Integrity

[Prebe]

Well so be it then

I'll have to protest the "convenient" part though. I find that it is often more convenient to adher to beliefs already held than it is to change them in the face of evidence.

But again, essentially my ideal state (quite an unatainable one unfortunately) is not to have beliefs, but only theories more or less well supported by fact.

[Cail]

You are being tried for a crime you didn't commit. You are offered a plea bargain. If you accept the plea, you will serve no more than 3 years, but you have to say you committed the crime. If you take your chances in court, there's a good chance you'll be found guilty (regardless of your innocence), and if convicted, you'll serve 20 years.

If you accept the plea out of convenience, you have no integrity.

[Prebe]

That is a very practical example, and I would think it applies to the general use of the word integrity.

But can we extrapolate from that example to more general terms?

The example the innocence of the accused is not a matter of belief but a matter of positive knowledge on behalf of the accused I suppose. So accepting the plea is not changing your belief, but going against actual knowledge.

[Cail]

Sure, but it doesn't change anything.

Threaten to pitch me into a volcano if I don't renounce Christianity, and I'm going into that volcano.

[Prebe]

Don't! I think you'd be worth more to The Lord as an under cover agent in Atheists Anonymous

[rusmeister]

You think that it is a dogma never to refuse changing my ethos/belief? I suppose the word "never" makes it a dogma, but considering the alternatives, I'm running with that.

Calling it a dogma is blatant sophistry, but whatever floats your boat

C'mon, Prebe! I thought you were a scientist! You shouldn't be misconstruing what I said.

I spoke specifically of knowing or not knowing the truth.

But then you believe that you may hold wrong ideals - or that it is not possible to come to a conclusion and be sure of your conclusion?
If you hold that it is not possible, then clearly that is a dogma of yours. I assert that everyone has dogmas - a true agnostic holds that it is not possible to know truth, A proper atheist asserts that God does not exist. These are just as dogmatic as the Christian assertion that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Once you are clear on what your dogmas are, then we can fight.

Is it possible to be sure that God does not exist? Is it possible to know the truth? Or for you is all truth something you merely change your mind on from time to time? If so, that's pretty solidly agnostic. And it IS dogma. A dogma that there is no absolute truth (say, outside of the material world).

[Prebe]

Your belief gives you integrity, and my willingness to change my minds makes me dogmatic?

Is that what you are saying?

[Avatar]

I think we have to be willing to adapt in the face of evidence that we were wrong. It's too easy to become so locked into a worldview or whatever that you can't spot when it's counter to what you really believe, or "know" (assume) to be true.

Like the bloodguard said, certainty is dangerous.

--A

[Prebe]

Integrity = ossified?

[Avatar]

But the connotation is always a positive one.

--A

[aliantha]

Integrity = ossified?

No no no, I think we are going down the wrong road here.

A person can have integrity and still be able to admit that he/she is wrong. In fact, I think the willingness to admit a mistake is inherent in the definition of integrity, thus: "I screwed up. My personal moral code requires me to admit my mistakes and make reparations when I have harmed someone. So I apologize to you for my mistake and would like to know what I can do to make it right."

If we are put on this planet to learn and grow (and I believe that this is so), then modifying one's personal moral code in the face of mistake or misunderstanding is pretty much required. I'm talking about making refinements to the underlying structure of the belief system -- tweaking the system, if you will -- not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[rusmeister]

Integrity = ossified?

No no no, I think we are going down the wrong road here.

A person can have integrity and still be able to admit that he/she is wrong. In fact, I think the willingness to admit a mistake is inherent in the definition of integrity, thus: "I screwed up. My personal moral code requires me to admit my mistakes and make reparations when I have harmed someone. So I apologize to you for my mistake and would like to know what I can do to make it right."

If we are put on this planet to learn and grow (and I believe that this is so), then modifying one's personal moral code in the face of mistake or misunderstanding is pretty much required. I'm talking about making refinements to the underlying structure of the belief system -- tweaking the system, if you will -- not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

An interesting combination of "great post!" and serious disagreement. Hmmm.

The first paragraph - right on! Absolutely! Etc...

The assumption that the moral code is (necessarily) personal is where I draw my sword. I think where we might find agreement is where it is not universal, or at least, incredibly similar. But where it is, it is no longer personal.
(I've had a few beers with a friend tonight, and even played some baseball - which in Russia takes some doing - but hope that's clear enough ... prob'ly isn't.)

[rusmeister]

I think we have to be willing to adapt in the face of evidence that we were wrong.


It's too easy to become so locked into a worldview or whatever that you can't spot when it's counter to what you really believe, or "know" (assume) to be true.

With the first part - agree - if the evidence constitutes proof.

That second part just doesn't make sense to me, sorry. If you have a worldview, then it is by definition what you really believe or know to be true.

[Avatar]

Sure, but you can possess several different worldviews simultaenously. My favourite example happened right her in the Close...I was opposing the use of mood-altering drugs in psycho-therapy unless they were medically indicated. The over-prescription of prozac and that type of thing, until Brinn pointed out that I was in favour of recreational mood-altering.

I realised that my opinion wasn't compatible with what I believed, so I had to revise my standpoint. But it never occurred to me to compare the two disparate worldviews for compatibility before that.

--A

[aliantha]

Integrity = ossified?

No no no, I think we are going down the wrong road here.

A person can have integrity and still be able to admit that he/she is wrong. In fact, I think the willingness to admit a mistake is inherent in the definition of integrity, thus: "I screwed up. My personal moral code requires me to admit my mistakes and make reparations when I have harmed someone. So I apologize to you for my mistake and would like to know what I can do to make it right."

If we are put on this planet to learn and grow (and I believe that this is so), then modifying one's personal moral code in the face of mistake or misunderstanding is pretty much required. I'm talking about making refinements to the underlying structure of the belief system -- tweaking the system, if you will -- not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

An interesting combination of "great post!" and serious disagreement. Hmmm.

The first paragraph - right on! Absolutely! Etc...

The assumption that the moral code is (necessarily) personal is where I draw my sword. I think where we might find agreement is where it is not universal, or at least, incredibly similar. But where it is, it is no longer personal.
(I've had a few beers with a friend tonight, and even played some baseball - which in Russia takes some doing - but hope that's clear enough ... prob'ly isn't.)

No, I get what you're saying.

I don't think my view is mutually exclusive of yours, tho. (oh my gosh, Rus, we might actually agree on something! ) If you have studied a particular moral code -- oh, let's just say Orthodox Christianity, for the sake of argument -- and have vowed to yourself and others to live by the tenets of that code, then you have, in essence, adopted it as your personal moral code. It's a code that's been around for centuries; it's one that a whole lot of other people follow; but still, it's your personal moral code. Yes?

I think our sticking point is going to be how rigid a person's moral code should be. But maybe not. It seems to me that the Church fathers have been dealing with this for centuries: somebody reads the gospel in a particular way, and gathers adherents; then the Church fathers weigh this new reading against what has gone before, and decide whether it fits or not. Sometimes, I believe, they have adopted the new reading; other times, not. But I think this shows that the Church's "moral code", if you will, is dynamic, in the sense that it's still evolving in order to get ever closer to the Truth. (You see, I *did* read the stuff at that link you posted. Well, most of it. I got sidetracked toward the end...)

Anyway, my point is that the Church does, from time to time, tweak the system. And it would be the same for an individual -- even one who follows a strict, religious moral code, but perhaps has an imperfect understanding of some part of it. Once the misunderstanding is made clear, I would assume that person would tweak his own personal system to bring it in line with the Church's teaching.

Does that make sense?

[rusmeister]

No no no, I think we are going down the wrong road here.

A person can have integrity and still be able to admit that he/she is wrong. In fact, I think the willingness to admit a mistake is inherent in the definition of integrity, thus: "I screwed up. My personal moral code requires me to admit my mistakes and make reparations when I have harmed someone. So I apologize to you for my mistake and would like to know what I can do to make it right."

If we are put on this planet to learn and grow (and I believe that this is so), then modifying one's personal moral code in the face of mistake or misunderstanding is pretty much required. I'm talking about making refinements to the underlying structure of the belief system -- tweaking the system, if you will -- not throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

An interesting combination of "great post!" and serious disagreement. Hmmm.

The first paragraph - right on! Absolutely! Etc...

The assumption that the moral code is (necessarily) personal is where I draw my sword. I think where we might find agreement is where it is not universal, or at least, incredibly similar. But where it is, it is no longer personal.
(I've had a few beers with a friend tonight, and even played some baseball - which in Russia takes some doing - but hope that's clear enough ... prob'ly isn't.)

No, I get what you're saying.

I don't think my view is mutually exclusive of yours, tho. (oh my gosh, Rus, we might actually agree on something! ) If you have studied a particular moral code -- oh, let's just say Orthodox Christianity, for the sake of argument -- and have vowed to yourself and others to live by the tenets of that code, then you have, in essence, adopted it as your personal moral code. It's a code that's been around for centuries; it's one that a whole lot of other people follow; but still, it's your personal moral code. Yes?

I think our sticking point is going to be how rigid a person's moral code should be. But maybe not. It seems to me that the Church fathers have been dealing with this for centuries: somebody reads the gospel in a particular way, and gathers adherents; then the Church fathers weigh this new reading against what has gone before, and decide whether it fits or not. Sometimes, I believe, they have adopted the new reading; other times, not. But I think this shows that the Church's "moral code", if you will, is dynamic, in the sense that it's still evolving in order to get ever closer to the Truth. (You see, I *did* read the stuff at that link you posted. Well, most of it. I got sidetracked toward the end...)

Anyway, my point is that the Church does, from time to time, tweak the system. And it would be the same for an individual -- even one who follows a strict, religious moral code, but perhaps has an imperfect understanding of some part of it. Once the misunderstanding is made clear, I would assume that person would tweak his own personal system to bring it in line with the Church's teaching.

Does that make sense?

Yes, and it's an interesting discussion! (The more you know, the more dangerous you become - the greater the chance of becoming a dangerous foe - or an ally )
I do see things with slightly different glasses than you (this is where the question of our having the correct prescription for our lenses may come up...) although you are very very close!

On the personality of moral code - I would agree if I can also personalize gravity in that way Inertia may be personal but gravity is a law that affects us all. Yes, a person can "make up their own code", but it will still be more striking by its similarity to other codes than by its differences. IOW, all seemingly personal codes actually line up, or take as their orientation with a big one that is actually true, like a law of science. The degree to which they vary from it is the degree to which they have fallen from it (the truth).

The argument of Christianity is that we have this wonderful code, we feel it pressing on us (many societies call it "conscience"), but we feel a stronger desire to act contrary to it based on our desires. IOW, we find it difficult to near impossible to live up to this code. This is where having read Lewis's "Mere Christianity" would make my life a lot easier... www.philosophyforlife.com/mctoc.htm
Chapter one lays the idea out pretty well.
(PS - MC was originally a series of radio talks for Britain undergoing the Blitz, so the style is simplistic - it's designed so that ordinary Joes with little education can follow along. He did write far more "highbrow" stuff.)

Good comments on the Church fathers. However...
The idea that they actually changed what they believed, that the faith itself has evolved, is erroneous. It is much more accurate to say that the original Gospel was extraordinarily simple. As people over time came up with ideas that contradicted that faith in one way or another (heresies) it became necessary to spell out things that hadn't previously needed spelling out by clarifying what the faith was - thus, dogma is the response to heresy. But this never changed or cancelled earlier teaching - in fact, it is heresy to introduce anything that changes the faith. Everything must fit in with all previous teaching - first Scripture, and then other accepted Tradition. Otherwise, it's a non-starter. So the Church's tweaking (as you put it), in general, is clarification, not correction.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Prebe]

The likelihood that Russmeisters posts end in praising the infalability and perfection of the eastern orthodox church is almost as astounding as the likelihood that my posts end up praising the merrits of wind-turbines or the Danish social security system. That's integrity!

[Avatar]

--A

[rusmeister]

The likelihood that Russmeisters posts end in praising the infalability and perfection of the eastern orthodox church is almost as astounding as the likelihood that my posts end up praising the merrits of wind-turbines or the Danish social security system. That's integrity!

You betcha!
Of course, if you're right, none of this really matters in the end (most especially after our deaths). If I'm right, then it matters a great deal.

One other thing. To simply assume that my position is that the Orthodox Church is perfect and infallible is not correct. If there is a genuine Church established by Christ and built by the Apostles that has survived continuously to this day, then it would be a divine institution, but whose membership is screwed-up human beings - who realize that they are fallible, and turn to the Infallible (God) for guidance, via Church Tradition and prayer. Of course I said "if", but just to try to point out that the position is considerably more nuanced, and therefore tenable, than to assume inaccurate claims of perfection.

[Avatar]

Of course, if you're right, none of this really matters in the end (most especially after our deaths). If I'm right, then it matters a great deal.

I don't think it really matters either way...live your life the best way that you can either way. If that's not good enough, I'm not interested anyway.

--A