My position on ethics

[xoxo]

By helping my wife survive day to day, she suffered another 10 years with her heart condition before she died.
Yay for me ~! Yay for her!

sounds like you are really suffering friend.
i'm grieving with you right now, if that's okay.
i can assure you,
God has a lesson for us in everything,
so that we may draw closer to true peace and freedom.
Love never dies.

 

[SkyWriting]

sounds like you are really suffering friend.
i'm grieving with you right now, if that's okay.
i can assure you,
God has a lesson for us in everything,
so that we may draw closer to true peace and freedom.
Love never dies.

She died this year, so I imagine I have issues to go through.

 

[xoxo]

She died this year, so I imagine I have issues to go through.

i know what it's like to rip myself to shreds wishing i'd chosen B rather C
unfortunately, only hindsight is 20/20.
forgiving oneself is so hard.
or can one forgive oneself self
i would start a thread on that topic if i wasn't about to fall asleep
Peace

update: it took me a long time to accept the forgiveness that is available.
through clear and exact repentance and gratitude
God help us Sinners
Amen

 

[xoxo]

god bless us
god keep us
god save us.
i know no better medicine than the teachings of Jesus Christ.
and detoxying and excellent diet.
ownward christian soldiers
there's a new heaven and new earth coming

 

[xoxo]

i mean soldiers of the heart btw
everyone person should be free to worship as they choose so long as they don't hurt anyone.
not enough warriors of the word, too many of the sword
god bless us
god save us

 

[Percivale]

does it matter who the person is? what kind of life they live? if they are young or old?

It definitely makes a difference. It would be totally right to gun down a dozen Mafia hitmen to save one Doctor who had a family and was on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer or something.

what is that person acted foolishly, getting themselves into danger.
would you still save them?

Depends on a lot of things. If it was my son, yes.

A person is not ethically required to save others.
Dilemma solved.

Even doctors vow to "Do No Harm."
Not, stop all harm.

Not ethically required perhaps, though I think it often is if you have the ability. But it's definitely morally praiseworthy.
There are definitely hard ethical choices sometimes and sometimes it is right to do something that will harm some people if it will cause greater good. But it's important not to get carried away with that and always recognize your own limitations and that there is much you don't know. I do feel it is not right to put maintaining your own moral purity above saving other people's lives, but that needs to be kept in balance with putting a priority on 'first do no harm'.

 

[xoxo]

She died this year, so I imagine I have issues to go through.

don't blame yourself for things that were beyond your control.
that would be unnecessary unkindness towards yourself.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

personally, I'm not jeopardizing my life for someone unless they have real value to me or mine is almost over anyway

Putting one's life on the line for others is like flying home built aircraft. It's a great activity for the terminally ill.

 

[packermann]

I would describe my ethic as basically utilitarian but with caveats that make it closer to both virtue ethics and deontics. What makes an action right or wrong is whether it increases or decreases the well-being of sentient beings.

Sentient beings? So does that mean that we can do anything we want to a person who is unconcious? What about a person who is sleeping? Or in a coma? Or a newborn baby? Can we do whatever we want to these people? Can we kill them? Can we eat them? Can we use them for body parts? All these could increase the well-being of sentient beings.

However, none of us are omniscient, and we don't know what all the results of our actions will be, so we should not do evil that good may come, since we know that that would cause some suffering, but we don't know if greater good would actually result.

I agree. But there is One who is omniscient - God. He has revealed to us what should be done.

In a common ethical quandary scenario, we are asked if it would be right to push someone off a bridge so that they would block a train that is about to run over several people. My answer is that in real life we could not know if we would actually succeed in blocking the train, nor if the train may stop for some other reason, nor if the other people will get out of the way. But we do know that action would kill the person pushed off the bridge.

The reason we should not push someone into a train is not because we are not sure what the utilitarian purpose would be. We should not do it because God commanded not to kill - because that man is made into the image of God. If by sparing this man causes the death of thousands, I am still commanded not to actively kill an innocent person.

If I were to go into a time machine and face Adolf Hitler when he was a child, I would not kill him - even though I would know that this would mean the death of millions.

Since I value intangible goods like virtue, and believe in an afterlife, that affects how I calculate the greater good. If a group is rescuing one person, and two of them die in the process, that is still better than them ignoring the person. They have displayed heroism and strengthened people's care for each other, which benefits both this world and their afterlife.

Friend, you seem to ignore the most important part of the equation - God. You come close, with believing in the afterlife. But it is more than that. It is God, heaven, hell, judgment! 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that we must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an answer of what we have done - whether good or bad. That is my ultimate motivation for doing good and avoiding evil, I don't want to go to hell - I want to go to heaven. Ultimately, the greatest evil for even a single soul is to go to hell.

I am not nit-picking. I am pointing out that establishing a morality without centering it completely on God is doomed to fail.

If a group is rescuing one person, and two of them die in the process, that is still better than them ignoring the person. They have displayed heroism and strengthened people's care for each other, which benefits both this world and their afterlife.

I do not think that anyone would deny the heroism of someone sacrificing is life for another. Of course that is a good. But if a person does not sacrifice himself for another then would that be an evil? Should that person be arrested for allowing a person to die, if that would mean that that person would have to die?

 

[packermann]

personally, I'm not jeopardizing my life for someone unless they have real value to me or mine is almost over anyway

Jesus said:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
Matthew 5:46-48

Even when we were sinners, His enemies, Christ died for us. Is it too much to ask to pay it forward - that we love others as He has loved us?

I know that I will probably fall short of this (may God forgive me) but I wouldn't brag about it.

Also, there are thousands of policemen and firemen who put their lives on the line to save strangers, those who have no real value to them. Should not we Christians strive to do better than only jeopardizing ourselves for those who have value to us?

 

[Percivale]

Sentient beings? So does that mean that we can do anything we want to a person who is unconcious? What about a person who is sleeping? Or in a coma? Or a newborn baby? Can we do whatever we want to these people? Can we kill them? Can we eat them? Can we use them for body parts? All these could increase the well-being of sentient beings.



I agree. But there is One who is omniscient - God. He has revealed to us what should be done.



The reason we should not push someone into a train is not because we are not sure what the utilitarian purpose would be. We should not do it because God commanded not to kill - because that man is made into the image of God. If by sparing this man causes the death of thousands, I am still commanded not to actively kill an innocent person.

If I were to go into a time machine and face Adolf Hitler when he was a child, I would not kill him - even though I would know that this would mean the death of millions.



Friend, you seem to ignore the most important part of the equation - God. You come close, with believing in the afterlife. But it is more than that. It is God, heaven, hell, judgment! 2 Corinthians 5:10 says that we must ALL stand before the judgment seat of Christ and give an answer of what we have done - whether good or bad. That is my ultimate motivation for doing good and avoiding evil, I don't want to go to hell - I want to go to heaven. Ultimately, the greatest evil for even a single soul is to go to hell.

I am not nit-picking. I am pointing out that establishing a morality without centering it completely on God is doomed to fail.



I do not think that anyone would deny the heroism of someone sacrificing is life for another. Of course that is a good. But if a person does not sacrifice himself for another then would that be an evil? Should that person be arrested for allowing a person to die, if that would mean that that person would have to die?

God did not give detailed instructions on what to do in every situation. He did tell us to seek wisdom, and told us to our love neighbors as ourselves, saying that fulfills the law. Claiming that you're centering your ethics entirely on God is not what is important, living the way he really wants is. The absolutist ethical position is like a child he won't do anything unless his parents tell him every move to make, the utilitarian position is like a child who understands what his parents like and uses his own creativity in doing things to please his parents.

To reiterate, I believe that when Jesus said love fulfills the law, and broke purity codes and Sabbath laws to reach out to those in need, that was basically an endorsement of utilitarianism.

 

[packermann]

God did not give detailed instructions on what to do in every situation. He did tell us to seek wisdom, and told us to our love neighbors as ourselves, saying that fulfills the law.

We seek wisdom not from secular philosophy with concepts such as sentient beings, deontics, and utilitarianism. We seek wisdom from God. Secular ethics is built on the presupposition that there is no God. Luke 2:34 says that Christ will be a sign of contradiction to the world. John 1:5 says that the Light (Jesus) shines in darkness and the darkness has not overcome it. We should live in the Light. What does light have to do with darkness? (2 Corinthians 6:14)

My undergrad degree is in counseling from a secular university. I learned of different types of therapies - based on man being innately good (Rogers), man being innately evil (Freud), and man being basically just a product of his environment (Skinner). Although they have conflicting philosophies on man they each have the same success rate. Also, the ones who go to no secular therapy at all have the same success rate as those who do.

I found out later that faith-based institutions have better success rates than secular institutions. Even AA, which is very successful in curing alcoholics, is based on traditional Christian values such as relying on a Higher Power, taking responsibility for ones actions, and confessing one's sins to others. You are not going to hear about utilitarianism from them.

All secular philosophy and psychology is empty and a mere chasing after the wind (Ecclesiastes 1:13-14)

Claiming that you're centering your ethics entirely on God is not what is important, living the way he really wants is.

Living the way God really wants is having your ethics entirely on God.

The absolutist ethical position is like a child he won't do anything unless his parents tell him every move to make

This is a straw man. I never felt that way. Jesus taught that he who sins is a slave to sin. True freedom is found in obedience.

It is a child being in a big, fenced-in yard. The child is free to roam, romp around,and play as long as stays within the boundaries of the fences. Take away those fences and then the child lives in fear. He has no way to know that he has gone too away from his yard.

the utilitarian position is like a child who understands what his parents like and uses his own creativity in doing things to please his parents.

Utilitarianism is the philosophy that what is right is what is most beneficial to the most people. So if a disabled person is too much of a burden on the majority people, then those people have the right to kill that person. Utilitarianism is placing the rights of the masses over the rights of the individual, as in Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.

To reiterate, I believe that when Jesus said love fulfills the law, and broke purity codes and Sabbath laws to reach out to those in need, that was basically an endorsement of utilitarianism.

Jesus never advocated the killing of people who were of no use to the majority of people.

Jesus said the two greatest commandments are loving God with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your who soul. And to love your neighbor as yourself. The Jewish ceremonial laws can be broken IF they conflicted with loving God or loving your neighbor.

Utilitarianism is placing the needs of the masses ahead of God and individuals.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Utilitarianism is possibly ok in a specific context. Amongst like minded people who follow similar rules. Maybe.

Its intuitively ok because it supports - to each in their own private utilitarian dream - a utopian fantasy where all your constructive neurochemical impulses and needs (or spiritual ones, etc. depending on personal definitions) are either met or made sacred in some way. At least respected.

Now phantasize that! Whoosh, you're an instant winner!!

What could be wrong with such a soft-focus dream?

But across logically possible world flaws seem to emerge.

Lets say you've been kidnapped by sadistic aliens. What then. They have a special liking for your particular pain. YOU. ARE. THE. CHOSEN. ONE.

It makes them immensely happy. Do you have a ultra virtuous, smiling, servile duty to say "More torture, please!"????

No.

And beware. Hell exists. Its quite possibly the permanent abode of the ones whom atheist intellectuals and philosophers call "interesting people".

As in "In heaven, all the interesting people are missing." - F Nietzsche.

Do not be deceived by the advertising.

Read the small print.

Utilitarianism. IMO this seems more sensible.
From the Quran*:
(47:14) Is, then, the one who is (standing) upon a clear evidence from his Lord like him whose evil deeds are decked out to be appealing to him, and (those who) follow their lusts and fancies?

*I'm not a qualified commentor like a Mufti, but the verse seems to be apt.

 

[Percivale]

Which philosophy of ethics you hold doesn't say much about the content of your ethics. A utilitarian Christian will likely have more ethical beliefs in common with a deontic Christian than with a utilitarian Buddhist. (FYI deontic means something is right or wrong because it aligns with an authoritative standard, such as God's word or a list of self evident human rights.)
From a utilitarian standpoint, a world that lets the weak die or that contains sadistic aliens is not as good as one where people care for each other and one that resists invasion by those aliens.

 

[packermann]

Utilitarianism is possibly ok in a specific context. Amongst like minded people who follow similar rules. Maybe.

Even you say it is only possibly OK. I am a retired programmer. I believe in Murphy's Law. One of its tenets is that if anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong. In my 35+ years of programming I found this to be true.

The history of utilitarianism is very dark. Nazi Germany exterminated the disabled and eventually the Jews for the betterment of the human race. From an evolutionary perspective, they thought it wise to get rid of the defectives so that mankind will reach perfection. Joseph Mengele perform experiments on them for the betterment of mankind.Stalin killed three times more individuals than Hitler for the betterment of the people. Red China forced abortions on woman for population control.

Judeo-Christianity taught that each individual has value not because he/she is useful to the state but because that individual has been made in the image of God. I have value not because I can be utilized by others, but because God created me to have value.

Not only that, but the OP (and I think you would agree) criticized absolutism. That means that there are no absolutes whatsoever (absolutism only teaches that there are some absolutes, not every situation has an absolute. No absolutist would ever say that there is a right and wrong flavor in ice cream. I can choose mint ice cream and you can choose pistachio). If there are no absolutes then you cannot say "Utilitarianism cannot ever be used to kill or maim innocent individuals". According to a one who sees no absolutes, with utilitarianism, there may be a situation whereby individuals must be sacrificed for the good of all. In utilitarianism, there is a love for mankind but not a love for your neighbor. Jesus taught that we must love our neighbor.

Its intuitively ok because it supports - to each in their own private utilitarian dream - a utopian fantasy where all your constructive neurochemical impulses and needs (or spiritual ones, etc. depending on personal definitions) are either met or made sacred in some way. At least respected.

And what if my private utilitarian dream conflicts your private utilitarian dream? What if my private utilitarian dream is to have all the gorgeous women for myself. In order to pursue my private utilitarian dream I would have to kill all men. Is that OK?

Now phantasize that! Whoosh, you're an instant winner!!

Yes! I will start right now on pursuing my fantasy that I am the only male available by killing all males. BTW, where do you live? (Just kidding)

What could be wrong with such a soft-focus dream?

Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us that all the killings start from the heart (soft-focus dreams?)

Lets say you've been kidnapped by sadistic aliens. What then. They have a special liking for your particular pain. YOU. ARE. THE. CHOSEN. ONE.

It makes them immensely happy. Do you have a ultra virtuous, smiling, servile duty to say "More torture, please!"????

No.

This is a non-sequiter. There is nothing in absolutism that says that one cannot fight back at those who oppress you. Absolutism is not saying that you cannot defend yourself. We are commanded not ever to kill innocent life. Obviously someone who kidnaps you and inflicts pain on you is not innocent. You have the right to defend yourself.

However, these aliens were just applying the utilitarian ethic, which would say that the benefit of the many supersedes the benefit of the individual. So if torturing you makes all of them immensely happy but makes you miserable why would that be wrong, according to utilitarianism?

And beware. Hell exists. Its quite possibly the permanent abode of the ones whom atheist intellectuals and philosophers call "interesting people".

As in "In heaven, all the interesting people are missing." - F Nietzsche.

Do not be deceived by the advertising.

Read the small print.

The last two years of Nietzsche's life he went crazy. Of course, crazy people are "interesting", I guess.

Read his book Beyond Good and Evil. According to Nietzsche, since there is no God, who is to say that love is better than hate? Again, I guess a hell filled with hate is more interesting than a heaven with love but I would not want to be there.

What you say makes no sense. If there is a heaven and there is a hell, then there must be an all-powerful God who made them. If there is an all-powerful being then would not this being know how to make those who loved Him to be eternally happy and those who hated Him to be eternally miserable? This idea that hell is like some party of interesting people is absurd! Don't you think that this all-powerful God would know how to make hell's inhabitants very uninteresting and very miserable?

Utilitarianism. IMO this seems more sensible.

Well, thanks for pointing out that utilitarianism is the ethic for atheists and not for Christians.

From the Quran*:
(47:14) Is, then, the one who is (standing) upon a clear evidence from his Lord like him whose evil deeds are decked out to be appealing to him, and (those who) follow their lusts and fancies?

*I'm not a qualified commentor like a Mufti, but the verse seems to be apt.

And thanks for pointing out why we should be Christians and not Muslims. A man's evil deeds can be appealing to the Lord? Wow!

If you want to quote the Quran, I think you might try that on a Muslim forum, not a Christian forum.

 

[Percivale]

Even you say it is only possibly OK. I am a retired programmer. I believe in Murphy's Law. One of its tenets is that if anything that can go wrong WILL go wrong. In my 35+ years of programming I found this to be true.

The history of utilitarianism is very dark. Nazi Germany exterminated the disabled and eventually the Jews for the betterment of the human race. From an evolutionary perspective, they thought it wise to get rid of the defectives so that mankind will reach perfection. Joseph Mengele perform experiments on them for the betterment of mankind.Stalin killed three times more individuals than Hitler for the betterment of the people. Red China forced abortions on woman for population control.

Judeo-Christianity taught that each individual has value not because he/she is useful to the state but because that individual has been made in the image of God. I have value not because I can be utilized by others, but because God created me to have value.

Not only that, but the OP (and I think you would agree) criticized absolutism. That means that there are no absolutes whatsoever (absolutism only teaches that there are some absolutes, not every situation has an absolute. No absolutist would ever say that there is a right and wrong flavor in ice cream. I can choose mint ice cream and you can choose pistachio). If there are no absolutes then you cannot say "Utilitarianism cannot ever be used to kill or maim innocent individuals". According to a one who sees no absolutes, with utilitarianism, there may be a situation whereby individuals must be sacrificed for the good of all. In utilitarianism, there is a love for mankind but not a love for your neighbor. Jesus taught that we must love our neighbor.




And what if my private utilitarian dream conflicts your private utilitarian dream? What if my private utilitarian dream is to have all the gorgeous women for myself. In order to pursue my private utilitarian dream I would have to kill all men. Is that OK?



Yes! I will start right now on pursuing my fantasy that I am the only male available by killing all males. BTW, where do you live? (Just kidding)



Our Lord Jesus Christ warned us that all the killings start from the heart (soft-focus dreams?)




This is a non-sequiter. There is nothing in absolutism that says that one cannot fight back at those who oppress you. Absolutism is not saying that you cannot defend yourself. We are commanded not ever to kill innocent life. Obviously someone who kidnaps you and inflicts pain on you is not innocent. You have the right to defend yourself.

However, these aliens were just applying the utilitarian ethic, which would say that the benefit of the many supersedes the benefit of the individual. So if torturing you makes all of them immensely happy but makes you miserable why would that be wrong, according to utilitarianism?



The last two years of Nietzsche's life he went crazy. Of course, crazy people are "interesting", I guess.

Read his book Beyond Good and Evil. According to Nietzsche, since there is no God, who is to say that love is better than hate? Again, I guess a hell filled with hate is more interesting than a heaven with love but I would not want to be there.

What you say makes no sense. If there is a heaven and there is a hell, then there must be an all-powerful God who made them. If there is an all-powerful being then would not this being know how to make those who loved Him to be eternally happy and those who hated Him to be eternally miserable? This idea that hell is like some party of interesting people is absurd! Don't you think that this all-powerful God would know how to make hell's inhabitants very uninteresting and very miserable?



Well, thanks for pointing out that utilitarianism is the ethic for atheists and not for Christians.



And thanks for pointing out why we should be Christians and not Muslims. A man's evil deeds can be appealing to the Lord? Wow!

If you want to quote the Quran, I think you might try that on a Muslim forum, not a Christian forum.

I think you got mixed up on which person you are talking to. You are responding to someone who opposes utilitarianism and replied to this thread.
Every philosophy of ethics has its risks. I think a lot of evils in the world come from a deontic or absolutist ethical system, for instance Isis killing people because they believe the Quran says to slay the infidels. The Nazis may have used utilitarianism to justify what they were doing, but they were abusing the philosophy pretty seriously, accepting some pretty illogical assumptions about what the best world is like and about whether what they were doing would actually improve the world. As I said in the OP it's important that if you're using utilitarianism you balance it with humility and with considering spiritual values, not just physical ones.
Virtue ethics may have the smallest risks, probably the main one would be people ignoring evils that they could oppose.

 

[packermann]

I think you got mixed up on which person you are talking to. You are responding to someone who opposes utilitarianism and replied to this thread.

I did a double-check. GrowingSmaller is for utilitarianism. See the quote below.

Utilitarianism is possibly ok in a specific context. Amongst like minded people who follow similar rules. Maybe...
Utilitarianism. IMO this seems more sensible.

This is important is because GrowingSmaller describes himself as a Humanist. So I am pretty sure he is not a Christian, probably an atheist. Utilitarianism is very strong among atheists. I have never met an atheist who believed in absolutes. Friend, you are comprising your Christian values with belief systems that are antithetical to Christianity. This will jeopardise your soul.

Every philosophy of ethics has its risks.

That seems to me to be a very cavalier attitude. If it can go wrong it will go wrong. It should be avoided. As a retired programmer, I learn that if the way produces bugs then you need to go back to the drawing board for some other way. Insanity is always trying the same way and expecting different results.

I think a lot of evils in the world come from a deontic or absolutist ethical system, for instance Isis killing people because they believe the Quran says to slay the infidels.

A Christian absolutist would not say that all absolutist systems are good - that would make him a relativist. A Christian absolutist would say that only the Christian absolutes are right and the Isis absolutes are wrong. But since you are not an absolutist, you cannot say that Isis is absolutely wrong for killing people. And since you are a utilitarian, you would have to say that Isis killing people could be good if it benefits more people than it hurts.

The Nazis may have used utilitarianism to justify what they were doing, but they were abusing the philosophy pretty seriously, accepting some pretty illogical assumptions about what the best world is like and about whether what they were doing would actually improve the world.

You reject objective standards to determine what the best world is like and how to improve the world. So what is the basis for you to say that they were wrong? Remember, according to you, there are no absolutes. Since there are no absolutes then there cannot be any objective standards. What is good for the Nazis may be bad for you, but you cannot say that the Nazis were absolutely wrong. And if they were not absolutely wrong then they could have been right.

As I said in the OP it's important that if you're using utilitarianism you balance it with humility and with considering spiritual values, not just physical ones.

Are there absolute spiritual values? And once you say that they are not absolute then you can rationalize them away if they ever become inconvenient.

Virtue ethics may have the smallest risks, probably the main one would be people ignoring evils that they could oppose.

Virtue ethics are what God has revealed to us - such as the Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount. But these presuppose absolutes. The Ten Commandments are not Ten Suggestions.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Hey thanks for the criticisms. My apologies tho to the OP, tho, i have little skill in critical appraisal of others opinions, but still like to get involved. Hence my post was not a great hook up to the thread.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

As I said in the OP it's important that if you're using utilitarianism you balance it with humility and with considering spiritual values, not just physical ones.
Virtue ethics may have the smallest risks, probably the main one would be people ignoring evils that they could oppose.

OK one issue I have. First off it sounds cool, but as a Muslim I believe that not all are destined to be guided.

The cool bit: people being virtuous, sociable, spiritual etc.

The uncool bit: the real world where people aren't always like that.

As a Muslim my angle is I have a decent community to co-exist with.


But "out there" in the community due to peoples vices no matter how much one preaches or appreciates spiritual values etc, theyre often left to hover in the abstract, because it seems that there will always be uncool people.

So, philosophy often remains an abstraction. It could be cool, it may even sound great, but there is the real world. People don't measure up.


So, in that sense its so much talk and chatter. Will God judge us on our ideals or on our real lives? I think there will be a balance.

I have read about IIRC P Abelard, AFAIK he said God will judge not according to actions but ones highest ideals, independent of situation and strength of will to implement them etc. But what are ideals good for if they cant be implemented.


My belief is that God wants to do justice, which is why He permits diversity, and will reward some and not others.

Thats the state of play. Not all will cooperate with what is right.

Although one can say "not all will be pious according to Muslim standards too, as with philosophical ones" which is a true and valid point, at least I have some form of consistency and community where people share the same way.

Just as a Church is a bit of a retreat from 'the world' also.

Once one gets into philosophy there is so much diversity that one cant expect common agreement with even ones friends. So such philosophical friendships tend to value tolerance and respect of diversity, at the expense of a common world perspective.

Like, if you go to church and chat about deontics etc, half the people wont even register what deontology means.

So, I wonder what good is philosophy?

Believers of all creeds tend to have meeting places, assemblies, churches, temples etc.

Philosophers tho, what do they have?

So, maybe one point is if you mix faith and philosophy too much, its potentially a splintering influence?