Right & Wrong

[Vraith]

I disagree with the assumption that one must know everything about the dogma of anything in order to criticize/disagree with it. By which I mean: I don't have to know all...or really even ANY of the Orthodox logic/history/writings/justifications..to oppose it. Because it is metaphysical, and I have non-negligible knowledge of how metaphysics itself works.
I watched the Darwin podcast thing: the guy is smart, interesting, explains concepts well...but in the end, it was nothing new, and failed to prove the case.

I don't think science answers everything, or that it disproves, with certainty, the existence of some God or the supernatural.
I do think science proves specific claims made by various religions are false, and it is pure insanity to insist that people believe those things that are demonstrably false.

For me it comes down to reason/faith, subjective/objective aren't actually opposites, but something more complicated. Religion is like pain, to me:
My pain is individual, only mine...but it is objective, because to deny it demands that I ridiculously deny that anything exists, even myself.
It's not simply a "perception of pain" either...a perception of pain is "I LIKE it when it hurts."
I can tell my wife about it, but she doesn't feel it, I can't prove it...she either believes it or doesn't. But just because my pain is real, and affects my choices it in no way entitles or justifies any demand, claim, or judgement on my wife or anyone else. My pain shows nothing about anything else.
reason/faith, subjective/objective [even right/wrong, but in a slightly different way] share some territory, but also have areas where they simply do not apply to each other, it's not a matter of "conflict" [though there will be areas of conflict] so much as it is "not applicable."
Metaphysics, and the study of it, have some value/worth...but there are many, many aspects/implications that are ultimately not applicable to living in the world.

[rusmeister]

*shrug* It always seemed to me that a lot of the Christian apologists (for apologists they were) always sought the same complexity as the Greek philosophers. Of course, they couldn't. Plato was a philosopher and had to exert all his arguing power to establish his quandaries. On the other hand, Aquinas and others like him all ready had the conclusion and framework, and everything was set to prove that and rejecting contrary ideas ("heresies"). Plato would point out to his readers the problems of his ideas, Aquinas always assumed his ideas were perfect. That's really the difference between theology and philosophy. Philosophy is very open-ended, and is conducive to development of ideas. Theology, on the other hand, always has to work within the framework of previously held conclusions.

This assumes that a person cannot come to a philosophical conclusion of God through the 5 senses, and assumes a theological conclusion to be the beginning of the discussion. Not true and not true. Do you think that Aquinas, Chrysostom, Gregory (the Theologian), Palamas, Lewis etc etc etc started out their lives and thinking in a simple assumption of God and never questioned it? Wrong wrong wrong. Many of these people had unbelieving - pagan or atheist instruction, and came to faith through reason and against their desires.

Philosophy, like theology, can only be conducted if propositions are established and held, and so any philosophy must establish "previously held conclusions", right down to first principles - things unquestioned and (certainly seen to be unquestionable) if a given philosophical line is to be conducted. Throughout, this assumes that philosophy is attempting to actually arrive at truth, not merely engage in coffee-house speculation. Therefore, philosophy, like theology, must rigorously reject idle suppositions that would actually contradict earlier truths arrived at and expounded or the first principles on which it is operating. The trouble with a lot of modern philosophy is that it has reached a point where it is ready to deny Truth itself - the very thing that it was established to seek. Skepticism is the most completely unphilosophical philosophy anyone could hold.

I think Lewis's biography - esp. "Surprised by Joy" - or even the Confessions of St Augustine - to be quite illuminating on the struggles a person who ultimately became a believer went through. This idea floating around that they just blithely accept a pie-in-the-sky theology as an easy way out of thinking is completely false.

[Avatar]

It doesnt' matter if nature/biology cares. If vision was irrelevant to survival, we wouldn't have eyes, or brain centers to process it. We have "moral" brain nexus: moral thought must have survival value. Nature/biology may not care, but they support moral thought.

No, they merely make it possible. "Moral" thought does have a survival value. It enables us to survive in societies with shared values and therefore behaviour.

My point is that that part of the brain does not exist in order to allow "moral thought." The fact that we use it for that does not mean that was why it existed in the first place.

--A

[rusmeister]

I disagree with the assumption that one must know everything about the dogma of anything in order to criticize/disagree with it. By which I mean: I don't have to know all...or really even ANY of the Orthodox logic/history/writings/justifications..to oppose it. Because it is metaphysical, and I have non-negligible knowledge of how metaphysics itself works.
I watched the Darwin podcast thing: the guy is smart, interesting, explains concepts well...but in the end, it was nothing new, and failed to prove the case.

I appreciate your taking the time to listen.
I assume you mean you "listened" to the AFR podcast...?
Did you think that it was Hopko's goal to "prove a case"? And was there nothing at all in the perspective you are less familiar with of which you could say "Hm - I hadn't thought about that?" That seems improbable to me. (There are seventeen podcasts in the series altogether, and they are roughly an hour each, to boot) I started from #11 (I think) - it was about death and was really, un, cool. Awesome. Worked my way forward and then have started from the beginning again. (We get some pretty long back-ups and waiting time on the road to Moscow.)

Anyway, he isn't trying to prove things there. he's bringing stuff out in the open to discuss, and it's aimed at general audiences (unbelieving as well as believing, and I think he is as fair as you can get. He's certainly a different voice from mine -and one more worth listening to.

Your statement on not needing to know anything about a specific view in order to oppose it is to me astounding. (I see this as different from simply rejecting something - which one can do on a dogmatic basis.) It's like a general saying that he needs know nothing about a specific enemy to fight it, because he's fought other enemies before and this is probably another one just like the others. I think I rather do need to know something about, say, Islam - and the best of Islam, not the worst - in order to effectively speak against it.
So I'd say you can definitely reject my faith tradition because you have dogmas denying it (if you do actually know what it is saying about something or other). But you can't oppose something if you do not know what it is that you are opposing. Even I don't presume so much.

[rusmeister]

What it comes down to is that you ought to dip your toes into the waters of Christian - and Orthodox - theology before making assumptions about it.

I made no assumptions. I asked a question. So okay, by "accumulating", you mean things more than simply accumulating names of people who agree on the same thing. Can you give us a hint about any of these things? What is the basic idea along these lines that makes you suggest Aquinas?

He uses logic and reason - Aristotelian - to explain the Eucharist - something that we hold to be Mystery and inexplicable in human terms. That's what I meant by 'goes too far'. It's in the Summa Theologica - which I downloaded but have only cracked open in a few places. It is dauntingly enormous. But it is certainly the opposite of what most people here propose about theology. The idea that reason is something opposed to and ultimately defeating faith permeates the modern view, and is more false than the flat earth worldview. It's just ignorance of everything between Aristotle and Descartes (OK, except Marcus Aurelius ). But that stuff is excluded precisely because the scholars of the later Roman /Byzantine civilizations and the inheritors of Rome in the West were, uh, Christian.

It's just one example, but you asked for a hint.

[Vraith]

It doesnt' matter if nature/biology cares. If vision was irrelevant to survival, we wouldn't have eyes, or brain centers to process it. We have "moral" brain nexus: moral thought must have survival value. Nature/biology may not care, but they support moral thought.

No, they merely make it possible. "Moral" thought does have a survival value. It enables us to survive in societies with shared values and therefore behaviour.

My point is that that part of the brain does not exist in order to allow "moral thought." The fact that we use it for that does not mean that was why it existed in the first place.

--A

An interesting question, at any rate. I don't know, and I don't even know if anyone does, if that is so. I would expect, though, that just like our complicated eye/brain vision system developed from eye-spots that only see light/dark and react instinctively by strict stimulus/response, the moral brain structure evolved pretty much the same way, and for the same reasons.

[Fist and Faith]

My point is that that part of the brain does not exist in order to allow "moral thought." The fact that we use it for that does not mean that was why it existed in the first place.

I don't know anything about this. But it seems to me that what its used for should be considered the leading contender among theories of why it existed in the first place. The fact that we use it for that does not mean it's not for that reason, eh?

A woman I worked with raised her daughter in ways we might not think are particularely stable and healthy. And that daughter turned out to be a drug user; had kids that she abandoned; etc. The woman said her daughter didn't turn out like that because of the way she was raised. I say we only know two things: How she was raised; and how she turned out. Is that proof that how she was raised was the cause of how she turned out? Maybe not. But it's certainly not proof that how she was raised was NOT the cause.

And the function of a part of the brain is not evidence that that's NOT the original function of that part of the brain.

(I feel I may not be saying this too well. What with throwing in the story of my coworker, and all. )

[Avatar]

Not sure if we're understanding each other here.

Biology has no morals, right? Therefore a moral centre in the brain is simply the part of the brain that we use when we're considering morals. It's probably closely linked to any abstract thought, and not just moral ones, is my guess.

The fact that we developed morals and had to think about them probably stimulated that part of the brain. But just because we use it to think about morals doesn't mean it originally existed to make us think about them. Its existance merely allowed us to think of them.

--A

[Vraith]

I disagree with the assumption that one must know everything about the dogma of anything in order to criticize/disagree with it. By which I mean: I don't have to know all...or really even ANY of the Orthodox logic/history/writings/justifications..to oppose it. Because it is metaphysical, and I have non-negligible knowledge of how metaphysics itself works.
I watched the Darwin podcast thing: the guy is smart, interesting, explains concepts well...but in the end, it was nothing new, and failed to prove the case.

I appreciate your taking the time to listen.
I assume you mean you "listened" to the AFR podcast...?
Did you think that it was Hopko's goal to "prove a case"? And was there nothing at all in the perspective you are less familiar with of which you could say "Hm - I hadn't thought about that?" That seems improbable to me. (There are seventeen podcasts in the series altogether, and they are roughly an hour each, to boot) I started from #11 (I think) - it was about death and was really, un, cool. Awesome. Worked my way forward and then have started from the beginning again. (We get some pretty long back-ups and waiting time on the road to Moscow.)

Anyway, he isn't trying to prove things there. he's bringing stuff out in the open to discuss, and it's aimed at general audiences (unbelieving as well as believing, and I think he is as fair as you can get. He's certainly a different voice from mine -and one more worth listening to.

Your statement on not needing to know anything about a specific view in order to oppose it is to me astounding. (I see this as different from simply rejecting something - which one can do on a dogmatic basis.) It's like a general saying that he needs know nothing about a specific enemy to fight it, because he's fought other enemies before and this is probably another one just like the others. I think I rather do need to know something about, say, Islam - and the best of Islam, not the worst - in order to effectively speak against it.
So I'd say you can definitely reject my faith tradition because you have dogmas denying it (if you do actually know what it is saying about something or other). But you can't oppose something if you do not know what it is that you are opposing. Even I don't presume so much.

The parts I listened to were 2 sections you linked sometime in the last couple months...talking about knowing and believing and how they relate/what they mean. [there was a little video of him speaking there].
On the other thing I said: what I mean is if I wanted to argue about a particular rule/dogma/point, or Islam vs. Judaism, yes of course there are things I would need to know...a lot of things to make a good argument.
OTOH, what I was speaking to is that it is a metaphysical, and all metaphysical views have the same structural/systemic problems. One of those problems is always Knowing and Absolute Truth.

[Vraith]

Not sure if we're understanding each other here.

Biology has no morals, right? Therefore a moral centre in the brain is simply the part of the brain that we use when we're considering morals. It's probably closely linked to any abstract thought, and not just moral ones, is my guess.

The fact that we developed morals and had to think about them probably stimulated that part of the brain. But just because we use it to think about morals doesn't mean it originally existed to make us think about them. Its existance merely allowed us to think of them.

--A

But it seems not to be all abstract. The thing I saw on it, that section just sat there idling exposed to music, and painting, and math...all abstract. But lit up like a bonfire over moral/ethical questions.
And evolution from reptiles to mammals to people pretty clearly shows a moral trend...biology may not have morals, but it is pretty clear that moral capacity has influenced the biological trend.

[Fist and Faith]

Not sure if we're understanding each other here.

Biology has no morals, right? Therefore a moral centre in the brain is simply the part of the brain that we use when we're considering morals. It's probably closely linked to any abstract thought, and not just moral ones, is my guess.

The fact that we developed morals and had to think about them probably stimulated that part of the brain. But just because we use it to think about morals doesn't mean it originally existed to make us think about them. Its existance merely allowed us to think of them.

As I said, I don't know any specifics about the brain. Does this "moral center" of the brain do anything else? Is it also the "abstract thought center"? If it is, then your point seems good. But if there's an area that deals with nothing but morals, then suggesting it was originally for something else is just speculation. If it deals with nothing but morality, then maybe biology does have morals.

[Avatar]

And evolution from reptiles to mammals to people pretty clearly shows a moral trend...biology may not have morals, but it is pretty clear that moral capacity has influenced the biological trend.

Hmmmm. I might agree with that in a sense. We evolved in certain ways because of our environments, and that in turn affected later changes. But I'm not convinced it's a causal link. We haven't evolved biologically anywhere nearly as quickly as we have socially. We're still hard-wired at a much earlier level than that of co-operative behaviour.

If it is, then your point seems good. But if there's an area that deals with nothing but morals, then suggesting it was originally for something else is just speculation. If it deals with nothing but morality, then maybe biology does have morals.

I dunno...it's Vraith who brought this study up. But, I might reconsider if anybody can demonstrate morality in any other species. (And if biology did have morals, why isn't it something fixed and common to even all people? What is "moral" (or at least acceptable/permissable) has changed greatly over the course of human history...)

--A

[Vraith]

Well, we have some conflicting wiring...and they're both useful, even while they sometimes butt heads.
But I think it happened much like other evolvings: at some point there was a mutation that allowed at least rudimentary "moral" thought...and, as a group those capable of it were superior, survivability-wise, to those without it.

Most chimp/great apes, and dolphins/whales exhibit some behaviors that, from the outside, appear to be "moral." But I don't know how you could prove it really is moral, and not just a particular kind of response/stimulus instinct. [hell, I don't know how you could really "prove" it for people, either.]

[Avatar]

Well, we have some conflicting wiring...and they're both useful, even while they sometimes butt heads.

I think the reason for the conflict is that the hard-wiring is a hell of a lot older than our social requirements. We've not yet biologically adapted to living in societies. It happened way too fast, in terms of evolution. Hell, we're not even completely adapted (biologically) to walking upright yet, and the first evidence of anthropoid bipedalism dates from 6 million years ago.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

I doubt it's possible to biologically adapt to living in societies in such a way as to avoid the many conflicts we have. Animals do it because they don't have minds, free will, etc. They do exactly and only what they are programmed to do. No bee ever thought, "Hey! Not fair! Why do I have to die just so the queen and the hive can survive?!?" No pride of lions ever thought the new alpha's wiping out the children of the deposed alpha was a horror. The only way to stop such conflicts among humans is to take our ability to think as we do away from us.

[Vraith]

I doubt it's possible to biologically adapt to living in societies in such a way as to avoid the many conflicts we have. Animals do it because they don't have minds, free will, etc. They do exactly and only what they are programmed to do. No bee ever thought, "Hey! Not fair! Why do I have to die just so the queen and the hive can survive?!?" No pride of lions ever thought the new alpha's wiping out the children of the deposed alpha was a horror. The only way to stop such conflicts among humans is to take our ability to think as we do away from us.

I agree...never completely, and that's probably good. Both "only me and breeding matter" and "only the whole matters" limit adaptability/survivability.
In a general way, as you trace the evolutionary tree, one line you find is a trend towards fewer instinctual behaviors wired in, and more behaviors that must be learned [and are therefore more adaptable to the environment, and changes]. I'd bet almost anything that the physical 'moral' brain was selected for precisely because it enabled negotiation between the "only me" and "only all," and that ability to decide was very valuable for survival.