The more I read about what philosophers call “trolley problems” the more I am intrigued by the possibility that our moral intuitions may not be rationally defensible – which moral philosophers have attempted to do for centuries – but are instead (social) animal instincts resulting from evolution.Trolley problems have nothing to do with public transportation, although they do make use of an imaginary trolley. So, consider the following thought experiment: you are gingerly walking about town, minding your own business, when you suddenly see a trolley with no driver proceeding down its tracks. With horror, you realize that if the trolley keeps going that way, it will hit, and likely kill, five innocent bystanders. You look around for something to do. You are too far to alert the five of the imminent danger, but you see nearby a lever. If you pull that lever, the trolley will change course and you will save five lives. Unfortunately, a collateral result of your action will be killing a sixth person, standing near the secondary tracks. What would you do?
Social scientists have actually asked this question to a variety of people across many cultures (in some cases the trolley becomes a shark attacking a canoe, depending on the local customs), and the result is, remarkably, consistently the same: the overwhelming majority of people say that it is a good choice to pull the lever. When asked what their reasoning is they respond that, duh, to save five lives and lose one is better than to save one and lose five. (Image from http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/)
So far so good. But the ingenious moral philosopher comes up with an interesting twist: in a second version of the thought experiment, the situation is exactly the same, except that this time the only way for you to stop the death path of the trolley is to actually push an innocent bystander in front of it, thereby saving the other five. This time the overwhelming majority of people say that no, that would not be morally acceptable. Here's the twist: when asked why, they are at a loss to rationally explain their choice. After all, as in the first case, it's still one life against five.
Clearly, the difference between the two cases is that the first scenario implies a “collateral,” i.e., indirect, casualty, while the second one requires a positive action on the part of the agent. But that difference has to do with human psychology, not with the moral equation, as reflected by the inability of most people to articulate why they would act differently in the second case.
The first broad implication here is that some moral choices may not be rationally defensible. It may still be the case that we should strive toward a rational moral system (as philosophers have been arguing), but in order to get there we might need sometimes to trump people's intuitions of what is moral and what isn't. Not an easy task, to be sure.
Second, the fact that the response to the two trolley situations is cross-cultural may imply that our moral intuitions are deep seated, probably the result of evolution as social animals. This is good news in some sense, because it points to a clear answer to the tiresome question: if you are not religious, where do you get your morality from? As Richard Dawkins and others have pointed out, we all (religious and not) get it from the same place: our biology (and our parents). On the other hand, biological instincts developed over millions of years in a social environment quite different, and much simpler, than the modern one, which may explain why we have so much trouble figuring out the answers to the complex moral dilemmas arising in a global village of six billion people.
The difference, I think, is that the guy on the track in situation A *may not die* - he could look up and see the trolley coming, he could hear it, you could warn him, he might just move. In any case, you aren't killing him, you're diverting the trolley and he happens to be in the way. In situation B you are actually killing him, and using his death to save 5 others whom you didn't put in harm's way. It seems clear to me - but of course this is not the first time I've encountered this problem.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between the two trolley thought experiments is slight. In one you are pushing the man. In the other you are "pushing" the trolley at the man. The end result is the same. He's toast. The point is that we see them as different because of biology.
ReplyDeleteThe word “collateral" is important here.
Look at the hypothetical arguments put forth for using torture on terror suspects. The most extreme negative consequences are used if the torture is not done, like "the suspects knows the location of a dirty bomb".
And the torture is to be performed by someone other than you - out of sight out of mind.
If you actually had to torture a person, to hear the crying and screaming, and to see the blood, any support you had for torture might go out the window.
The biology of our minds prevents us from wanting to see the unpleasantness or to be directly responsible for it.
m: "The biology of our minds prevents us from wanting to see the unpleasantness or to be directly responsible for it."
ReplyDeleteCollateral damage would not be an issue if one were to pick a third alternative:
Throw oneself onto the track, save everybody.
cal
Cal,
ReplyDeleteI think you are missing the point: the option of throwing yourself on the tracks simply isn't there, it's not part of the thought experiment. The point of the experiment is to show that people's intuitions about what's right and wrong may be at odds with what the same people can rationally explain. In this sense, chosing the third option is a cop out, because it avoids the original conundrum.
Masssimo Wrote,
ReplyDelete"The point of the experiment is to show that people's intuitions about what's right and wrong may be at odds with what the same people can rationally explain."
Isn't this point extremely relevant to how such a thought experiment is to be set up or posed?
Isn't asking people to rationalize a hypothetical experiment contrary to what people might actually do under the stress, or intuition, of real life circumstances?
Basically, I think it is fascinating how such experiments might be set up for accuracy.
Massimo
ReplyDeleteSuggesting that only certain alternatives are "viable" is ridiculous in the face of what it really means to consider something alternative as literally viable, that is, "capable of life".
"the option of throwing yourself on the tracks simply isn't there, it's not part of the thought experiment."
It is, if I say it is.
Lets talk about the REAL world.
One time a few years ago, had to go check on a woman (a friend) couldn't get a hold of her by phone for more than a day after her hub ripped all the phone cords out of their house.
When her husband found me at their house, he then tried to chase me down for about 10 miles before the State police intervened and SAVED ME. She and her son were taken to a safe house.
Quite honestly I was scared. But if I had to do it all over again, I would. Seriously. Change of venue. New "thought experiment". Who would you put your life on the line for, Professor?
cal
Massimo
ReplyDelete"The point of the experiment is to show that people's intuitions about what's right and wrong may be at odds with what the same people can rationally explain. "
Wasn't the point of the experiment to see if people actually had any moral intuitions, and if they did, were they capable of discriminating between closely similar, but subtly different situations? Also whether these intuitions, if they existed, cut across cultural boundaries?
The point is to see if biology directs moral behavior. Clearly it does.
ReplyDeleteThat's why the experiment was altered from steering the trolley at the man to actually pushing the man in front of a trolley.
In both cases the man dies. But one senario is less repugnant than the other. And not because of rational thinking but because of instinct, a biological cause.
I think that is the point to be taken from such an experiment.
Cal,
ReplyDeleteone more time: as is often the case, you miss the point. The experiment is about exploring how people feel and would act in certain situations. The fact that those situations aren't real should be obvious from the fact that it is a "thought" experiment. When you say "it is real because I say it is" you are showing your complete inability to think outside your little box. Too bad.
M,
ReplyDeleteOkaaaaaay then you bigger box-minded man, you. Let's call the trolley "Islamic terrorism"....
If missing the point means not being able to directly associate a particular experiment with reality, then I'd rather miss the point. And it's not necessarily bad to examine the "new ways" of approaching common problems.
cal
"A paradigm is a framework of thought (from the Greek paradigm, "pattern")... a scheme for understanding and explaining certain aspects of reality.... A paradigm shift is a distinctly new way of thinking about old problems..... 26"
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/
paradigm-shift/kuhn.htm
I'd say the difference is one of responsibility.
ReplyDeleteMorality is not just about outcomes, but about intentional outcomes that someone consciously brings about. So the connection between the decision and the outcome is relevant for the morality of some action.
In the first scenario if I push the switch I am somewhat responsible for the death of the one person but a lot of the causal factors involved are not of my doing (the trolley, the tracks, the person being tied there, and so forth).
I am much more responsible for the death in the second scenario when I push the unfortunate fellow in front of the trolley. His death is almost all my responsibility. OTOH the deaths of the other five guys are not my doing.
Oversimplifying, imagine the product of my blame for pushing times the one death being greater than my blame for not acting times the five deaths, which in turn is greater than my blame for the one death times that death when I change the tracks.
Cal,
ReplyDeleteC,mon your giving the rest of us Christians a bad rap here!
As far as the thought experiment, I proudly say that I would choose to push the person without hesitation, in fact when I was reading your post I didn't really see all the dilemma, and couldn't understand why people would change their answer in the two different senarios. Although put me in the actual situation without much time to think and I may fail.
I know you do not want to hear it, but your post show why man-based morality just doesn't work. And brings us back to the origional question, but since we've been there and done that. I will spare us all that debate.
If there is no difference between the two situations, then there is no difference bewteen collateral damage in wartime, and directly attacking civilians.
ReplyDelete"I proudly say that I would choose to push the person without hesitation"
ReplyDeleteJim,
Morality based on reason isn't perfect and it never will be, but it is eminently superior to theistic morality. The fact that you wouldn't hesitate to push a person in front of a trolley is appalling, and the fact that you are proud of it is despicable. Atheists may indeed make the same choice, but my guess is that some hesitancy and remorse would come into play. I know that issues like hesitancy and remorse are not really part of the study, but the phrasing of your decision says a great deal about your morality and its origins.
massimo,
ReplyDeletedoes this mean youre starting to come around to ev psych?
Look, guys: "jump on the track yourself" may be the best answer, but it's not an answer you can give, because it's not what this question is asking about. This experiment isn't trying to figure out the "best" way to save lives; it's exploring some distinctions that (many) people make and trying to figure out why they make them.
ReplyDeleteMark,
ReplyDeletegood question. Not exactly. I think the general idea that instinctual human behaviors evolved, possibly by natural selection, is sound. But evo-psych is about rather specific hypotheses (e.g., rape is an alternative reproductive strategy) which, although possibly true, are essentially untestable.
So, one can legitimately use (hypothetical) evolutionary scenarios as part of an argument or account of something (like morality), but cannot call that "science."
Michael said
ReplyDeleteThe fact that you wouldn't hesitate to push a person in front of a trolley is appalling, and the fact that you are proud of it is despicable.
The fact that I wouldn't hesitate may be appalling to you. To me it just means that I understand the value of 5 must be more than 1. That does not mean I wouldn't feel bad that someone died, It just means I wouldn't hesitate to save 5 people at the expense of one. I have always considered myself a quick thinker in time of crisis, is where the pride comes in, not at killing someone.
Atheists may indeed make the same choice, but my guess is that some hesitancy and remorse would come into play.
Whats your point? Athiest are more moral than thiest? Can you back that up with a moral system that you yourself claim is'nt perfect?
but it is eminently superior to theistic morality.
I would really like to challenge that statement, but as I promised previously, I won't. We have already had the debate on previous posts.
Jim
ReplyDeletePerhaps you will agree that your right to throw Joe on the track is at least debatable.
But Joe's right to throw you on the track, if you try to throw him on the track, is something everyone can agree on.
Also you can throw yourself on the track, but no one can demand that you do so.
Of course the study was set up to examine people's reactions to intentional vs. collateral damage, not to find the best solution to the problem, just as Ridger says
Madman,
ReplyDeleteWhat the heck are you talking about?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteI also would prefer not to hijack Massimo's blog with an argument, but I will answer your question. Yes, I do think that nontheistic morality tends to be better than theistic morality. I could give you a long, detailed argument, but I think it's easier just to show you some evidence. Here is a link to an article that discusses a 2005 study. The study found that not only do atheistic countries have better societies, but they also discovered that a widespread belief in god actually makes a country worse off:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece
Jim
ReplyDeleteSorry you cannot keep track of the discussion.
But it's not important. I don't even know why I jumped in.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI tried to use your link, it brought me to Times Online, but I cannot find your study. Although the country you reside in is a thiestic country (of course I am sure you would say it is also an immoral one), our system of law is based on thiestic principle (i am sure you would also say that isn't true). Nazi Germany was an athiestic country.
Also I am a Chrisitan, my point is not that Islamic morality is better than athiestic. I am sure your study is just comparing thiestic to athiestic, which allows for any and all religions. That is hardly a good comparison. Of course Islamic extreemist countries are not going to have as good a morality system as athiestic countries. That is hardly an arguement against Christianity having a worse moralty system.
I would like to read this study. I am interested on how one conducts a study on which countrys are more moral when groups differ on what morality is?
Madman,
Sorry i couldn't keep up with you. Us Christians are real slow like that.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWhile it is certainly true that Islamic countries bring down the average, Christian countries don't help much either. Sam Harris discusses this in detail in his book The End of Faith (available at your local library). Even within the US, the states that tend to be more religious also have more crime, teen pregnancies, violence, etc. than the states that are less religious. Here are two sources for you:
1) United Nations' Human Development Report 2005; G.S. Paul's "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies," Journal of Religion and Society, vol. 7 (2005).
2) R. Gledhill's, "Societies Worse Off 'When They Have God on Their Side,' The Times (U.K.), September 27, 2005. (Note: this is just an article reporting on the study above.)
If you search for either of these by their exact title, you should be able to find them online.
The study doesn't conclusively prove that theism results in immoral societies, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.
"The End of Faith (available at your local library). Even within the US, the states that tend to be more religious also have more crime, teen pregnancies, violence, etc. than the states that are less religious. Here are two sources for you: 1) United Nations' Human Development Report.."
ReplyDeleteMichael,
The United nations does not "love us". Be it, non-believers or believers. The United nations would come out with a report of that nature BECAUSE it is seeking power for the State not for the individual.
Every state has crime. Every state has violence. Give the direct causal (not circumstantial)relationship between the actual violence and crime to the religious practices in that state.
Like, tell me how it really works.
I was raised in a mainly Lutheran state, now I live in one that is predominately Catholic. I can tell you by experience what the differences are. So, in turn, you tell me how a state that has virtually no influences of religion in it operates.
Come on. Generalizations as weak as that just don't prove the point for presumably critical thinking folk!
cal
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI just spent a good deal of time reading over the United Nations report. I am sure that you can see that it is authored with a purpose. Since it is mainly a supposed study of Thiestic vs Athiesthic countries and how that relates to social dysfunction. On every scatter chart they use, they try and correlate religious behavior with social problems, and on every chart the U.S. stands out because of higher social dysfunction. It is really only the U.S. that stands out according to their charts (with occasional Portugal). I could do the same thing with T.V watching, or any characteristic that the U.S. is excessivly high in. For example: Lets say that the U.S. per average drives more miles than any other country (which it probibly does) then according to this type of logic (the U.N. report) there must be a direct correlation between driving and higher murder rate.
you can't just have one thiestic country vs other less thiestic countries (which is what this report is with very minimal execption).
To Cals point, don't you want to know what and why there is that correlation? Shouldn't the report have some theory? This report makes absolutly no attempt to explain that.
With surveys showing a strong majority from conservative to liberal believing that religion is
beneficial for society and for individuals, many Americans agree that their church-going nation
is an exceptional, God blessed, “shining city on the hill” that stands as an impressive example for
an increasingly skeptical world.
Reading the many lines like this one from the report, it is obvious that it is written with purpose to dubunk the conception that religion is good for society, and enjoys the America bashing. We can find data to support any thing we wish but, They (U.N. report)do an extreemly poor job at it.
How do you compare murder rates with different countries with different laws and a million other differences and say "yep, its because their thiests".
This report is really just garbage.
Cal is right, you need to give a direct causual, not circumstancial data.
In fact, reviewing the scatter charts. They prove no correlation exists.
ReplyDeleteScatter charts are used to find if correlations exist. If they do all plots should fall on a slope, or within a certain percentage of that slopes range (there can be freaks and flyers and a correlation may still exist). Almost all of these charts prove that a correlation does not exist.
You can also use this as an argument if someone says that religion benifits societirs dysfunctions
I posted a response a couple of hours ago, but it still hasn't shown up. This is essentially what I wrote:
ReplyDelete"Cal is right, you need to give a direct causual, not circumstancial data."
1. I know that the study doesn't prove that theism makes societies worse. In fact, I said it first (see the last sentence of my previous post: "The study doesn't conclusively prove that theism results in immoral societies, but the circumstantial evidence is strong.") I find it extremely odd (and quite funny) that you take my comment, claim it as your own, and then try to use it as an argument against me. It's just plain weird and rather stupid.
2. Although the study doesn't prove that higher crime rates are the direct result of a belief in god, the data is very telling: not only are religious countries not better off, they are worse off than atheistic countries. Christians can no longer try to claim that their faith will improve society, or that this country is going down the tubes because we're losing our belief in god. This study is absolutely devastating to that argument. While we can't prove that theism results in immorality, we can clearly see that theism most certainly does not improve societies. Do you know what does improve our world? Actions based on reason and enlightenment principles. For hundreds of years, freethinkers have fought against religion, and it is their efforts that have resulted in progress. If we left it to religion alone, we'd still be in the dark ages (christianity has had thousands of years to improve civilization, and it is quite obvious that they have failed and continue to fail).
Well, I promised that I wouldn't hijack Massimo's blog with a long argument, and I'm afraid I've gone and done so. Therefore this will be my last post on the topic. Jim, you can have the last word if you wish.
Michael: "For hundreds of years, freethinkers have fought against religion, and it is their efforts that have resulted in progress. If we left it to religion alone, we'd still be in the dark ages (christianity has had thousands of years to improve civilization, and it is quite obvious that they have failed and continue to fail).
ReplyDelete"
Most scientists and or thinkers from that time were not secular at all. Someone mentioned Nicolas Steno a while back, claiming somehow that his whole life's work revolved around evolution or secular purposes. That is simply not the case. The same could be said of many other enlightenment types. If people , educated and not, did come out of the "dark ages" it was because of their new found awareness of sin and self. That kind of awareness causes one to question his own conclusions and motivations for making them, and that is real good for science. Any sort of enlightenment but that kind is a pseudo enlightenment.
Nicolas Steno
Founder of modern geology and young-Earth creationist
A Biblical geologist
While stratigraphy today is used as a major plank of evolutionism,6 its founder, Steno, was a firm believer in a literal, historical creation by God, as outlined in the Bible, and also the global Flood. This was true of the founders of many other scientific disciplines. Although some of them would not be regarded as theologically sound overall, it is still instructive to note that modern science blossomed in an intellectual framework of belief in a six-day Creation about 6,000 years ago."
"Throughout his life, Steno considered his investigations of the wonders of God's creation to be a Christian responsibility: 'One sins against the majesty of God by being unwilling to look into nature's own works.'16 He also recognized the sinfulness of man and our dependency on God: 'Let us at God's feet lay aside the soiled clothes of our sins'.3"
by Ann Lamont
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
creation/v23/i4/steno.asp
cal
Michael,
ReplyDeleteYou call me stupid for saying this study is bunk and less than circumstancial. Yes you did also call it circumstancial, but your using it to prove your point.
Although the study doesn't prove that higher crime rates are the direct result of a belief in god, the data is very telling: not only are religious countries not better off, they are worse off than atheistic countries.
This statement contradicts itself. You missed my point. not only is the data not "telling" it proves there is absolutly no corralation. Look up scatter chart and see what one should look like when the data is "telling". And again it is only using the U.S. as a theistic county to make its point, you just can't do that. You have to have multiple data points on either side to prove something. So let me change my statment. I should not have said the data is circumstancial, becuase it is not even that. It actually proves there is no correlation between theism and social dysfunction. If there was you would have nice slopes on the scatter charts.
Christians can no longer try to claim that their faith will improve society, or that this country is going down the tubes because we're losing our belief in god. This study is absolutely devastating to that argument.
Again you tell me I am stupid for saying the study is circumstancial, becuase you already said that, then you say how devastating it is to an argument.
I am sure we could do a study comparing crime in the inner city vs suburbs and find inner city crime much higher per capita, then see if suburbia is more theistic than inner city. Does this mean that the crime is caused by athiesm, I doubt it. There are perhaps a multiple range of causes as to why this occurs. When studys are done with a purpose (as this one cetainly is) chances are you will get the data that will (on the surface) support it.
My origional claim that I did not want to hijack M's post with, was not that theistic morality was better for society, it was that it is better in principle. Perhaps I will jump on your blog and we can continue (if you wish), if not I will leave you alone.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteSure, that sounds good. I will post a response to what you've written here (probably late tonight or tomorrow), and then we can continue the discussion.
By the way, I didn't call you stupid, I said it was a stupid move. I don't think you're stupid at all, but the worldview in which you live does put you at a disadvantage when it comes to logical arguments.
Yeah, Michael, people don't pay much attention to choice of words in this internets tubes thing. The other day I said someone was "acting ignorant and stupid" or something like that, and it was taken as "you are" this and that. Someone else corrected it tough, thanks (Dennis, I think).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, technically, I think you guys are not hijacking the post at all, since in my interpretation Massimo provoked this in the last paragraph. Not that it was needed, but anyway... :-)
Now... "Nazi Germany was an athiestic country."
Oh, boy... Why do people keep saying this rubbish? Eh, Jim? Go read a little bit about it and see all his glorious praising of your lord all the time -- Hitler was NOT an atheist (did he ever say he was? where?), and he was clearly supported by the church(es).
Even if you could say that 1930's Germany was more secular (or less religious) than 2000's USA (which might be the case, but I can't tell), I guess it was very far from "atheistic", as it still is today.
Now the old ridiculous argument that "Hitler said those things but he really wasn't a real Christian". Oh, well, many can play this (stupid) game. Stalin was actually a devout evangelical, fundamentalist Christian, just pretending to be an atheist to conform to Communist Party rules. Didn't you know that!? I mean, real atheists try to go by reason and science, and he surely didn't -- he was against evolution and genetics, with that Lysenko friend of his, you see... Let's see if people can recognize sarcasm on the internets tubes too.
J
Thanks, J. When arguments fail, they always bring out the Nazi card (this appears to be the case in politics, too). If it's not Hitler and his Nazis, then it's Stalin or Mao. I think Sam Harris said it best when he said that communism is little more than a political religion (and the Nazis had their own belief system).
ReplyDeleteNone of these people did the horrible things they did because the were too reasonable. :)
The power of the hypothetical situation to resolve a human conflict. It goes a long way to draw conclusions that will justify our behaviour, it even brought people to question not only the role biology plays in our moral constructions of self, but also to discuss beyond itself into matters of politics and religious beliefs. Are those three that far linked in the end?
ReplyDeleteWhat would we do if the hypothetical become real? Would we mind the discussions and re-evalutate ourselves into what is moral, who should I save, should I push myself, or would I just be so awe-struck as I watch the destruction take place as a present by-stander? Just a thought. I really enjoy the sharing of all these ideas in this blog.
Cheers
Michael: "Thanks, J. When arguments fail, they always bring out the Nazi card (this appears to be the case in politics, too). If it's not Hitler and his Nazis, then it's Stalin or Mao."
ReplyDeleteLIKE IT OR NOT, Hitler was the epitome of the trolley car "pusher". And who got pushed in front of the trolley car for the sake of "saving" whom?
And btw, Hitler's religion was a form of Universalism.
Universalism and the Cults
"Universalism teaches that all people will ultimately be saved no matter what they believe here on earth. You could deny God, hate Him, blaspheme against Him, join a satanist group and murder people and still go to heaven.
Bible based, non-Christian cults are those groups that claim to be Christian, use the Bible, yet have redefined God, Jesus, and the gospel sufficiently to make salvation of no effect."
http://www.carm.org/universalism.htm
cal
Cal,
ReplyDeleteThe point is that all religious belief is dangerous. I don't care if Hitler was a Christian, Muslim, Universalist, Scientologist, etc. The particular religion is irrelevant--Hitler and his Nazis were acting with faith as their guide, not reason.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteAll people have beliefs, even those with low IQs, all the way to the extremely well informed and whatnot. Therefore having them (or not) cannot possibly make one a better or less than fit individual.
There is really no such thing as a "neutral" view on beliefs. If one happens to leave a vacuum in a particular corner of one's mind, one never knows what nonsense will come and fill it.
Most importantly, moral neutrality does not in any way negate the bad beliefs in the world. It just leaves the door wide open for the worst of them to flood in!
cal
J,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you are correct about Nazi Germany. I confess I know very little about the subject. It's really a moot point, since my point is that the data shows no correlation between higher social dysfunction and theism. Yet the U.N. spouts off this report as if it does. Why would they do that? Why would they collect data that shows absolutly no correlation, then write a report saying that there is a correlation. Then atheist like yourselves think that since it came from the U.N. there must be some scientific merit, and repeat it to others. Eventually it becomes fact, when it's really just a load of crap.
Think of the logic. Both atheist and Christians believe that murder is wrong. Atheist use the "golden rule", or some other self proclaimed logical system for deciding murder is wrong. Christians use Gods word and believe that not only is there a price to pay in this life, there is a price to pay in the next. So somehow the latter leads to a higher murder rate? Wouldn't logic dictate that the one who believes there is a higher price to pay be less apt to commit murder if anything? My personal feeling is that things like murder rates of certain societys are decided by far more concrete things than a peoples belief systems. Like economic stability and other issues that affect the day to day.
One of the most important freedoms that our country was founded on is religous freedom. Atheist and the U.N. alike would love to see that dissapear. Suddenly the majority has become the problem. The athiestic minortiy knows whats better for the rest of us. I hear from atheist about how the religious right uses propaganda. Then look at things like this report. It makes me wanna puke. It is nothing but propaganda, but even worse. Its wearing the disguise of science and data.
The point is that all religious belief is dangerous
Give me a break, are you going to tell me our founding fathers were dangerous? There is a perfect example of propaganda.
"Christians use Gods word and believe that not only is there a price to pay in this life, there is a price to pay in the next."
ReplyDeleteYou've touched on a key point here, and I'm glad you brought it up. If you believe that someone is destined to be tortured for all eternity in hell, then it doesn't really matter how you treat him or her in this life, does it? "It doesn't matter, they're going to hell anyway," right? How much respect can you really have for someone whom you think is going to hell, especially since you think they deserve it? Belief in hell is one of the most immoral things a person can believe, and it definitely effects how you act in this life.
"Give me a break, are you going to tell me our founding fathers were dangerous?"
I'm glad you brought this up, too. I've been reading a great deal about the American Revolution and our founding fathers lately. It is remarkable how many of them were not Christians, and in fact, not religious (Washington, Jefferson, etc.). They were primarily deists. John Adams was the only president out of the first four or five that was not a deist, but I can tell you that his version of Christianity is much different than your version. These men, without a doubt, were adherents to enlightenment principles. They all read philosophy widely, and had some very radical ideas in regards to government. I can promise you, they didn't get these grand ideas from your holy book. Give to Caesar what is Caesar's? I don't think so! More like no taxation without representation. These men were freethinkers in the very best sense of the word (but let's not idolize them, they did have serious faults).
It may be a good idea to read a little more about what the founding fathers actually believed. Here's a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidential_religious_affiliations
So yes, the founding fathers were dangerous, but only to monarchists.
"How much respect can you really have for someone whom you think is going to hell, especially since you think they deserve it? Belief in hell is one of the most immoral things a person can believe, and it definitely effects how you act in this life."
ReplyDeleteThe concept of "hell" or eternal judgment is to be met with humility. As it is has been said by some, "But for the grace of God, there go I." The sincere Christian knows this one fact, if nothing else.
As for your comments about the founding fathers, there is this thing called "revisionism". It has occured to many of countries, cultures and people all the through time, especially when there is a social transformation that is wished (by x?) to be implemented.
Don't trust everything you read. One must ask what the motive of the writer is.
I gotta git!
you guys have good afternoon!
cal
"One of the most important freedoms that our country was founded on is religous freedom."
ReplyDeleteChristopher Hitchens once wrote, "The secular state is the guarantee of religious pluralism. This apparent paradox...is the simplest and most elegant of political truths."
You will never find religious freedom in a Christian government or a Muslim government. Only a secular government can guarantee the equal treatment of people from all walks of life. This is the essence of that great principle of separation of church and state.
"Don't trust everything you read."
ReplyDeleteCal,
That's great advice, and I hope you follow it when you're reading your bible. Most unbelievers got to be that way because they don't believe everything they read or hear. Doubt everything. Test all claims against reason and science.
Now, back to your point. When reading about the founding fathers, I always like to see what they actually wrote themselves. For example, John Adams once wrote, "...the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
-The Treaty of Tripoli, January 4, 1797
If he was one of the few Christians in that first generation of presidents and said this, what do you think someone like Jefferson wrote? I hope you have the courage to find out.
On the topic of the Founding Fathers, their beliefs, and so on:
ReplyDeleteWhile what they believed is important insofar as how those beliefs may have informed their political judgment, even more important to the conversation is what was left out of their crowning achievement - that being, the Constitution. The law of the land is notably God-less; moreso, it is actively secular in that it repudiates the idea of a religious test to hold public office and confers the protections of the First Amendment to citizens. I don't care if the Founders were Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or members of the Church of the Raving Loony; the Constitution they constructed keeps faith a matter of private conscience and not public necessity.
To Cal's point: Revisionism is a word that is bandied about a little too cavalierly. Are we revising our views of the Founders? Yes, and for the better, because we are getting a MORE factual picture of them and their beliefs, rather than the same old simplistic "they were Christian Democratic saints". Revisionism can be good OR bad where it comes to history. Cal is right that we should examine the agendas of those doing the revising. But we should also cast a critical eye upon the agendas of those who resist any re-interpretation of history. There's nothing wrong with revisionism, if such revisions are based upon facts, rather than wishful thinking.
Lastly, behavior motivated by the fear of hell (or the reward of heaven) all too often denies justice to those who are suffering right now, at this very instant; or inspires those who would cause others to suffer in pursuit of their own selfish rewards in the afterlife. For example, the promise of heavenly rewards and diabolical punishments kept generations of religious believers mired in poverty and squalor, slavery and peasantry. And certainly those faithful who carry out suicide missions believe they will be rewarded by God for their willingness to die in "His" service.
The Golden Rule is a little harder to twist into something that justifies murder, whereas history has shown that the dictates of Gods (or their megalomaniacal mortal stand-ins, such as the oft-mentioned Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot) can easily motivate the irrational believer to commit mass slaughter - all the while believing that such actions ensure his ultimate reward in the heaven of his choosing (ethereal or earthly).
~ Bob
Michael,
ReplyDeleteI agree totally that there should be a seperation of church and state. Otherwise there can be no religious freedom. But I do believe while this country was being founded, it wasn't so much as secularism or theism that gave rise to our constitution). The first amendmant on the bill of rights was made because I think our forefathers could see that a time may come when our government may fear its own religions. Fo r some reason they felt it was worth protecting.
As far as how I treat someone going to hell. I am not allowed to judge, and I am specifically told not to. So how can I treat that person different. So a belief in heaven and hell in no way makes me any more immoral as you say. It makes me think much more of my own personal conciquences.
I noticed you bring up the "give ceasar what is ceasars" line in refence as to how Christians should think they should govern themselves. When Jesus says this, he is basically telling them that money is not important. It doesn't mean a Christian must submit to his government. Many thought he was there to free the Jews from the Romans. At this point he was letting them know his purpose was far more important. It wasn't advice that must be followed through the ages when your trying to set up a system that would be good for your fellow man
Jim,
ReplyDeleteIf you truly believe that God will send me to hell, and if you believe that he is a just God, then you would agree with him that I deserve to go there. If you really think I deserve to be tortured for all eternity, do you really expect me to believe that you respect me in this life? I'm sorry, but that simply isn't believable. History shows us how Christians and Muslims treat unbelievers, and I'm convinced they couldn't do that without their faith, especially their belief regarding hell.
"It doesn't mean a Christian must submit to his government."
Of course you are. The Bible clearly says in Romans 13, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." It doesn't get any clearer than that.
Does this sound like the founding fathers? Not quite. The founders of this country were heavily influenced by Locke, not scripture. We often forget how radical these ideas were back then. I mean, the idea that individuals were born with inherent rights, that we are all born equal, was something new and outrageous. These ideas were not found in scripture, but are the offspring of the enlightenment.
If you truly believe that God will send me to hell, and if you believe that he is a just God, then you would agree with him that I deserve to go there. If you really think I deserve to be tortured for all eternity, do you really expect me to believe that you respect me in this life? I'm sorry, but that simply isn't believable.
ReplyDeleteI thought I just got done explaining that I cannot judge you, meaning I have no idea if your going to hell or not. You have a lifetime to live. I must treat you the way Jesus tells me to treat other men, even my enimies (not that your my enimie).
The bible has a lot of verses. I personally do not take it all literally, and also personally struggle with the old testament.I am not a young earth creationist (perhaps I should have made this clear earlier). I do not go to, or belong to any church. when I read the 4 gosphels however, I find more truth than I ever have. So I am not interested in a whole biblical debate, since I can't even tell you where I stand. When I read the 4 gosphels, I feel I find every tool I need for my own morality.
I do not yet submit to total biblical authority. I do however submit to Jesus's authority.
Mans moralty however is ever changing. He strives to defend why he himself knows what is right and wrong. I see you like to call it "enlightenment" as if it some majic force nature gave to man. Others call it the golden rule. Some say that it can be logically reasoned. So I dare ask, how do you know what is right and wrong. How do you know stealing is wrong?
Jim,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your reply. I am very happy to hear that you follow the teachings of Jesus and look skeptically at the rest of the Bible. Jesus had some very good things to say, and I think he was a great moral teacher. The teachings of Jesus were not new, however, so why have you chosen him as your authority? Why not those that came before him: Buddha, Confucius, etc.?
How do I know what is right and wrong? Common sense in most cases. Stealing is the example you gave, so let's address that. I do not steal, because I do not want to live in a society where everyone steals. Our actions have results. Buddhists call it karma, but in reality it is simply cause and effect. None of us need God or a holy book to point these things out, it is easily deduced using the mind.
None of us need God or a holy book to point these things out, it is easily deduced using the mind.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a case where you can steal and know you will not be caught. Its effect will not bear any consiquence to you or anyone else. Why would that be wrong?
Not all of we consider moral has a cause and effect. This is why as a society we allow things like abortion. Even though it stops a beating heart, its effect on the rest of the population is not apparent.
When you start with mans natural logic for morality, can't you really explain anything he does naturally? "yeah he killed his friend, but he was more fit, and was just insuring survival of the species".
As crazy as the above statement sounds. couldn't it be seen as logical. Who's to say that that murder did not really benifit future generations of people from sickness. We have already started the process of exchanging human embryos for remote potential of less sickness in the future. Even though other types of stem cells are making paramount breakthroughs and actually helping people all the time and embryonic stem cells have not helped even one person in years and years of research. Once we cross that line, we will only continue to go in that direction.
Why would stealing all the money from the execs of Enron and leave them the way they left their employees be wrong? Wouldn't teaching these A-holes a lesson benifit society over all and perhaps put some fear into other execs and help keep them legit? Isn't some types of stealing OK. Wouldn't this be logical?
"What about a case where you can steal and know you will not be caught. Its effect will not bear any consiquence to you or anyone else."
ReplyDeleteOf course it would have consequences. Even if I am not caught, the person from whom I stole would suffer. And as a response, what if they also decided to steal to replace what they lost? You can see where this is going, right? I certainly don't want to live in a world where everyone is constantly stealing from each other.
You may claim that the word of God is your moral guide, but I'm not buying it. You use reason just like anyone else. For example, the Bible gives you orders to kill for a number of petty offenses: heresy, adultery, homosexuality, working on the Sabbath, etc. You don't believe this is right (you implied this, anyway, when you said that you struggled with the Old Testament) and you ignore these commands. If your reason conflicts with your moral guide, you go with your reason. Surely you can understand, then, how the rest of us use reason to determine our everyday actions.
Of course it would have consequences. Even if I am not caught, the person from whom I stole would suffer.
ReplyDeleteYour evading the question. No stealing does not always have consiquences. Would it be wrong to steal a dollar from Bill Gates to feed your starving family? if you know he would never find out? If it is, why?
I have heard this garbage before, that the bible tells me I must kill for things like
Homosexuality:I believe you are refering to Romans 1:24-32
I think this is the phrase you are refering to? And the verse does not talk just about homosexuality, it talks about people turning from God, worshipping other things, ect.. No God does not say that I should kill homosexuals.
If you are taliking about Leviticus 20:13, These are Moses orders for the Isrealites. I am hardly in his company.
Working on the Sabbath: I believe you are refering to Exodus 31:12, Where God orders Moses to kill, or put out of the community those who work on the Sabbath. he is speaking to Moses So again, I should not kill people for working on the Sabbath. Not to mention Jesus not only changes what day the Sabbath is, he himself heals on the Sabbath to the dismay of the Jews. As he changes the convenant to important tasks may be performed on the Sabbath. Today many people interpet that to mean doctors and firefighters and such.
Adultary: I believe again you are refering to Leviticus 20:9 Where god is giving orders for how Moses should rule his people.
With the comming of Jesus is a new covenant where he tells us new laws, many different than the old testament, this upsets many Jews at the time. So you can't just go flipping through the bible and say that I must follow everything it says or I am not obtaining my morality from it.
The story of Moses I believe to be true. When I say I struggle with the old testament. That does not mean I do not place value on all of it and its storys. I just am not sure if stories like Genesis are literal or not. I don't think every phrase of the old testament is meant to be literal (but I may change my thinking the more I learn about it).
Let me give another exapmle of an immoral act that would not have consiquences. Say you were a hermit, you and your wife moved away from society and lived off the land. Your wife gives birth to a severly handicapped baby. This baby makes your already tough living that you once loved, unbearable. You want to end the life of the baby but are afraid of your wifes feelings. She then comes to you begging you to end the life, so that you can try for another. So you now, in the most humane way you can think of kill the baby. Now you can start over and you and your wife are much happier. No one is ever the wiser, since only you and your wife ever knew.
ReplyDeleteIs this wrong or not? This is a thought experiment like Massimos, so I do not want to hear that you would never do such a thing (its not really you per se). Is what was done wrong or not?
Jim
ReplyDeleteThe thought experiment that Massimo mentioned was designed to discover how people felt about certain moral actions, regardless of whether they could "justify" them or not.
Your thought experiment is defective, because it already assumes that "I" want to kill the baby.
Most people feel it would be wrong to actively push a person in front of a train. I think most people would also feel that the parental obligation would have formed at the birth of the baby.
If people did not have these kind of feelings, it would never matter what the Bible or anything else said about it, because it would all seem like a bunch of gobbledygook.
Your thought experiment is defective, because it already assumes that "I" want to kill the baby.
ReplyDeleteI thought I was clear that it wasn't "you" per se. I am not comparing the thought experiment to M's, forget about his. Its just a thought experiment. Lets say that you are the only to know of this couple. Would that work better for you? I just want an answer if this couple is immoral or not?
We are discussing where ones morality comes from, Mans Logic vs Gods Law.
As far as most peoples parental obligation being formed at birth. I seriously doubt that. Ask any pregnant woman if she feels her moral obligation does not begin until her baby is born. See what the majority tell you.
Jim,
ReplyDeleteWow, I don't even know where to start. So much of what you said was incorrect, my own post would have to be three times as long just to respond. I'll try to keep it short and sweet.
You really need to read your Bible a little more closely. Jesus does say to follow the laws of the Old Testament:
Matthew 23:2-3 "The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do."
Matthew 5:18-19 "For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Italics mine.)
And don't even get me started on the sabbath. My wife is a devout Seventh-Day Adventist, and they have some very good biblical arguments for keeping it. It was one of the Ten Commandments, and Jesus never specifically said that it was changed. Wouldn't changing one of the Ten Commandments require an explicit order from Jesus? Christians simply take "they met on the first day of the week" to mean that one of the Ten Commandments is suddenly null and void. The truth is the Catholic Church changed it (and they admit it). If you are Catholic and you recognize the authority of the Church, then I suppose this wouldn't be a problem for you. But if you're a Protestant, then you don't recognize the authority of the Catholic church and you better be observing the Sabbath.
"Would it be wrong to steal a dollar from Bill Gates to feed your starving family? if you know he would never find out? If it is, why?"
Now you're just giving me softball questions, Jim. Which would be worse between stealing from a billionaire or letting my family starve? Are you kidding me? Letting my family starve to death would obviously be worse, so I would choose to steal from the billionaire. It would still be wrong, but it's nothing compared to letting my family starve to death. Again, most of the time it's just common sense. Christian morality, however, doesn't have this kind of flexibility. You would be obligated not to steal (and therefore let your family starve to death), because this is the rigid moral code by which you live (regrettably the Ten Commandments do not have footnotes, addendum, or exceptions). Now I know you wouldn't let you family starve, of course. You would use your reason, ignore the commandment, and save your family. Again, the power of your reason will supersede the rules of the Bible. (If I assume too much and you would let your family starve, then please let me know.)
Regarding your question about the baby, I think it is a flawed question from the beginning, but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, it was wrong to kill the baby. It was simply done out of convenience (to avoid a tough life). The father and mother were apparently concerned about their happiness, not the happiness or suffering of the child.
"See what the majority tell you."
ReplyDeleteWhat, is morality now a democratic process? If the majority of people have a different stand on a moral issue that the Bible, which do you go with, the majority or the Bible?
I might find it easier to push the lever to save the 5 but not inclined to push the person because the person might try and take me with them. Extra risk to me
ReplyDeleteIf I were to push someone who is in the same position as me i.e. not in danger, onto the track, the precedent set is - no one is safe.
If the people on the track could talk to you before the train comes, I wonder what would happen.
"We are discussing where ones morality comes from, Mans Logic vs Gods Law."
ReplyDeleteNeither answer would be wholly satisfactory. Without a background of moral feelings, man's logic would have nothing to work with.
As for God's Law, is something good because it is God's law? or is it God's law because it is good? If the former, then anything could be justified, if we thought God "told us to do it". If the latter, then it is good anyway regardless of whether it is God's law. [I believe this is called Euthyrpo's dilemma. It's just the theistic version of the Naturalistic fallacy. It is very difficult, regardless of your philosophy, to get from "is" to "ought" in any simplistic fashion. It is more a question of judgement and persuasion, than it is of logic.]
I probably won't have much more to say, because you are already having one pretty full discussion. I say "probably".
suf,
ReplyDelete"Without a background of moral feelings, man's logic would have nothing to work with.
As for God's Law, is something good because it is God's law? or is it God's law because it is good? If the former, then anything could be justified, if we thought God "told us to do it". If the latter, then it is good anyway regardless of whether it is God's law."
Interestingly enough, my husband taught on a related matter this morning. He was referring to the fact that by appearances, fewer laws in Vegas Nevada are broken per capita. I.E. it tends to look like crime rates are lower in Vegas then other states as so much of what tends to be considered lawless behavior is permissible.
Now even common sense tells us that something is wrong with that method of putting "facts" and stats together.
BTW, This is part of what we studied today. I think it is wiser to not get into offhandedly saying... "GOD this...and the Law that" without quoting some of the things that scripture literally does say on these matters. Pitfalls and presumption there. As you can see, however, 1st John ch. 3 is primarily directed at believers. Not to forget tho that the Lord does write "His law" on the heart of every human being.
1Jo 3:3
Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
1Jo 3:4
Everyone who sins breaks the law; in fact, sin is lawlessness.
1Jo 3:5
But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin.
1Jo 3:6
No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.
1Jo 3:7
Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as he is righteous.
1Jo 3:8
He who does what is sinful is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the devil's work.
1Jo 3:9
No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.
1Jo 3:10
This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.
1Jo 3:11
This is the message you heard from the beginning: We should love one another."
http://www.blueletterbible.org/
cgi-bin/tools/printer-friendly.
pl?book=1Jo&chapter=3&version=niv
cal
I think your missing the point, it is logical not to push the person to maintain a sense of safety for oneself. This is not a moral discussion.
ReplyDeleteSelf preservation is the best way for us all to survive.
suffenus you are looking at mans logic illogically, otherwise you would find an explanation entirely satisfactory to your problem. I agree with selfish jon, the genes survive and the status quo is maintained. Simple not a moral dilemma
ReplyDeleteJon & Anon
ReplyDeleteMaybe but... It seems we all have a conscience. Some will say it comes from God. Others will say it's a biological/social phenom. But at the end of the day it is a conscience, and is supported by a whole register of moral feelings, or feelings about morality. In some deep sense you may be right, but I wouldn't go there too fast. Don't forget the Naturalistic fallacy.
Michael,
ReplyDeleteSorry I took so long to respond. So what your saying is that I should be killing anyone who comits these offenses, since God told Moses to. Why do the Jews not believe this, nor the Christians. Again these were direct orders to Moses. My point about the new covenant was just for the sabbath. Moses was Gods appointed leader for the Jews. I do not think he intended for me to uphold his law with killing those who break it.
Now you say,
the power of your reason will supersede the rules of the Bible
That is the difference between our morality systems. Yes, I would be lying if I said I would let my family starve. The difference is you believe it is OK to steal in this instance, because to let your family starve would be a greater crime (for you not Bill Gates). Although I may steal, I believe it would still be the greater sin not to let my family starve. It would be my own lack of faith and yes my own logic that would make me steal. I do not belive this is the right thing to do. Yes I do believe the right thing to do would be to let my family starve. Although I am perhaps not strong enough to do it.
Regarding your question about the baby, I think it is a flawed question from the beginning, but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, it was wrong to kill the baby. It was simply done out of convenience (to avoid a tough life). The father and mother were apparently concerned about their happiness, not the happiness or suffering of the child.
Funny you say that, this is the same exact reason that abortions are done (convenience and concern about happiness), but your logic and enlightenment allows for that due to stage of developemnt.
Massimo,
ReplyDeleteHave heard about Steven Pinker advocating an E.O. Wilsonian bridge between the sciences and the humanities?
Mark,
ReplyDeleteyes. I've read both Pinker and Wilson, and find them both intellectually arrogant and philosophically naive. Wilson doesn't advocate a bridge, he wants to reduce everything to biology (of course, he's a biologist after all!).
Mind you, they are both good scientists, but I wish they would stick with brains and insects, respectively... :)