue here. What counter-argument do you have against my thoughts?

Although your comments seem to be without charity, I appreciate how your comments have challenged me to reflect on my views. If I have time I will generate a more robust post on this topic in the fall. I the mean time, do good Paul.

Crosswalk.com - Christianity Vanquished in Britain? AP Wonders If Is the US Next?

After reading the article below I had the following reactions:
How long will the US mirror the moral and religious culture of England? What must be done to break the trend? How will "we" know that "we" are on the right track? Would changes from the pulpit really have done the job in England? It seems the Churches in England would be well served by some apologetics from the pulpit along with substantial arguments from the scriptures. I have heard NancyPearcey recomend the same course of action as a first step to a pastor in America. How much of what is effective for the Churches in England will be effective in the USA? Will American churches be able hold off the tide of secularism with passion and more "cool" or aesthetic things? Will contemporary services be sufficient? Can proper Bible teaching cure all ills?

When all is said and done I suspect what we need is balance. If the "spiritual doctors" of our churches have the insights to see cures to our behaviors and symptoms, that is great. However, what maybe a better role the church needs to play is that of paramedics who keep the wounded alive until they can be healed by the Great Physician.


Crosswalk.com - Christianity Vanquished in Britain?: "'I was shocked at how moral values had changed in such a short time and
how church attendance in mainstream denominations was in free fall,' he
said. 'Four out of five churches were either declining or simply
static.'"

Lessons from a Know-It-All

I assume conversations are supposed to be constructive, enjoyable, practical or at least roughly beneficial. After an unsuccessful conversation about a topic with which I was familiar, I wondered what went wrong. Although I was speaking to a know-it-all, I certainly did not expect the know-it-all (KIA) routine to kick in on a semi-technical comment about cosmology, but the KIA did. While this failure to communicate was not altogether unexpected, my total unpreparedness and general carelessness was. How quickly I forget the way of Philosophy Master Socrates!

Being a graduate student in Philosophy I struggle with my new skills and insights in a variety of ways. Mostly, I am aware of my deep inadequacies while beginning to realize how deep the rabbit hole goes. Ah, but the temptation to pretend (even if only privately) that I now am “all that” creeps up either as a self-medicating response or as a matter of bad habit. When my foolish heart is filled with vice of this sort, then I play directly into the hands of the know-it-all. The KIA will rarely acknowledge ignorance, but may do so occasionally to avoid appearing as a KIA (sometimes to justify his or her intra-personal denial). So, when the rejection of my comment came, rather than seeking an argument for the KIA’s denial of my claim, I just added more assertions to the mix with appeals to authority (primary sources and the ambiguous collection of experts “the majority of Dr. X agree that…”). I found myself in different kind of regress argument – I regressed to freshman antics for the undisciplined! However, rather than move from regression to depression, I will attempt to learn from my mistakes and go back to the basics!

1) Make clear my claims and support them with proper argumentation. Even casual discussions benefit from at least minimal support of one's points. If I don’t have support, then I should simply be open about making a claim as an inclination, impression or intuition. Also, in light of a tentative thesis, I need to remain humble and teachable – even KIA’s know things sometimes.

2) Avoid fallacies. When has name calling ever contributed anything? Why drive a discussion with mere rhetoric, unless my goal is to be mean or simply vain? Logic check! Make sure the premises support the conclusions.

3) Proceed with clarity by asking questions. This is the key lesson from Socrates for me in this situation. Had I not reacted to the denial of my claim with shock and assertions and instead sought grounds for the KIA’s denial, I am sure a misunderstanding would have surfaced or the lack of grounds would have allowed my claim to succeed. This could have been done with a simple Socratic search for definition and/or other productive questions.

4) Respect the person. What was most surprising to me is how I would not have had a discussion of this sort with another Philosophically trained person because I would have taken the initial comment more seriously. By respecting the other person, even a KIA, the probability of a successful conversation increases. Further, if a conversation fails, one saves the embarrassment of have reduced oneself to the level of a KIA.

Related Resources
Talking to difficult people.
General information on the nature, topics, and controversies of logic at a glace plus some starter references.
Logic Quiz
Good list of fallacies.
Another list of fallacies.

Books
Classic Logic Text

Basic Logic Text with Christian examples

Can a Nation Go Extinct from Selfishness?

As it turns out my post on the postmodern legislation (here) happening in some countries may be an example of a cure that kills the patient in a variety of ways. Possibly, not only might truth die, but love may have to go too. What made me think about love dying too was a recent post by Chuck Colson. He believes that Europe and possibly Japan maybe in serious decline because of population issues. (Hang in there, I'll come back to love).

What is interesting to me after reflecting on Chuck’s post is possibly selfishness is the root cause of both these different issues. Laws that “protect” religions from criticism may be motivated, in part, by a growing soft-shell world. A soft-shell world is fear and protection based such that people are assumed to be primarily vulnerable rather than durable. This view quickly degenerates into a population of victims where no one can say anything that might crush the other person’s soft-shell. When this is the case we accept the culture of one and allow each person to have infallible-like views of themselves. In doing so we free ourselves of any responsibility to help, correct, and maybe truly love another person (love entails RISK, and possible injury to self). Ultimately this culture of one must stay this way. As a result, families, where self-sacrifice is necessary for success, are avoided. This is possibly what is going on in Europe and Japan if Chuck is correct. Ironically, our individual greatest need is love which seems to entail more than one person in relationship; possibly, it requires three. In a solipsistic world, truth and love are just not in the picture.

Culture

Book Review: Thinking Toolbox Review

The Thinking Toolbox by Nathaniel Bluedorn and Hans Bluedorn with illustrated by Richard LaPierre is a 35 lesson book on reasoning skills. Each short chapter concludes with exercises to help readers master the content and then can be self-checked against the answers at the end of the book. The chapters cover the big idea of each concept with a simple narrative that illustrates the principle or a context to which it applies. For example when a detective story scenario is developed and you use a skill to solve the mystery. With respect to what thinking/reasoning skills are developed, three areas are covered:

1) “Tools for Thinking” is the section where the elements of reasoning are explained. For example, the contexts for reasoning are illustrated with the distinctions that characterize the difference between a discussion and a disagreement as well as an argument from a fight. The subsequent chapter helps develop discernment with respect the appropriate times to use your reasoning skills (“When It IS Dumb to Argue”). Also the parts of an argument are explained so you can identify what is “doing the work” of an argument or how to construct one. Then tips for building and refining arguments are given.

2) “Tools for Opposing Viewpoints” helps one make decisions, realize that there is always another view, and evaluate the quality of the evidence and its source. Further, this section provides a good beginning to help you discern a motive and various types of evidence.
3) “Tools for Science” introduces basic scientific method. This section demonstrates the need for observation provides some tips and skills. Specifically, the formation of a hypothesis, conducting good experiments, and analyzing the data are each covered well.

Structurally the book is organized and easy to follow, the exercises are good, and the narrative delivery of the content make it an easy to read book.

Why read this book?
Naturally his book will greatly enhance ones abilities for any type of learning (reading, listening, and anything else that requires thought). Beyond this, in a postmodern, ambiguous, most-everything-is-gray-world we live in, we could all use a little clarity of thought. The thinking toolbox (TTB) is a wonderful start in this direction of clarity. The TTB is especially helpful for young people who are currently in school. Its self-directed learning and youth friendly illustrations and exercises bare the touches of the one who knows well the self-teaching format. It is a very accessible book even for adults who might be put off by a college level logic or critical thinking text.

Further, the “real world” applications of good thinking skills are very good. For example in the beginning of the book a man is featured in an illustration that looks suspicious and is trying to pick up a kid. The kid uses the logical thinking skills from the book to figure out that this guy is lying. Although the illustration then takes an unexpected twist, any parent can immediately appreciate this tools provided in TTB. Certainly most adults need to deal with many scams each day. The National Fraud Information Center has enough reported scams going on to merit plenty of critical thinking.

Why might you want to read something else?
If you are an adult or a high school student with natural reasoning skills seeking to move to the “next level,” then you might begin with a more advanced text. Some high school students (and adults) will be put off by the kid-styled illustrations and lack of textual sophistication.

What is my overall opinion of the book?
Great book for kids or if you are looking to build a foundation for good reasoning skills. I think it is a great resource for kids who want to get ahead, learn better or are “home-scholars.” However, if you have attained some sophistication to your reasoning abilities, then get into a logic text or a critical reasoning text.

FYI:
As a Mind & Media reviewer I received this book free from blog for books, and I have not been paid or pushed to rate any particular way. Publishers provide the books in exchange for publicity and reviews. Good Deal eh?



Books

London, Islam, Australia and the Need for Truth

In the wake of this mornings tragedy in London, I find this post from Right Reason to be provocative and important. Lydia McGrew wrote her post before the London bombing about deeply problematic situation of the two pastors in Australia. These Pastors will go to jail rather than apologizing (and pledging endless silence with respect to similar criticisms of Islam) for their alleged vilification of Islam in violation of a new law. McGrew nicely summarizes the condemning evidence against the pastors when she says “Two of the statements that resulted in this conviction were that Islam endorses mistreating women and that Muslims would like to make Australia a Muslim country.” The pastors claim they are telling the truth and that the particular law they are being jailed for needs to change. The law is apparently being used to silence non-adherents critical speech about religion.

Certainly free speech is in danger and religious freedom is questioned as well, but might there be more at stake? McGrew’s critical point is that truth is not an issue in the debate. Is this a fair expression of Islamic thinking? If so, then Islam should be on trial, and if that is not appropriate then the law should be reconsidered. Further, if truth is not important to the law, then the “law” has crossed the line and become cog in the great machine of totalitarianism. The question follows “how much more of the machine will be built?”. Ironically the UK may pass a similar bill adding another cog to the machine.

FYI: The pastors’ website is http://www.catchthefire.com.au/, but at the very least read McGrew’s insightful post.

News
Current Affairs
Religion

Tom Cruise vs. Brooke Shields or Scientology vs. Psychiatry

Tom is likable (I even like him) but I think his remarks about Brooke Shields and psychiatry are evidence that the Church of Scientology is a bit off. I agree that the history of psychiatry and even some common practices today might be problematic. I do not think that even a perfect understanding of the brain (apart from the mind) and the right chemical balances will make life great. However, if you want to throw the “history as a measure” card, do you honestly think that the history of scientology is really better? Maybe so, but I think this is unwarranted. At the very least the prescription of vitamins and exercise for post-partum depression is ignorance.

I do not support any particular anti-scientology site, and I even agree on a surface level with some of what they say that one has access to free on the scientology site. I can clearly see some of the appeal to scientology. I agree that the mental life, and the soul are far more powerful than given credit, and that people are spiritual beings that are capable of deeper awareness than most people can imagine. In fact, the scientology handbook online with its very limited information seems to be generally sound (even with the awkward pseudo-technical vocabulary). If it did not seem this way would anyone join the “Church” of scientology? Further, the “what can it do for me?” pragmatism is very American and certainly appeals to human nature. The most interesting thing to me was how various assertions were made, but very little was done in the way of supporting truth claims which are often assumed.

The nearest thing to support I found was in the “MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY” section of the site. But I found these claims to generally be obviously false or straw-man type arguments. For example, they claim that the people who are opposed are against self-betterment programs in general. This seems false. Compare the anti-betterment argument with this interesting story (if you don’t have time for the book just read the last 3-4 chapters) of a former member and “escapee” of the CoS here . OR compare this to the latest problems and fresh updates on scientology opponents here or here. OR compare it to the list of claims from a Christian watch dog. I have not heard any anti-betterment talk.

Although I need more information (and time to study scientology) my preliminary search has not given me any faith in Tom “church” even though I have some initial points of agreement. Further, as my family as been touched by post-partum depression I can say that the medical treatment that I have seen changed lives for the better.

Scientology
Current Affairs
Religion

Belief formation, Apologetics, Evangelism, and Discipleship

Philosophers, Religious Apologists, Politicians, and anyone with a soap box (bloggers?) want your to change your belief about something or reinforce or expand a shared belief or desire. What is required for one to change his or her beliefs? Can we simply choose or will to believe? What about religious beliefs?
I think that creating a new belief (forming a concept) is a fascinating process. To change beliefs or exchange beliefs from belief A to B is equally interesting to me. Consider the following example to illustrate the interesting issues in an exchange of beliefs. Imagine someone who is purposely not a Christian, say Al the Atheist, who becomes a Theist. Although I think many other beliefs would necessarily be changed, for the sake of simplicity let’s limit the discussion to as much as possible to this exchange. So, did Al decide to believe in God?

IF Al NOT DECIDE to believe in God (i.e. believed unwillfully):
If Al is simply “predestined” to believe in God, then there is nothing to really “argue” about (unless of course you are Al and could wish he were an Atheist again). Assuming that religious beliefs and ordinary beliefs are similar in there adoption or denial, God’s “righteousness” would seem to be called into question. How could God send people to hell (or at least Judas who seems to be there from the New Testament account)? How could God judge or even the judicial systems of human kind execute any type of punitive or retributive justice? BUT, If religious beliefs are different from all other kinds of belief, that only allows for human justice. Further, campaigning for office, evangelism, various forms of persuasion are all rehearsals and are pageantry. In fact the fabric of our lives seems to me to bear a striking similarity to the material used by the alleged tailors of an emperor who needed some new clothes.

IF AL DID DECIDE to believe in God:
It seems to me he either does so DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY. If DIRECTLY, then the use of persuasion, justice, etc. has much meaning and value, but then various aspects of our lives seem inexplicably out of our control. Why is it then that so many Christians for example resonate with Paul that they do the very thing they do not wish to do (Ro7)? What explains habits and those times where we want to believe but cannot?

Maybe beliefs are accepted and acquired INDIRECTLY. If this is the case, one retains his or her responsibility, and our inability to “will to believe” maybe explained. I am advocating Indirect Doxastic Volunteerism. So, although Al cannot simply will to believe in God, he can study, evaluate arguments, talk to and spend time with “believers” and if God’s existence is more likely than not, Al may find him-self believing that God exists. It may be the case that God reveals Himself in this process and the belief is simply formed. This is not to say that it could not be latter denied or be disbelieved from lack of cultivation. For example, my wife remembers many people from periodically thinking about them, that I may forget because I don’t think about them. This is to point our that we do have control about what we focus our awareness on. The things in my awareness I recognize and believe. My accuracy my be determined on the accuracy of my recognition or possibly my interpretation of an experience. However, instead of cashing out a full defense for that at this time (I will eventually) I will cash out some consequences. For the sake of space and the profile of my typical reader I will focus on Apologetics, Evangelism and maybe a touch of discipleship.

Apologetics & Evangelism:
Certainly good arguments are important and the evidence for God can be a key to creating a belief in God. At the very least, Al needs sufficient defeaters for the arguments against God that he has believed for years. However, good arguments are not magic. Many Christians often wins battles and lose wars arguing for the existence of God. There is no simple list of reasons for this event. Maybe Al was simply mad at God when his close friend died of cancer. He needed time and compassion to free his acceptance of belief. For various reasons, arguments and evidence are not enough to bring about a belief in God for Al (unless the other conditions are already met). If the argument is enough (all other conditions met) then acceptance of the belief may not occur immediately. An alignment of ones belief system may take time. So, one must not be a hasty arguer or have unrealistic expectations of arguments, and certainly there is no place for self-righteous tones because one does not simply and directly choose to believe.

A Touch of Discipleship:
Given the above, we need to be patient as a believer changes beliefs and forms new ones. A tacit assumption in this post is that we can have knowledge by direct acquaintance. I think direct acquaintance is the most direct (and perhaps foundational) ways to form a belief. One knows the most and becomes the most like Jesus is one meets Jesus. The way of discipleship is incarnational.

Christianity
Apologetics
Worldview