Another Book: In the Grip of Grace - Morals

[Ginnsu]

So, on Saturday I started talking to a theist friend of mine about reading of "The Case for Faith." Now it is my opinion that the current chapter I'm reading in "The Case for Faith" is just an arguement that argues points that don't really matter. What I mean is, knowledge of how the Universe coming into being doesn't really impact what happens today. There are arguements for why a god have done it, and there are arguements for why it could have just been a natural occurance. The latter, in my opinion, work better. But as I say, when it comes down to it, that was billions of years ago. The book does have arguements that are applicable to today, but no where does it provide emperical evidence which would probably be the kind of evidence for a god that some atheists might even accept. But of course, we are finding none... anyways, I'm getting off topic.

After explaining this viewpoint to her, she agreed whole heartedly with what I was saying. Then she went and grabbed a big titled "In the Grip of Grace" by Max Lucado. She said to me, "You say you are very scientifically minded. Scientists discover the nature of the universe by trying experiments. Read the first chapter of this book, and pray. If you don't like the book, return it. If you do like it, read it till the end and then return it."

So I started right in on the introduction, then the first chapter, and then even read through the second chapter. It was all building up to something, but none of what I was reading was really striking or new to me as far as Christian concepts go. Then I started in on the third chapter titled "Godless Living." Sounds like it would apply to us, doesn't it? Well it does in a way. Lucado is definatly talking to atheists here, but in a very ignorant way. And I also see that what Lucado is writing in this chapter serves as a warning for theists. That warning summarized might say "Don't become godless or you'll be like this." It seems to me that as for convincing atheists to find god, it does a horrible job. But as for generalizing a group of people to convince the Christian audience to not lose god, it does a wonderful job.

Getting to my point now. The second section of this third chapter is titled "We Lose Our Standard." This section drove me right round the bend and then some. So much so that I had to write a rebuttal to it. So then, if I haven't already lost you by boring you with back story, here is "We Lose Our Standard" with a Rebuttal by Me!: rks.no-ip.com/?page=news&newsRead=173

I hope you find it interesting. Enjoy.#nosmileys#nosmileys#nosmileys

[tamara]

Way to go, Ginnsu! Nicely done. Maybe you can even drop a line to the author and let him know your thoughts, or repost your stuff on amazon in their reviews.

My response here:

Because, of course, without ultimate morals... divinely inspired morals... morals given to us by God... we are all horrible people.

That's going a bit too far, no?

How can you expect the masses to recognize what is right and wrong when we are all sinners? Every single one of us from the time that Adam was tempted with the fruit in the Garden of Eden... a Sinner. Incabable of deciding what is right, and what is wrong.

Actually, the Eden story is about Adam and Eve not "knowing good and evil" and then eating from the tree of knowledge. So we do know now, according to the story. Sure, we are all sinners, but that is just an old fashioned way to say we all screw up, we are all limited and fallible. So.... he is wrong if he is saying people do not recognize good and evil without the Bible. If he follows the Eden story to the logical conclusion, he must conclude that we have inherited the first parents' acquired knowledge of good and evil.

No God = No Morals. Simple

People who are true believers do not argue honestly, with integrity. You will find that on all sides of the spectrum, not just in religion. One common fallacy is the straw man. Painting the opponent' argument in worst possible colors and then demolishing it (or so they deceived themselves into thinking). Pathetic.

To me, it seems entirely plausable that everything we as humans know about the way society works, that has been passed down from generation to generation about how we should treat others,

Not everything passed down is sensible. Slavery was passed down over millennia, Aristotle thought it was fine, etc... Laws and morals are two different things. Some laws are right, others are wrong and ought to be opposed.

Anyway. One of the questions people do ask in ethics is how do we know good and evil? There are several hypotheses. One says our knowledge comes from God. Others say it is innate, comes from nature like our knowledge of "bitter". Some say we do not know, and it's all relative. I have a problem with the last, but not with the former two. I think it does not matter where it comes from. Maybe God arranged it in such a way that we do know, just like we know bitter. Or maybe we just evolved that way. The main thing is... that we do know. All of us, not just some Christians, like that author would have it!

Have you ever thought that seeking pleasure might lead us to learning from our experiences?

Sometimes it does. Not always, tho. There is no fail-safe recipe...

[Ginnsu]

Sincerely thank you for your suggestions, comments, and corrections tamara. When I initially wrote this I did my best to let as little emotion show through, but obviously some did, because I wrote strongly in the opposite direction. Furthermore, I found the section "We Lose Our Standards" to be a somewhat simple idea compaired to the ideas put forward other Christian authors (such as Lee Strobel's "The Case for Faith"). I think the thing that got to me most was the fact that Lucado seems to see the issue of morals as so increadibly black and white.

Ask the father of three children whose wife abandoned him, saying, "Divorce may be wrong for you, but it’s OK for me."

That's presenting only the senario where divorce is abandoment, and not a senario where divorce is in the best interest of all parties involved. Well, even in my limited experience of this world, I can forsee instances where divorce maybe in the best interests of the parents, and the children.

It seems like far too little a stretch to take his idea that divorce, and stealing are wrong with no mentioned exceptions and apply that to... say... Gays and Lesbians. Especially when the Bible is so easily interppurted to say what you want it too.

Anyways, I'm going to go back and use your suggestions to add edits to what I said that present a somewhat more reasonable standpoint. Thanks again.

Edit: Well now since that has been posted. I remembered a question I had.

One says our knowledge comes from God. Others say it is innate, comes from nature like our knowledge of "bitter". Some say we do not know, and it's all relative. I have a problem with the last, but not with the former two.

What is the problem you have with the last? It would be great if you could expand on that some.

[tamara]

Well here is the deal. I am currently arguing with some people who officially believe that "morality is relative to individual circumstances and relationships; any action's ultimate rightness or wrongness can only be determined by those involved in the action."

I present myself as a woman who lives off murders of old men whom she marries then kills in clever ways. Anyways...

People who think that morals are relative have no argument for rationally debating the matter. All they have is "get her"! So I am taking the argument ad absurdum on this one... A good ethics should have a way to argue good and evil. Even the brainless have "get her"... You know what I mean?

Relative ethics is castrated ethics. I think we need to do better. If Ted Bundy's take on good and evil is as good as mine, I might as well slash my wrists!

[Acriku]

I don't see why relative morals and ethics cannot be comparatively examined?

[Ginnsu]

An interesting article on the subject:Ethical Relativism

I would have to agree with tamara. In the culture where children kill their parents before they become decrepit, they would consider this a morally right act because they parents "go to a better place" young, healthy and vigorous rather then unhealthy. The theory being that if you arrive in the after life healthy, you will enjoy it more then if you arrive unhealthy and have to suffer in the condition you died with.

However, exception must be taken for circumstance. One may say to me that if I kill someone in self defence, it is still murder, and the crime should be judged as such. I would consider it absurd to think that killing in self defence should be even considered a crime with a reduced sentence. Others may not agree.

This also leads to the arguement of who decides? If there is no moral absolute brought down by God, then how can we be sure we're doing it right? Majority rules? Dictated by government?

Oops, I guess I should have looked in the special catagories. Sorry Maverick.

[Yaw]

Coming into this late...

I'll start my comments by saying that tamara's points about divorce were quite accurate. It doesn't mean that "moral relativism" is at play, but it does mean that a certain amount of moral nuance must be considered in decisions. So, if weighing divorce against an abusive mate, you pick the divorce. There will always be a certain hierarchy of morals that people follow, in this case valuing one's own safety above one's marriage. If there were only moral absolutes that you absolutely could not disobey, then we end up with many "Catch 22" situations. It is unfeasible to set up a system of ethics that cannot deal with difficult situations.

More importantly, Lucado's assertion that the lack of God leads to immorality is contradicted simply by looking at societies outside his own. China and Russia have primarily atheistic societies due to state influence, but that certainly does not mean that everyone adhering to this one trait of Communism acts in an inherently immoral manner. Mahayana Buddhism has an extensive code of morality that never once involves a deity.

The latter applies here rather well in terms of answering the question posed in the beginning. Similar to Christianity, Buddhism holds that your actions have consequences. The only difference is the mechanism (karma as opposed to divine judgement). I don't think we even need the concept of karma to make that conclusion. Why not steal the toy plane? Because that action has bad consequences. It is immaterial whether or not the owner could afford another one, as that does not consider other standards of value (emotional attachment, for example). Furthermore, it justifies an action that would have the stealer quite upset should it happen to him. The double-standard is the key to a satisfying argument. God doesn't need to have anything to do with it.

[tamara]

How, Acriku? Can you give an example?

Ginnsu, there is a difference between morality and legal codes. Legal codes are meant to be practical, not instituting morality as such.

For example I believe that it is wrong to kill the unborn, but do not believe that it is the job of the legal system to pronounce it murder and go after the perpetrators. (Neither does the majority of Americans, it seems.)

I think the exception you mention is in what to do, in terms of remedial action. If you kill someone in self defense, in my world, you are still guilty of killing another human being. You have robbed the planet of another person, someone's child, brother, father. So there is a mix of right and wrong here... and if I were a spiritual counselor, I would advise you to atone for the killing, say by doing something good for the family of the person killed, or in some other way that makes sense. While also taking joy in your survival, and giving yourself thanks for ridding the earth of a real psycho (if that is the case) and getting help for any emotional scars you may have incurred. Does that make sense?

The thing is... many things we do are a mix of good and bad.

Who decides? Well, clearly, every one of us. Even if you hand over your decision making power to some religious or governmental group, you are still initially making that decision.

[Acriku]

Acriku said:

I don't see why relative morals and ethics cannot be comparatively examined?

Sure, Tamara. Say I have a moral that I consider to be relative, such as killing ants is wrong. Why can't I consider my moral, being relative, to be better than another person's moral (in this case, killing ants is right)? I've been told many times that having relative morals means a sadistic serial murderer's morality is no better than a priest's morality. In extension, I would be unable to judge God using my morality against his.

[Ginnsu]

Wow, thanks tamara and Yaw for all your indepth analisys. I seem to take these philosophic issues to one step, and then get stuck. I'm going to have to do a whole bunch of reading up on the subject to truely understand what the two of you are talking about. I do understand what both of you are saying, but clearly you both understand the issue better then I.

[tamara]

Cool stuff, Ginnsu! Let us know what you discover on your journey. We all learn as we go...

Say I have a moral that I consider to be relative, such as killing ants is wrong. Why can't I consider my moral, being relative, to be better than another person's moral (in this case, killing ants is right)? I've been told many times that having relative morals means a sadistic serial murderer's morality is no better than a priest's morality. In extension, I would be unable to judge God using my morality against his. [/quote}

Acriku: Well, if you think that morality is relative to the person and situation, then on what basis do you judge your view better? After all, you can never know the other person's situation in depth... So, does not relative morality say that while killing ants is wrong for you in your situation, it may not be wrong for somebody else in their situation?

And by extension, would relative morality not imply that maybe for God it is right to rub out people who engage in coitus interruptus, heck, we don't know all of God's particulars!?

[Acriku]

Acriku: Well, if you think that morality is relative to the person and situation, then on what basis do you judge your view better? After all, you can never know the other person's situation in depth... So, does not relative morality say that while killing ants is wrong for you in your situation, it may not be wrong for somebody else in their situation?

But to me, using my situation, I can say that it is wrong. I'm not a neutral observer of both subjects, I am one of those subjects.

And by extension, would relative morality not imply that maybe for God it is right to rub out people who engage in coitus interruptus, heck, we don't know all of God's particulars!?

Sure, it may be right to him, just like it may be right to a sado-masochist for him to torture a person to the brink of death - it doesn't mean that I cannot judge using my morality. Hopefully you can understand where I'm coming from.

[Yaw]

From a philosophical point of view, I'm not sure I like where this conversation's going. Is it the contention that relative morality leads, by necessity, to a situation of "might makes right"? That is, the morality of the strongest holds true?

[Acriku]

Well, I'm just establishing the valid practice of comparing morals. But, contrary to what you are saying, I believe that we should judge which moral is right, at the most extreme which shjould be enforced, by how beneficial it is to the order and peace of a society. Anything that is deemed inconsequential to the order and peace of society can be a personal decision through personal situations.

[tamara]

Yaw, I am not arguing that might makes right. I am arguing that relative morality has no way to say to a Ted Bundy, what you have done is wrong. They have no rational argument. All they have is, in my opinion, what you have done is wrong. Why should he care about your opinion?

So, all they have is, ganging up on him. Which, in the case of sociopaths, may be the best any of us can do, but at least rational argument should be the first line of defense.