Original Post:
https://www.facebook.com/seth.garrett3/posts/10113969618898641
Me:
Nothing more needs to be said
Interlocutor 1:
Perhaps if we lived in the time of the ancient Israelites, we would have also struggled to keep the law of Moses?
Listen closely to the revealed words of God, specifically of Jesus Christ, which we are commanded to follow in our day:
"According to the laws and constitution of the people, which I have suffered to be established, and should be maintained for the rights and protection of all flesh, according to just and holy principles;
That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency which I have given unto him, that every man may be accountable for his own sins in the day of judgment.
Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another.
And for this purpose have I established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood."
2 different laws, the old and the new, we are to obey the new........
D&C 101: 77 - 80
Me:
God gave two commandments against lying, but apparently slavery is too complicated for them, so God had to hide this special truth from them? God can create commandments about not eating shellfish, but slavery, nope, not going there. What kind of a God sees human rights as less of a priority than dietary restrictions?
Interlocutor 2:
Ask Him 🙂
Me:
I think asking God is a good way to meditate your consciousness into the dream-related cortexes and allow your brain's preconstructed model of God to confirm your biases as to what he might say. Not really useful for discovering truth.
Interlocutor 2:
You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Compare what “science” claimed to be truth in those days to what it says today.
The principal of knowledge, and truth has evolved as society has progressed. This is consistent with every religious teaching regarding modern revelation.
You are looking for something to justify your opinions. The reality is that you have agency. And that agency includes the decision to allow yourself to believe. It is a conscious choice.
Me:
Yes, religions evolve because moral philosophy evolves and traditional religious people become persuaded by the unassailable logic of modern moral philosophy that they are too embarrassed to cling to their ancient doctrines and then play mental gymnastics to comfort themselves in continuing to believing in a God who is less morally educated than human philosophers.
Interlocutor 2:
All of your enlightenment and you are no closer to knowing anything about your existence, or the purpose for it. I hope that someday you find peace.
Your contempt for some people just because they choose to believe differently than you will continue to poison your life.
It is apparent from your recent posts that you can’t simply allow others to believe differently. Good luck Seth.
Me:
I don't have contempt for others, I empathize with those who are trapped within the confines of low quality moral systems since I used to be there. I have a sense of a moral obligation to promote good morality over bad morality. People obviously have the freedom to believe what they want, but I would rather expose bad morality than let it fester in the collective unconscious and lead us towards social disasters that make the world a worse place. I would want my former self to be helped out of a low quality moral system, so I must do unto others as I would have them do unto me.
But that was a good attempt at a typical theist strategy to vilify the critic, so you don't have to take their arguments seriously.
Interlocutor 3:
What about the sermon on the mount given by Christ? I don't know the history of moral philosophy, so correct me if I'm wrong. But, it seems like those collective teachings were way ahead of their time in moral philosophy. Maybe some of them had been shared but I doubt all of them had been.
Me:
I'm not opposed to the idea that the Bible or other books of scripture make contain some valuable pearls of moral wisdom. Perhaps some of the time theologians were more enlightened than philosophers. The problem with theology is the dogmatism - the refusal to be humble, admit when you are wrong, delete the bad and add the good. Theology just wants people to accept the whole package of ideas, good, bad, and ugly, and not allow anyone to question them. Philosophy is all about the continued refinement of principles, happily embracing every criticism they get so they can generate a higher order truth out of the dialectic synthesis of the discussion. Once people drop the dogma, then we can search for the pearls and discard the dregs together.
Interlocutor 3:
That's a fair point. I definitely can see the dogmatism of theology. But I think that comes as a result of religious people being defensive about their beliefs and so defending old immoral practices with bad logic. I think they fear the thought that their deeply held beliefs could be wrong. I've done before as well. But I think there's a shift with more people of faith being willing to examine both the good and the bad of their religious history. That comes when a person is grounded and can trust the process. So I don't see moral philosophy as being at war with or superior to theology. I see them as complimentary with both being able to help society progress as long as there is a willingness to admit our mistakes and keep seeking a better way forward.
Me:
To the extent theists are willing to refine their moral philosophy, I am an ally!
Interlocutor 3:
Sounds good to me. I am always willing to examine myself and how I treat my fellow humans. I personally find my religious beliefs and teachings to be the best approach to doing so. But I support anyone wanting to make the world more peaceful and charitable place, whatever their approach.
Interlocutor 3:
Another perspective on understanding these scriptures: "Slavery wasn’t merely a one-time blip, but a fundamental part of the Old and New Testaments. This prevents us from saying “oh, that prophet was just acting as a man,” as if it were a one-off kind of thing. Nor can we say, “oh, *that* part isn’t inspired,” because it’s the “whole” thing. I also don’t think we want to be apologists for Biblical slavery, just because it’s in the Bible. We think, “they were prophets, they should have known.” And yet, they didn’t. Rather, we need to recalibrate our expectations about the nature of scripture. For example, scripture is not an encyclopedic repository of the platonically ideal unchanging ethics and doctrines. It is, rather, a human-but-inspired record (of sorts) of God’s line-upon-line, accommodationist dealings with fallen humans...Both the ideas of line-upon-line and accommodation imply progression, that God slowly brings us around. The New Testament “redeems” the Old in several distinct ways, evident both from things like the Sermon on the Mount, where Jesus is a new Moses and much more subtle things."
Me:
I don't think "line upon line" is a good enough reason for excluding valuable moral principles like human rights and freedom, and including less valuable moral principles like capital punishment for working on Sunday. If it looks like cave man morality, it probably is cave man morality, not a super enlightened God that hides all his good principles and only reveals his bad principles, because they aren't ready for the good stuff yet, we got to wait for philosophers to invent that stuff, and then we will say "Of course! This is was what God intended all along but we weren't ready!". That's just a little too convenient of an excuse. But if that reasoning persuades you, more power to you.
Interlocutor 3:
I don't fully understand it either. But, I keep seeing the flawed argument that philosophers are the ones that invent better moral principles and then religion catches up afterward. But that's not consistently true. I have not seen any proof that Moral philosophers at the time of the old Testament were saying slavery was bad or that you should treat slaves humanely. And as I mentioned before, Christ's Sermon on the Mount taught moral principles that were way ahead of philosophers at the time. Many philosophers were also deeply religious people, and their ideas were based on their beliefs. So I don't see how agnostic/ atheist philosophers have somehow been the only ones advancing morality in history.
I also don't see how the alternative is better. Philosophers have also been advancing morality line up line. I don't see the difference. Philosophers have also justified all sorts of atrocities including slavery.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/.../sla.../ethics/philosophers_1.shtml
So I guess what is your ultimate goal. Do you want people to me more moral? So do I. The question is how best to go about it. I think that might prove to be a more fruitful conversation for us then debating whether philosophers or theologians have better advanced morality.
Me:
Theologians have the burden of carrying forward outdated philosophy. Philosophers don't. In discussing Euthyphro's dilemma, Greek philosophers in 400 BC already identified a fatal flaw of theology which was divine command theory and hypothesized about the alternative of natural law theory which built the philosophical foundation for human rights - hence freedom to not be a slave.
Yes, the goal is to make the world a better place by promoting better ideas, better thinking patterns, etc. If you can convince me that theologians are better at producing and promoting the best moral philosophy available, I would gladly go that route. But as I see it, the dogmatic baggage is too heavy to make it the best method. Theists seem to care less about the pursuit of an ever-improving understanding of truth and goodness outside of their books, and more about confirming their dogma to already be all the truth and goodness they need.
Fundamental assumptions are different - assuming you have everything you need is an idea that stops progress towards new and better ideas. Of course, new ideas are risky, so we need to evaluate them and vet them properly. But the world is changing too fast for us to ignore the necessity for new ideas and retreat to fundamentalism.
Interlocutor 3:
Why does one have to be better than another? As you agreed before, religious teachers and philosophers have contributed important truths and moral principles. Just because there are religious people and leaders who refuse to consider that we need to continue to learn and progress does not mean that all religious leaders and people are that way or that it is religion per se that makes them that way. I think it's more our own human weakness of being afraid of being wrong or not knowing how to deal with the pain that comes from recognizing that we've harmed others through our past adherence to what turns out to be harmful principles. So what I want to do is join with you in fighting dogmatism, not in fighting each other over whose belief system is superior. Together we can both contribute to an every improving society. Fighting about our underlying philosophy ends up producing nothing moral. It's a zero sum game where we both leave convinced that we are "right" and the other person is wrong without making either of us more kind, generous, or protective of human rights. So why not for together for a better world by helping each other actually be better people instead of simply preaching or philosophizing about the "better" way to do it?
<Real Dissection of Religious Psychology Begins here>
Me:
Okay, so let's say I want to discuss the topic of abortion. I have logical arguments x, y, and z to support the morality of abortion. You would agree that dogmatism is a full stop obstacle to this discussion right? Like, we can't even discuss the arguments because "my religion says abortion is bad therefore it is bad - end of discussion". How do you think we can counteract the dogmatism so that issues can be discussed unbiasedly?
Even if perchance they are willing to discuss the issue, they are still bringing in axiomatic baggage from their religion, so it's impossible for them to be unbiased on the issue.
Interlocutor 3:
Thanks for your patience. I had to get back to life, haha. I'm glad you made it concrete so we can see if we can find common ground. With abortion, I agree that most religious people will make the argument that it's bad simply because God says it's bad and then stop there. However, the goal would be to encourage these people to find logical arguments to support their position. How else can I expect people to support laws against abortion if they don't have the same beliefs as me?
Also, of course religious people have a bias, but so does everyone that comes into that discussion. A person who left religion will often have a bias against any argument by a religious person regardless of the merits or logic of the argument. It's our human nature. We tend to focus on arguments that support our position and ignore or dismiss any that challenge it. So I don't see how just being a religious person should automatically exclude any arguments they have.
Some of these issues though are not a dispute over which approach is more logical but just a difference in what people value. And those differences should not be excluded simply because they are different than what others value. We should value a diversity of values.
So correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, it sounds like what your against is not religion and religious people but just religious people not providing arguments for a position beyond "I was told it's bad." If that's true, then let's focus on challenging that instead of challenging religion in its entirety when we've agreed that religion has contributed good to the pursuit of a more moral and good society, even though it is imperfect. So what if we just kindly asked people to provide arguments that are not just appeals to their religious authority. And if they don't then don't engage in conversation with them or kindly explain why it's important to have justifications for a law beyond someone else's God told them that I have to live that way?
Me:
I used to be incredibly dogmatically religious. Based on my self-introspection, it is obvious to me that when I was operating from my religious brain, I was not being rational in my argumentation. I necessarily started with my axiomatic religious doctrines, and then used anything and everything at my disposal to justify those doctrines. It was not a good faithed attempt at truth - it was an attempt to justify my doctrines. If the goal is to merely justify your churches position, then no amount of logic or truth can overcome that. Religious people merely providing a logical explanation is not a solution. Religious people need to be open to the idea that they might be wrong - but based on my experience, the religious brain is unable to accept this possibility, because if it were true, then their entire religious worldview could be called into question. That is too scary of a possibility to entertain, so the brain viciously shields itself from those thought paths. But if those church values are wrong, cause harm, and make the world a worse place, then we desperately need religious people to be intellectually honest and willing to recognize that. Otherwise, our society will be negatively affected. As I see it, non-religious people are not desperate to confirm their worldviews. Non-religious people are flexible and willing to change their views as new information comes in. They are not tied to any authority or book of doctrines that limit their ability to update their philosophies. If the above is true, how do you suppose we get religious people to be more comfortable with the idea that they might be wrong so that we can keep progressing together in ways that benefit the world?
Interlocutor 3:
I agree that most religious people are scared to be open to the idea that their beliefs could be wrong. But I don't think that's unique to religious people. How often do atheists or agnostics reevaluate whether their stance on God could now be false? That He does actually exist and that this matters?
But, even if that's not true, why does it matter? Let's say that I can provide logical reasons that support my religious position and someone cannot refute those positions, or more likely, it comes down to not who's right but a difference of what we value as more important with logical reasons supporting both sides. If that's the case, why does it matter if my logical arguments are an attempt by me to defend my religious beliefs? It's still logic and all logic comes from people with some sort of bias. For example with abortion, if I provide you with specific, logical reasons for why we should not abort a fetus and those reasons matter to all of society even if you are not religious, then where is the issue? The only reason I can think of why we should discount logical arguments by religious people is if we assume that the arguments are coming from people who cannot make logical arguments because they have illogical beliefs (religion) and so are not capable of thinking logically. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your point here. If that's true, then that's ignoring the actual merits of the logical arguments by dismissing the source. Why can't we just focus on the merits of the logical arguments instead? Either my point is valid/logical for someone with certain values that matter to society or it's not.
Me:
So one important question is how do people derive their positions, the next question is how do people update their positions on issues. This is a question of epistemology. Rational epistemology starts with as few axiomatic assumptions as possible, and then tries to base their positions on the evidence that they can find. As they find new evidence they can update their positions. Religious epistemology seems to bring the maximum amount of axiomatic assumptions to the table and then uses confirmation bias to collect evidence that supports those assumptions. If the game is to confirm rather than update to the truth, then logical arguments are not helpful. Religious epistemology has to be willing to disconfirm its assumptions if we are to get on the same page.
For example, it's easy to make a religious case that fetuses are sacred from the point of conception. Based on scripture x, fetuses have spirits, based on scripture y the spirit enters at conception, based on scripture z, you can't violate their right to life. But none of that is evidence based, it's merely axiomatic baggage brought into the discussion. If you bring all of that baggage to the discussion, then you will conclude that abortion is murder. No amount of logic can undo those assumptions, unless you are willing to question those assumptions. So the only way to have a rational discussion is to first debunk the validity of all the axiomatic assumptions. Then rebuild an argument from scratch. The problem is these policy discussions are always surface level disputes, where the root of the dispute is way deeper into those axiomatic assumptions. No pro-lifer ever starts their argument with a list of scriptures, even though that is the true source of their argument. We can never solve the dispute at the surface level. We have to dig deeper to solve the dispute, but few people know how to do that. It requires empathy, digging deeper with probing questions, and the willingness to change your assumptions if they can't stand up to scrutiny. But if religious people are scared of questioning their assumptions, then no progress can be made. It's a way worse issue that merely a value difference - it's a difference in epistemology.
Interlocutor 3:
Very busy past few days, so thanks for your patience. But let's jump back in.
I agree that people can update their positions based on new evidence. I don't see how religious people though have any more underlying assumptions than non religious people. Whatever religious people assume, non religious people are assuming the opposite. If I assume there is a God and bring that into my arguments, then non religious people are assuming the opposite and bringing that into their arguments. So in your example, non religious people are assuming that fetuses do not have an individual identity (spirit or soul) at conception and so they have no right to life. Can that be proven to be true with scientific evidence? If not, then it's an assumption brought into the argument just a religious people are just in the opposite position.
I agree that religious people need to be willing to reexamine their positions. I would also want non religious people to do the same. I have a friend who might be a better person to talk to as he was Jewish and then became an atheist before converting to Christianity. So he has seen all sides and has been willing to reexamine both his religious positions and his non religious positions.
But, let's say that it's correct that religious people bring in more assumptions. So let's assume that's true and that you are talking to a religious person willing to reexamine his beliefs comparing any old evidence with new evidence and logic. Assuming all of this, would non religious people be willing to listen to evidence and logic provided by a religious people in support of their position? Or is that evidence and logic automatically tainted by the source and so not worth even considering?
Me:
So this is a question of epistemology. There is a big difference between making an extraordinary claim (God exists) and taking the position that we shouldn't assume extraordinary claims are true without extraordinary evidence. The claim that the spaghetti monster God exists is not an equally respectable position to the idea that we shouldn't assume the spaghetti monster God exists. Religious people claim their entire Holy Books as assumptions about reality. Every verse of scripture is an unproven claim that they bring as baggage to every argument. Operating in the world based on evidence means that you don't assume that the earth is young and created in 7 days. You don't assume eating shellfish or working on Sunday deserve capital punishment. You don't assume that it is better to pluck out your eye than have lustful thoughts. You don't assume humanity is so evil that they deserve to be massacred by floods, fire from heaven, pestilences, and curses. You don't assume that God's definition of goodness is correct.
In my limited experience, the atheists that I know are very willing to accept evidence that God exists if it can be provided. Feel free to perform a scientific study on the efficacy of prayer. If you find that you can prove with repeated success that prayer helps people leave the hospital sooner, most atheists would accept that evidence - but the conclusion would be limited to "prayer helps people leave the hospital sooner". It would be poor epistemology to jump from the idea of "prayer works" to "God exists" because there might be a multiplicity of explanations for why prayer works that don't include God. So then you would need to do further studies to rule out other possible explanations.
Interlocutor 3:
I want to respond to your comment here, but I'm more interested first in addressing my last question which I've copied below. And maybe your most recent comment is addressing my question, but I'm still not seeing the connection. And maybe to clarify the below, I'm talking about a stance on a moral issue like abortion, not on how the Bible is interpreted.
"let's say that it's correct that religious people bring in more assumptions. So let's assume that's true and that you are talking to a religious person willing to reexamine his beliefs comparing any old evidence with new evidence and logic. Assuming all of this, would non religious people be willing to listen to evidence and logic provided by a religious people in support of their position [on abortion]? Or is that evidence and logic [on abortion] automatically tainted by the source and so not worth even considering?"
Me:
I was trying to say "yes" in that any rational person should be willing to accept quality evidence, regardless of the source or implications. The follow-up point is - where is the quality evidence?
Interlocutor 3:
Glad to hear it. I've heard some argue that approach, which is dangerous.
But let's discuss abortion logically. It's a more complicated subject with people's positions everywhere. So let's start with likely the main question: when does a human embryo gain human rights including the right to live? To help me focus my arguments, what is your position on this question and the logic behind it?
I realized that's not fair for me to ask you to defend your position first when our some discussion has been whether religious people can logically defend their moral positions such as being pro life. So I'll go first and would love your thoughts so that I can determine if my reasoning is fundamentally flawed.
So when does a living organism become a human being with human rights including the right to life? The danger with drawing that line anywhere past conception is that the same logic can be applied to humans already outside of the womb. If it's when the fetus is no longer dependent on another to live, then what about babies and some disabled or elderly adults? If it's when they have a sense of identity, that does not happen till several years after birth. If it's when they have a heart that can function on its own, then what about those on pacemakers who are dependent on an outside source for survival? If it's when they have brain function or sentience, then what about those in a coma that might wake up?
And what do we consider the fetus that justifies ending its life? If we consider it property, then how is it any different than an animal owner choosing to kill the animal simply because they no longer want the animal?
In the end, we should value life as a society and do everything we can to preserve it. We can also respect other people's choices up until the point that their choice negatively impacts the life of another.
That's my initial take. But let me know if I'm missing something major or you see a flaw in this logic. Thanks for being willing to engage in this.
Me:
Cool. This is a perfect example for highlighting the core point I've been trying to make. Tell me if this resonates with you. Based on my experience operating from a religious brain, my fundamental conclusion that "abortion is bad" would come from the religious dogma (spiritual evidence that the church is true - therefore the church's position is correct), not the logical argumentation or evidence. So, for a religious person to appeal to logical argumentation or evidence, it would seem to me that all of these appeals to analogy are merely ancillary support for the core dogma.
The core question to identify whether or not you are basing your position on logic or dogma is - if you found these arguments to be logically debunked, would you reverse your position on abortion? Or will you go search for other arguments and analogies to support your dogmatically derived position?
This is what I've been trying to say - the logic and evidence is a mere smokescreen for the religious brain. The conclusion actually comes from a deeper source. The rational brain is willing to change its mind in the face of better logic and evidence. The religious brain is less willing. The only true way for the religious brain to change its mind is if you debunk their spiritual evidence that their church is true. Then they have no obligation to adhere to the dogma.
Do you feel that you are operating with a rational brain and are willing to change your mind on these points? Or are these arguments not the true foundation of your opinion?
Interlocutor 3:
Great question. I would say that for my personal views on whether I would encourage someone to get an abortion, those will not change unless all the evidence I have for my religious beliefs is proven wrong and thus the basis for how I personally act would be flawed.
But, the above is separate from my position on whether the government should get involved in this decision. That position is based on what logic and evidence can support and so is open to being changed. I'm sure I'm still biased towards pro life as a government position because of my religious beliefs, but I don't think I can tell others how to live if there is not a moral logic to it.
Does this distinction make sense? If so, can you do the same with any anti religious bias you may have?
And for this example, how would you respond to the logic I gave against abortions?
Me:
Yeah, that was an excellent response. If I am understanding you correctly, you feel justified in using religious logic for your own life, but you don't feel fully justified in using religious logic to regulate other people's lives right? I think that's fair.
As to your arguments, they seem to remind me of Ben Shapiro's arguments against abortion. In my opinion, the fundamental flaw of this analysis is the false equivalence fallacy - the idea that we can compare fetuses to humans as if they are the same thing: 1) a dependent fetus is not the same as a dependent human, 2) a disabled fetus is not the same as a disabled human, 3) a fetus without a sense of identity is not the same as a child without a sense of identity, 4) a fetus without a heart that can function on its own is not the same as an elderly individual with a pacemaker, 5) a fetus without a fully functioning brain is not the same as a human in a coma.
A fetus is on a spectrum of development. It does not become equivalent to a human at conception. Initially, fetuses are less developed than insects (which we regularly slaughter without thought). In fact they are closer in resemblance to germs which we both intentionally and accidentally destroy. As the fetus develops it would increase in sentience and value along the spectrum of human potential. There is absolutely nothing wrong with parents valuing the human potential of their fetuses and considering that potential sacred and beautiful. But trying to force that perspective on others doesn't seem justified to me.
I think there are fair and powerful arguments that we should respect fetuses especially in accordance with their scientifically verified ability to suffer. A utilitarian ethic would want to minimize suffering, and holding other things constant, we would warrant a moral argument against abortion. But suffering is not limited to the fetus. There is an entire world of suffering outside of the womb that is relevant to the abortion decision. Only the parents themselves understand the full utilitarian calculation of how birthing a child will affect the wellbeing of all considered. There could be health problems that increase the suffering of the mother. There could be sexual abuse, rape, and emotional trauma part and parcel to the pregnancy that increase the suffering of those involved. The fetus could have detectable anomalies in their development that might cause them to incur large amounts of suffering do to disease and disability. There could be socioeconomic problems that increase the suffering of the family's future by denying educational opportunities to the mother, cultural pressure that reduced the single mother's ability to date and marry, poverty that awaits the child to be birthed, the potential to incur suffering due to the abuse of step-parents, and an increased propensity for crime and creating another generation of single mothers - perpetuating generational suffering. There could be religious pressures that force a couple to stay together over a fetus, even though their personalities are not compatible and they create a hostile environment and damaged wellbeing for all involved.
Since a fetus is not fully developed (not fully able to suffer), not viably autonomous (hasn't yet earned the right to life), and hasn't fully generated social emotional bonds with others (emotional suffering potential for others), it seems like in many situations the parents might be making the world a better place by sparing the fetus from the suffering caused by having to enter a world that is not ready for them. I think at the level of the fetus, this moral calculus is best handled by the parents and not the government. Once a fetus has been born, I feel that it is fair to say that it has earned the right to life by surviving that brutal process of becoming viably autonomous and now deserves legal protections from abuse and termination.
If, perchance, the parents are so immoral that they want to abort a fetus without a reasonably proper moral justification, then perhaps the parents are not morally competent enough to raise children, and perhaps the fetus is better of not having to be raised by parents who don't really value life or children.