tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post399864466017771823..comments2023-06-29T02:07:49.894-09:00Comments on The Mustard Seed: Reason, Reductionism and Christianity: A Discussion with TalleyrandTMShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-2239970788224506772009-09-30T05:17:23.215-09:002009-09-30T05:17:23.215-09:00RS: You can't have a transcendent moral code b...RS: You can't have a transcendent moral code based on "reason" alone, Todd. <br /><br />TW: To clarify, I wouldn’t claim that a person can have a “transcendent moral code based on ‘reason’ alone. I would say that respect for Reality and the primacy of reason *should be the foundation* of a “moral code.” <br /><br />Furthermore, I would argue that this idea is consistent with Christianity (even though I’m sure most Christians don't realize that). Think about it: Morality implies choice – the choice to do what is moral or immoral. And what gives us the ability to choose? Reason. A monkey or robot is not condemned or praised for being "moral" or “immoral." And why not? Because they lack reason. Only a human can be “moral” or “immoral” because he – qua human – has the ability to rationally understand what those terms mean and live by them. <br /><br />RS: “The only way humans have ever achieved that kind of moral consensus was through organized religion which was socially enforced (and at times legally enforced as well).”<br /><br />TW: As a history lesson, yes, I agree. As an argument for what is inherently “right” or “wrong,” that strikes me as irrelevant.<br /><br />RS: “Morality based on human reason does not lead to consensus -- it leads to debate. Endless debate.”<br /><br />TW: I like debate. Personally, I’m not interested in establishing a rigid moral law for society as a whole (although other people are welcome to try, if they so choose). What interests me is a moral code for the individual. A set of principles for good, happy living. And yes, 2 people who share those principles might not have a “consensus” on every issue. But that’s fine. We’re a diverse species. I accept that.<br /><br />RS: “Which leads to normal people (i.e., the ones who are not debating) to embrace relativism.”<br /><br />TW: I don’t see why that should happen. If a person sees human diversity as a reason to “embrace relativism,” that strikes me as terrible logic. <br /><br />TW: “Your generation will not solve this puzzle without organized religion.”<br /><br />RS: As a practical matter, I think you're almost certainly right. That’s why I wrote above, “Our best bet is to help facilitate a more rational and more muscular form of Christianity.”<br /><br />RS: “Reason is too much subject to debate (see the history of philosophy) and debate kills objective morality.”<br /><br />TW: Again, I don’t see why that should be the case. If the free exchange of ideas “kills objective morality,” then we’re all in big trouble. Also, I should mention that from an historical perspective, reason has been given the shaft by philosophers. I can think of only 2 philosophers who prized reason: Aristotle and Ayn Rand. Everyone else denigrated reason: Kant, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heiddeger, Rorty, the whole gang. One last note: One could also say that “Religion – by definition – may not ‘kill objective morality,’ but in imposing dogma by force, it certainly kills a lot of human beings.”TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-83753819263591640252009-09-29T14:49:54.414-09:002009-09-29T14:49:54.414-09:00You can't have a transcendent moral code based...You can't have a transcendent moral code based on "reason" alone, Todd. The only way humans have ever achieved that kind of moral consensus was through organized religion which was socially enforced (and at times legally enforced as well). Morality based on human reason does not lead to consensus -- it leads to debate. Endless debate. Which leads to normal people (i.e., the ones who are not debating) to embrace relativism.<br /><br />Your generation will not solve this puzzle without organized religion. And organized religion is becoming more fringe like among educated people. I am an Orthodox Christian, but in large part because I was raised as a Christian. For people like you who were not, organized religion is problematic -- fair enough, but you will not be able to collectively reason your way to a moral consensus. It cannot be done. Reason is too much subject to debate (see the history of philosophy) and debate kills objective morality.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-5989277202195591072009-09-05T09:25:49.695-09:002009-09-05T09:25:49.695-09:00Anonymous:
Let me start by saying that I'm no...Anonymous:<br /><br />Let me start by saying that I'm not a Jew or a Christian, so the story of Abraham - from my perspective - is a work of fiction.<br /><br />But getting back to Dostoevsky...I think he's right...in fact, if you read his quote literally, "without God, all things are permitted," it's hard to see how there can be a rebuttal. <br /><br />If there's no transcendental moral code, then - from the individual's perspective - ALL things ARE permitted. Whether the person chooses to engage in what (up until now) has been considered "moral" or "immoral" behavior - is, of course, up to him - but it doesn't change the fact that - since there is no God - he has the freedom to do whatever he wants.<br /><br />"Moral" or "Immoral" is just another another 21st-century "lifestyle choice."<br /><br />You wrote, "Even with God, everything is permitted." No way, dude. And the Abraham story will suffice. God did NOT want Abraham to kill his son. As you're aware, God tells Abraham at the last minute NOT to kill him. God was TESTING Abraham. The lesson is: Have faith in God - even in those moments when faith seems silly or even repugnant. And in this case, Abraham's faith WAS rewarded. <br /><br />The lesson is NOT: "Do whatever you want; everything is permitted."TMShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07654673878708922180noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8560774651993745496.post-86847796426899650042009-09-05T01:35:59.191-09:002009-09-05T01:35:59.191-09:00Even with God everything is permitted. Abraham wan...Even with God everything is permitted. Abraham wanted to kill his son and we applaud him for following God's will.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com