Finella said:
I guess my problem with this whole question is that, whether we like it or not, it is a fact that we all pick and choose our values to some degree. We may be predisposed to some values moreso than others due to our upbringing and experience. But I consider myself to be a bit of a philosophical mutt (as Im sure most of us do) and, though Im sure I dont fully understand all of the ramifications of such a label, if I had to name my beliefs I would call myself an existential humanist Christian. Some would say its utterly impossible to have such a belief system, and I guess I am personally wrestling with the concepts myself (hence my great interest in this thread!). But this label doesnt really say everything about what I believe, and the particulars do seem to matter. I doubt my values and beliefs would perfectly match another existential humanist Christian, and perhaps we would differ on the very points that would make or break a harmonious blending of these worldviews.
You are, of courese largly correct as to how we aquire a moral philosophy. I choose to be a Christian (with all due repsect to our Calvinist brothers who would insist that I did no such thing, that God choose me and all other Christians). The divergence comes not in the initial choice, but thereafter thoose of us who give fealty to an external ideal abdicate the authority to make certain decsions to the font of that ideal.
In many areas, social policy, abortion and the death penalty to name a few, my natural inclination as a rational man and the directions of God often conflict. Were I a humanist I would likely be pro death penalty, pro abortion amd pro low taxes and minimal social welfare.
Before I embraced God I was a political libertarian (still am , with the exception of those areas where God's will overwrites my own).
As a libertarian I had no trouble with the idea that murderers, pedophiles, rapeists and others forfeit their lives by ther acts. (Even them I was troubled by the fact that drug "kingpins" and cop killers got the death penalty, but rapists and most murderers didn't).
As a libertarian I believed that government had no business in our private lives, and had the burden of proof when it sought to invade our lives. So I felt that a woman's right to choose was absolute until the government could prove that the fetus was a person with its own rights.
As a libertarian I believed that re-distributing the wealth was not a proper power of government, and opposed most welfare programs as an abuse of power. I believed in, and donated to, charity regulalry becasue the libertarian attitude is not "let em starve", it is that government ought not use its power to force us to be "moral".
Once I embraced God, not as the religion of my forefathers - but as my real and living faith I was compelled to listen to God, and my options narrowed.
The death penalty came to be an act of man that forclosed redemption and repentance. Abortion became not the right of a woman but a conspiracy of death, social welfare became not an abuse of power - but an essetial function of all society.
Finella said:
Rev. Smith has said that he thinks the origin of ones morality is a particular point to examine when juxtaposing these views. If ones morality originates from God, that is a very different thing than if it originates from (and one is answerable to) oneself. The only reason I can see so far why this would matter so much is because, if one is Christian, s/he would believe this would affect his/her ultimate unification with God in heaven. So, in the long-term, its an issue of salvation to the believer, and perhaps an issue of legacy for the non-believing humanist. Im not sure salvation is what Fish and Bread is getting at, though.
Salvation is certainly important - but the essentil differance is imutabilty. Becasue I take God as a higher authority them myself I am, by definition, unreasonable, I can not be reasoned with in essentials of my faith. No matter how well throught out and structured the argument brought to me is, I will reject it if it conflicts with the commandments of God. There are many rational arguments in favor of abortion on demand (I get them shouted at me regularly at county Democratic Party meetings). None of them make a dent - in fact I agree with most of them. I simply assert that I am not the arbitor of moral rightness, God is - show me that God desires that we abort babies, kill malefactors and starve the poor to provide tax cuts for the comfortable and I'll sign right up.
A humanist is a rational person, reason is the essential tool for resolving moral problems. For the most part so are Christians, since most political and social issues have no spiritual implications. (I can form my own opinions freely on zoning, school boards, immagration and so on ). Where the dictates of God overrule my opinions then I abdicate to God. This remains true for each Christian. We may disagree on what God is saying, but we all agree that once we know God's will we must submit to it.
Finella said:
But if there is some intangible other reason why the different origin of morality/values differs so much, I would like to explore that. Is it not possible that the values Christians believe they obtain from their relationship to God is simply idealized human values we have projected onto God?
That is certainly possable, and I know that that is the theory that most atheist social scientists promote, that religion is the collective desire for moral order. However, much of the revelation of God goes against the desires of many (most people). God demands that we be chaste, yet most of us desire to be able to make love without restriction to those we truly love (hence the gay mariage debate, amongst others). God demands that we be generious with our wealth, feed the poor and hungry - most of us prefer to lavish our wealth on ourselves and our family. Indeed secular morals make this a virtue, one of our cultural icons is the mom or dad who slaves away at a job they despise in order to put ther child through school. Society lauds this, God says it is easy to love your friends and family and to care for them - what have you done for the homeless guy living under the bridge?
Finella said:
How do we know that these values did not emerge out of our own social background and development over millennia? And again, how does this appear differently in the virtuous humanist versus the virtuous Christian? An atheist humanist could very well have just as strong a belief in the value of human life as a Christian. Even more so, since the atheist believes that this life is our only chance at life, and therefore we must respect it and cherish it deeply, as there is no second chance or revival one day in heaven. Suffering, pain, killing, all of these must be abated now, not one moment should be wasted because we will never get this time back again. It could be argued that the Christian sees some virtue in suffering, seeing this as a means to reward in heaven (and Im being broad with these atheist/Christian statements, bear with me). Are these values incompatible? Bwah
I have no idea.
Your right of course, the results will often be the same - becasue most virtue is fairly obvious. Again, I can only say that the differance is only rarely in the result, it is more often in the process - that and us Christians can be madingly irrational to the humanist (which is fair, becasue they are madingly relativeistic to us)
Finella said:
(In regard to evil, Im sure there are people in this world far beyond the realms of reason. I worked in psychiatric hospitals for years, Ive met lots of such people. Rapists, murderers
I dont know if its evil or an illness, but the source of it to me is the tragedy of the lack of love in early life. I dont see it as a black Font of Evil, but a sad, unbroken chain of generations of neglect and pain. I think it is combatable, and I do think its worth our lives to combat it.)
Perfect example, we agree and disagree - I agree whole heartedly that we must do all we can to relieve suffering and redeem lives and combat evil. I also know that evil has a source, the source has a terrable purpose, and that to we must oppose it with courage and resolve. Freewill - some, few, people choose to serve that purpose, but they can be redeemed.
I
Finella said:
nteresting point, however, Rev. Smith about how scripture gives authority to certain people under certain circumstances to kill, but it is more virtuous not to do so (e.g., your example of early Christian martyrs). So theres a gray area here? A spectrum of virtue?
I agree with you wholeheartedly there, my friend.
There must be a spectrum of virtue, the church has recognised this since the beginning - what are Saints? Ordinary men and women who lived lives (or commited a single act) of such extrordinary virtue that they are worthy of emulation, so we commmorate them and tell our children the stories of ther lives.
A policeman who shoots down a mad killer on a rampage has properly used his authority, the same policeman who risks his own safety to subdue the killer and bring him to jail, and possable redemption along with his punishment has both used his authority and upheld the sanctity of life. Both are morally correct, one is a Saint.
Finella said:
You have me confused here. How is it that using our God-given reason and logic, common sense, if you will, to make an argument taking away from your right to form morals from Gods revelation? Is not God inherent in this reasoning as well? If theres perfectly good secular arguments against the death penalty, then thats simply a reflection of Gods creation in the matter demonstrating the natural reason to oppose it. Its built into creation. Its so obvious (e.g., its just wrong to kill another person, and vengeance doesnt solve anything) that anyone can see it.
You missed my point - there is nothng wrong with using reason, the image of God in which we were made. I was making a larger point. That the humanist has no right to impose his morality on me. It always struck me as ironic that so many atheists assert that Christians have no right to impose their religious morals on them, then go on to demand that in discussions we must prove a point only by recourse to reason and science. I have the right to make moral conclusions, and to the method I arrive at.
In the instance I was discussing that is exactly what had happended, I asserted that I thought the death penalty was immoral becasue there were too many holes in it how we did it, that government ignored and overlooked to many times that prosecutors who surpressed evidence, cops who hid exculpitory witnesses and so on - that government was murdering people to close cases. That too often we, collectivly (government is US after all) are guilty of murder in the name of justice. After much back and forth my friend demanded (veins now bugeing at his neck) that I prove it, without all the "God talk" - becasue if I could not prove a point by reason then I had no right to impose the view - WRONG. one man one vote.
Whenever I can, I vote for aid to the poor, against capitol punishment and abortion and for peace. All becasue that is part of what I believe God wants from us.
Finella said:
Thank you for the civilized debate... quite stimulating. I knew we could behave.
You're welcome.