Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Discuss the latest podcast here.

Moderator: Spamcops

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Pseudonym » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:31 pm

Angela wrote:I do not think there is a clear line between psychosis and mystical experience (although, practically and diagnostically speaking, the difference is probably in the aspect you mention: the ability to live a normal life).

I do agree with this, but to be fair, I think this is true of a lot of things.

There's no clear line between nerdy and autistic. There's no clear line between self-centered and psychopathic. There's no clear line between love and lust. Such things are only a problem if they become a problem.
User avatar
Pseudonym
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1629
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 4:26 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Affiliation: Liberal Christian

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby mitchellmckain » Tue Sep 29, 2009 3:55 pm

Angela wrote:
mitchellmckain wrote:
If one under the illusion that ones beliefs in a particular area is a matter of logic and objectivity when it is really choice and subjective perception, then yes I quite agree.

But Mitchell, isn't it almost always both . . . and?

Yes, OK Angela I recognize your contribution to the discussion, for greater accuracy one should use the words "more" and "less" in my statement. How is that for a little positive feedback. :)


Angela wrote:It's both. I would argue all of our beliefs are both, some being more "subjective" than others.

No it is not always both. There are beliefs in mathematics and science that are exclusively a matter of logic and objective observation.


Angela wrote:
I disagree, because premises will never be agreed upon between people with different beliefs and that is why debate is pointless.
(emphasis added)
That is a strong statement! Do you really believe that? It seems to me that often two given people start with the same premises but end up taking them to different conclusions. More often, people may share one premise that underlies their different beliefs but not share another. In any event, identifying those premises is important.

Yes I believe that. You see, the logic that connects premises to conclusions is a kind equivalence, and so the conclusions are really contained in the premises themselves, therefore people only believe differently because they accept different premises.


Angela wrote:What do you think of the utility of debating the validity of the premises once they have been identified?

Sometimes this is possible, but quite often it is not for they are often a matter choice and subjective perception.

So when this is not the case, does it have utility? Yes, but what is the utility? Generally I think it is only in finding a more accurate and better statements of ones premises. You see, regardless of the fact that premises are what you start with in the use of logic, people don't always actually start with these premises and then use logic to derive their conclusions. No. What they often do is work the process in reverse to look for the premises from which certain of their conclusions can be derived. So being the product of the rational process rather that the beginning, an examination of their validity will usually result in their refinement rather than their replacement. This is because it is quite often at the level of conclusions where people are checking how their beliefs are matching up to their experience of reality.

The purpose of finding these derived premises in the process rationalization in the first place, is to make ones beliefs into a rational tool for wider applicability (i.e. generalization) and to check the consistency of ones beliefs. These derived premises are often used to draw other conclusions than the ones from which the premises are derived, so these conclusions certainly might change if the premises from which they are derived are improved.


Angela wrote:Does your answer change if I use the word "beat" instead of "smack"?

Nope. Change it to damage, maim or kill and that would certainly make a difference.


Angela wrote:But I take from your answer that you would say the motivation for an action is more important in determining its ethical value than the action itself?

Of course it would be for a virtue ethicist because it is all about the character of the person rather than about the rules (as it would be for the deontological ethicist) or about the observable effects on the world (as it would be for the consequentialist ethicist).
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Angela » Tue Sep 29, 2009 5:57 pm

Pseudonym wrote:
Angela wrote:I do not think there is a clear line between psychosis and mystical experience (although, practically and diagnostically speaking, the difference is probably in the aspect you mention: the ability to live a normal life).

I do agree with this, but to be fair, I think this is true of a lot of things.

There's no clear line between nerdy and autistic. There's no clear line between self-centered and psychopathic. There's no clear line between love and lust. Such things are only a problem if they become a problem.


I agree that there are a lot of areas of life where the lines aren't clear. Your first two examples are examples of spectrum or scale. We can talk about an autistic spectrum, and a psychopathic narcissism scale. As far as love and lust, I would conceive of those as two separate things, which sometimes (happily) coexist. And I think a mature person can usually tell the difference.

I don't think of mystical experience and psychosis as on a spectrum, though. In this case it's more a matter of interpretation. Someone's psychotic hallucination is someone else's mystical vision. I don't mean to disparage mystical experience by saying this. I don't completely buy in to modern psychology's characterization of what a sick/healthy mind looks like. So much has to do with culture and society. Particularly, I'm not sure we help by being so quick to try to "cure" the "mentally ill." This may seem strange coming from me, but I think that a more "spiritual" approach may often be more helpful than a clinical one. By which I do not mean exorcism. :smt096 :smt043

Of course, I have no psychiatric training whatsoever.
People are very open-minded about new things--as long as they're exactly like the old ones.
--Charles Kettering

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.
--Joseph Campbell
User avatar
Angela
resident
resident
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Angela » Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:07 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:Yes, OK Angela I recognize your contribution to the discussion, for greater accuracy one should use the words "more" and "less" in my statement. How is that for a little positive feedback. :)


Aw, gee Mitch, I'm feelin all warm and fuzzy now. :wink:


Angela wrote:It's both. I would argue all of our beliefs are both, some being more "subjective" than others.

No it is not always both. There are beliefs in mathematics and science that are exclusively a matter of logic and objective observation.


Except. . . even math and science rest on our choice to believe that logic and/or our perceptions give us reliable information about reality. Mathematical and scientific "truths" are perhaps the most objective of our beliefs.


I disagree, because premises will never be agreed upon between people with different beliefs and that is why debate is pointless.
(emphasis added)
That is a strong statement! Do you really believe that? It seems to me that often two given people start with the same premises but end up taking them to different conclusions. More often, people may share one premise that underlies their different beliefs but not share another. In any event, identifying those premises is important.

Yes I believe that. You see, the logic that connects premises to conclusions is a kind equivalence, and so the conclusions are really contained in the premises themselves, therefore people only believe differently because they accept different premises.


Ah, I see. You are assuming that people's beliefs always logically follow from their premises. Do you find that to be the case?


Angela wrote:What do you think of the utility of debating the validity of the premises once they have been identified?


Sometimes this is possible, but quite often it is not for they are often a matter choice and subjective perception.

So when this is not the case, does it have utility? Yes, but what is the utility? Generally I think it is only in finding a more accurate and better statements of ones premises. You see, regardless of the fact that premises are what you start with in the use of logic, people don't always actually start with these premises and then use logic to derive their conclusions. No. What they often do is work the process in reverse to look for the premises from which certain of their conclusions can be derived. So being the product of the rational process rather that the beginning, an examination of their validity will usually result in their refinement rather than their replacement. This is because it is quite often at the level of conclusions where people are checking how their beliefs are matching up to their experience of reality.

Interesting. . . I think you are probably right; it makes sense to me that people may at least sometimes intuit a conclusion and then work back to find premises to support it. But I am curious as to how you have come to the conclusion that people indeed "come to conclusions" (or I guess it would be "come to premises") in the way you describe. Did you figure it out yourself by observing your own thought processes? Did you somehow observe others' thought processes? Or did you read this idea somewhere? Could you perhaps give an example of how this process would work? (As you may have noticed, I find examples really helpful.)

The purpose of finding these derived premises in the process rationalization in the first place, is to make ones beliefs into a rational tool for wider applicability (i.e. generalization) and to check the consistency of ones beliefs. These derived premises are often used to draw other conclusions than the ones from which the premises are derived, so these conclusions certainly might change if the premises from which they are derived are improved.


Again, this seems to make sense. An example would be great.


Angela wrote:Does your answer change if I use the word "beat" instead of "smack"?

Nope. Change it to damage, maim or kill and that would certainly make a difference.


OK, I don't want to know any more about your parenting philosophy. :wink:

Angela wrote:But I take from your answer that you would say the motivation for an action is more important in determining its ethical value than the action itself?

Of course it would be for a virtue ethicist because it is all about the character of the person rather than about the rules (as it would be for the deontological ethicist) or about the observable effects on the world (as it would be for the consequentialist ethicist).


I didn't ask what these hypothetical various ethicists may think, I asked your opinion. But I think I'm with what Pseudo said a few posts back; a useful ethics would take into consideration multiple aspects of a moral choice.

Pseudonym wrote:I see essentially four forces which act in concert to create morality as it really is: conscience, virtue/vice, deontology and consequence. Conscience is essentially whatever we've evolved to see as "right" and "wrong". Virtue and vice are good and bad (respectively) intentions and character traits. Deontology is about acts that are in and of themselves right or wrong, such as duties that we should perform. Consequence is about effects that are good or bad.

Moral dilemmas appear when these forces conflict. I don't believe that a theory of moral philosophy can truly be called "objective" if it doesn't take into account all of these forces.
People are very open-minded about new things--as long as they're exactly like the old ones.
--Charles Kettering

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.
--Joseph Campbell
User avatar
Angela
resident
resident
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby mitchellmckain » Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:27 am

Angela wrote:Except. . . even math and science rest on our choice to believe that logic and/or our perceptions give us reliable information about reality. Mathematical and scientific "truths" are perhaps the most objective of our beliefs.

The human beings who do math and science may require these beliefs, but I am not talking about human beings being without beliefs that are subjective for on that I would agree. No the point is that there are facts in math and science that are purely a matter of logic and objective observation and they DO NOT rest on any such beliefs.


Angela wrote:Ah, I see. You are assuming that people's beliefs always logically follow from their premises. Do you find that to be the case?

Quite the contrary. What is even more startling is when people's beliefs contradict the evidence right in front of their eyes. I have actually spoken to a Flat Earther but they have nothing on the anti-theists who insist that relgious people cannot be scientists.

But yes I most certainly do assume that people's beliefs follow logically from their premises unless I can prove otherwise. I have seen logic go out the window never to be seen again when confronting people who will insist that because you do not share their opinions you are therefore not thinking logically even though it is quite clear that they haven't a clue as to what it even means to think logically.


Angela wrote:Again, this seems to make sense. An example would be great.
...
I didn't ask what these hypothetical various ethicists may think, I asked your opinion. But I think I'm with what Pseudo said a few posts back; a useful ethics would take into consideration multiple aspects of a moral choice.

And I think the virtue ethics approach DOES take all these aspects into consideration. It has to, because the meaning that an action has for the character of the person depends on the these things. But the point is that it is the virtue ethics approach that points right to where the flaws are in these other approaches.

Ok example, what makes the difference between someone who is a murderer and someone who is not? Is it simply the fact that someone dies, is it a strict observance of the rules or is it the concern one has for the well being of others? So which is the murder? Is it the person who has every intent of causing a person's death but sticks the to rules (doesn't pull the trigger) so no one can accuse him and doesn't actually suceed or is it the person who is breaking every rule in the effort to keep people alive but takes the action that causes someone's death.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Sex. No drugs, no rock & roll.

Postby Brad » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:04 pm

Wonders,
Here’s my second post for you, which I intend as a heart-to-heart sort of thing – insofar as that’s possible under forum circumstances – because, in short, I have great empathy for your difficulty with sorting out your sex-related behaviors.
I do hope other folk will read what I have to say here, because I think the issue is both extremely important and insufficiently exposed (not meant as a pun :) ). I hope it doesn’t become terribly long. Fat chance. :shock:

I have to write a thing or two that belabor the obvious, but which I feel are necessary to express so that I can be fully understood.

First, I absolutely do not deny, nor wish to minimize the role of personal responsibility in life. No matter the source or degree of true free will (let’s go there another time), both psychological and social health require that we assume responsibility for our actions as much as we can. Surely everyone can agree with that.
At the same time, it’s folly to ignore or fail to fully appreciate the role that upbringing and social environment plays in our thinking, our subconscious attitudes and predispositions, and our outward behaviors. In particular, early training and environment has a deep effect on us for our entire lives, no matter how much we may feel the need to “outgrow” or escape it.

Second, while human sexuality is a highly variable trait, existing on a number of spectra, there is no doubt that it is among our most powerful drives, just as it is for all living things, owing to its relationship to reproduction.
For most of our lives, our sexuality compels us not only in ways that we easily identify, but in ways that are subconscious and which we never recognize as having anything to do with sex. The best analogy for this, I think, is that we don’t think of a lot of the things we do as having much to do with eating, unless we’re buying groceries, cooking, or stabbing something with a fork, but if you think about it, most of what we do in life has a whole lot to do with getting a tasty bite into our pie holes.
(A short book I haven’t read in a number of years, but which I remember being very impressed by as an introduction to the workings and power of sexuality was called Making Sense of Sex – How Genes and Gender Influence Our Relationships, by a couple named David Barash and Judith Lipton. I think it’s out of print, but can probably be found in libraries, for anyone interested.)

But as I mentioned in a post to humanguy earlier, in addition to recognizing the tremendous power of sexuality in our lives (quite close to eating in a needs hierarchy), we have to keep in mind that expressions of sexuality can produce both wondrous pleasures and awful harms, both for ourselves and others. Surely I don’t need to elaborate on either of those facts, except maybe to note that aside from those aspects of pleasure and harm that are completely obvious, there are numerous areas subject to some disagreement – such as pornography (and how it should be defined).

So, we have these elements:
1) the power of upbringing and social environment,
2) the power of sexual drives, and
3) the potential of sexual attitudes, not to mention behaviors, to create large measures of pleasure and/or harm.

Given the above, I’m sure we can all agree that in a person’s upbringing and early socialization the greatest care and the very best knowledge should be employed by parents and other teachers so that he or she will have the best foundation for making decisions and acting in ways leading toward healthy and happy sexuality and relationships.

Now here’s the nub of what I want to express to you, Wonders.
Again, like everyone, you must take responsibility as much as possible for all your behaviors and choices. But I say that your upbringing as a Christian has almost certainly done considerable harm to you in regard to your sexuality, and has tremendous bearing on how you came to have struggles with pornography in the first place. And when one person’s attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors regarding sex are harmed, everyone with whom they have sexual relationships (and even some not overtly sexual) is also harmed to greater or lesser degree.

Now in order to forestall at least one or two howls of protest from believers here, let me ask and answer some rhetorical questions that in a sane and intelligent world would be screamingly obvious and unnecessary:

First, if you were to suddenly stop believing in the divinity of Jesus and the existence of God, would things be “all better” right away?
Absolutely not. From where you are now with regard to your sexuality and ingrained views of women, Wonders, I’d predict you have work to do for the rest of your life. I do not say this condescendingly. My upbringing in a fundamentalist tradition was probably even more damaging than yours, and my efforts to get a healthier handle on my handle, so to speak, will also be life-long.

Second, does non-belief in general, by itself, necessarily produce healthier sexuality, either in personal relationships or in public expressions (like advertising and electronic media) than religious teachings about sex and relationships? Absolutely not. What non-belief allows is a greater OPPORTUNITY for parents and society in general to work toward accurate, knowledgeable, sane, and healthy approaches to sexuality, its (myriad forms of) teaching to children, and to relationships between genders ranging from casual and platonic to marital.

Third, and similarly, am I saying that the Bible should be thrown in the trash? Absolutely not. As I often acknowledge, the Bible has a lot of great stuff in it, especially some of the teachings and parables of Jesus. The problem arises when the Bible is thought to be divinely inspired. That notion prevents, and will always prevent, a whole lot of people from separating the wheat from the chaff within the Bible’s pages. And when it comes to sexuality and gender relationships, there’s an amazing amount of very poisonous chaff.

Fourth, weird, damaging, and patriarchal sexual practices and attitudes are by no means limited to Bible believers, so why single out the Bible? Anthropologists recognize that most primitive societies were patriarchal for the simple fact that males had the most testosterone and bigger bones and muscles as a result – same with gorillas. And as a secondary consequence, many sexual and social practices became, shall we say, rather one-sided and weird over time.
The idea – the necessity - in the modern world is to allow our brains to be our most influential organ. And as I’ll try to begin showing below, in our particular portion of the world, it’s belief in the divinity of the Bible that most egregiously promotes unhealthy views about sexuality, not, say, a tradition of foot-binding.

So I say, Wonders, that the problems you’ve suffered in your married life and with your porn compulsions stem, in major part, from two sources.
The first of those is the Bible’s teachings about sex and sexuality generally, and that those were probably imparted to you more or less in the common manner within Christian homes, which boils down to instructions that sex must only and always occur under specified circumstances and in certain ways between certain people (and very possibly for the sole end of procreation), otherwise it’s a SIIIIIIIINNNNNNN!!!!!! And God WILL BE WATCHING! (This same point of view, of course, is displayed in the attitudes and demands of Christians who go nuts about sex education in American schools, thereby diminishing useful and needed education for everyone's children.)

Like many primitive folk, those who composed the Bible (not to mention the Koran) were bizarrely, comically, obsessed with sex – who does what – how, when, and with whom (and never with yourself, heaven forbid!). But their actual knowledge of biology, psychology, and even the rudiments of hygiene, were minimal. In the case of the ancient Hebrews, of course, they also had a maniacal fixation on slicing off a bit of every boy’s penis, which they figured was important to their god. (Why, of all things, that would be a big issue of symbolic importance for a deity that created the universe is another matter. Dear God, why not maybe a bit of earlobe? :shock: :lol: )
Then, of course, there is the common practice in a variety of Muslim societies of female “circumcision,” which in terms of sexual pleasure is often the equivalent of cutting off the entirety of the male glans. Muslims, of course, deny that this practice has anything to do with Islam – it’s just a “tradition” or "tribal." Somehow, that’s a bit difficult for me to believe.

So the Bible writers’ traditional practices, prejudices, and paranoias about sex and gender came to be enshrined in the Bible. And people, being the way we are, subsequently interpreted the words in a variety of ways, many of which take the Biblical notions, already not usually helpful, to even further extremes. Those extremes, spread throughout the world by various Popes and happy protestant campers such as John Calvin, created all sorts tragic and vicious taboos and repressions and a general fear of sexuality, preventing more healthy and productive acknowledgments and understandings of the role sex plays in human life - and how we can all approach it in ways that generate health and happiness.

Second and maybe even most importantly, among those unhelpful ideas, generated within the patriarchal Hebrew society, was the idea that women were secondary, inferior, weak-minded, and even dangerous beings, created and intended explicitly for the purpose of serving – and servicing – males (the latter being generally couched in terms of producing offspring, which of course also had practical purpose). This concept, of course, runs from Genesis through dandy points like 1 Corinthians 11 and 1 Timothy 2, 11-15, and on to the whore of Babylon in Revelations.
Consequently, as much as men have suffered through the bizarre and asinine Biblical passages relating to sex, this other fifty percent of humankind has suffered far, far, more.
And relationships between men and women have suffered far too much and for far too long as a result, for the same reasons.

For my part, I was raised in a Christian environment, and having almost always been exceedingly fascinated with girls, I soaked up ALL the Christian teachings about them, both in church and from my very macho, rigid, and domineering father, who quite logically justified the crazy and mean stuff he taught me about women as being in accord with scripture.
I can’t begin to tell you how much difficulty those teachings have caused me throughout my life. And sometimes I only realized the relationship between my attitudes and actions far later, when it was much too late.

But having had some great good fortune, along the way of my 52 years I’ve met – and loved – several women whom I discovered to my surprise were more – a lot more - intelligent and wise and productive, not to mention moral and compassionate, than I’ll ever become. As you might imagine, the Bible teachings increasingly seemed even more ridiculous. I couldn't help but note, by the way, that each one of those women were either atheists or agnostics who had never been taught to bother with religion, but instead had been encouraged to learn all they could about the broader world as they found it, without fear or interpretive gloss or the need to defer to men.

Then somewhat later, I got to know several teenage children of relatively sophisticated non-believing parents. They clearly had far more mature and balanced approaches to sex than I did – and far more knowledge about human sexuality – male and female – than I did until I was probably nearly forty!
Their parents told me that they’d taught their children about sex much as I’ve described above – that sex and loving relationships with non-family members would become very important to them some day, bringing both the potential for great pleasure and some very real dangers, that for those reasons they should take their time learning a great deal about the various aspects of it, and that above all they should feel free, no matter what, to discuss their feelings and desires and activities about it with mom and/or dad, without fear of repercussion of any kind.
Hmmmm… Contrast that with the more distorted, hyperbolic, yet intrigue-sparking, typical Christian approach outlined above.

Now at this point my forum friend Pseudonym may already be preparing a retort about how I cite only anecdotes rather than any data he’d consider persuasive. I’m not going to take time right now to go find the data showing that, for example, sex crimes are far, far, more prevalent in countries where religious belief is strong and widespread than in countries where religious belief is inconsequential. And that both sex crime and divorce statistics are higher in the U.S. in states where religion is most prominent, too.
In any event, I’d predict that Pseudonym would also say such data shows only correlation rather than causation. Point taken in advance. But my experience in life, along with countless other corresponding information, makes me give greater credence to that particular data.

Also, there is this study about porn consumption, the results of which are only suggestive.
I’d note only that among states, Utah’s population is among the most religious, not just the most politically conservative.

The last sentence in the linked article also brings up something worth mention: “One natural hypothesis is something like repression: if you're told you can't have this, then you want it more," Edelman says.
So Wonders, did anyone ever give you the idea that sex was “dirty?” If so, do you think that notion had anything to do with that person’s religious orientation and community? And if so, did that pique your interest? Do you think such early experiences might have had any bearing on your desire for “forbidden” sex stuff like porn?

Similarly, while unhealthy sex attitudes and practices are by no means confined to religious believers, non-believers, not being members of rigid "morality" enforcing communities, for obvious reasons, are far less compelled to be dishonest and hypocritical about their sexual mores and behaviors.
Honesty (with regard to sex and everything else) is the key foundation of health and happiness.
In contrast, dishonesty, hypocrisy, and repression tend to generate harmful and diseased thoughts and behaviors, just like a mold growing under a rug. As Pseudonym might also wish to point out, I’m no psychiatrist, but does anyone really doubt those two points?

I say that the fact that the following situations, chosen off the top of my head, all involving god-believers, specifically “divine” book followers, are not coincidences, but are directly related to and in considerable part the result of, twisted and diseased explicit and implicit religious teachings about sexuality:

1) Good ol’ Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, sneaking off to do cocaine and have sex with a male prostitute.
2) Pope Ratslinger goes to Africa where he denounces condom use where HIV infections are soaring. Meanwhile, lest the protestants feel left out here, nut job evangelist Ernest Angley goes to Africa to tell people there not to worry, he and God can heal AIDS.
3) An ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect tells the NYC health department, essentially, to go to hell when the department asks for modifications in the practice of metzitzah b’peh. That practice involves the mohel “kissing” the baby’s penis after circumcision to remove the blood. It had become known that at least one mohel who was infected with HSV1 (oral herpes) had been performing this act. Unfortunately, direct infection with HSV1 can be, and was in at least one case, fatal to infants. (In a bit of illustrative irony, this Hasidic sect is very much “pro-life.”) I loved one of the comments of the public health commissioner, who candidly allowed after the Hasidim told him to buzz off, “This is a very sensitive area, so to speak.”
You don't say, Commissioner? :lol:
4) Here’s another old Rabbi story, a favorite for it’s irony. Israeli Rabbi, caught trading sex with female students for exam scores, splits for Morocco and converts to Islam (easier to get the girls?).
His wife has difficulty getting a divorce in Israel, because the Jewish / government law says husband must concur officially with her request.
5) Robertson and Falwell blame Katrina on homosexuals in New Orleans. (That’s just one sliver of ice off the tippy tip of the iceberg when it comes to wacko stuff about homosexuality promulgated by all three of the Abrahamic religions.)
6) The cover story on this month’s Free Inquiry magazine involves a shy and vulnerable young woman who naively converted to Islam and subsequently had her first sexual experiences in the form of repeated sexual abuse by her very first imam, a married man.
7) Need I say “Catholic priest?” For anyone who might wish to minimize that little bit of current day news, please go to your nearest bookstore or library and read chapter 15 of Bill Lobdell’s Losing My Religion.
8 ) Lest I forgot Mormons, well, just read a bit somewhere about Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Warren Jeffs, or Brian David Mitchell. Better yet, if you want to be really horrified, read about them all in Jon Krakauer’s very fine book, Under the Banner of Heaven.
I’ll skip examples 9-1,000,001. Pseudonym will tell us they don’t add up to anything, anyway, and they certainly don’t have anything to do with sophisticated liberal Christians, so of course, they're off the hook.
Move along, nothing to see here… :shock:

But if anyone is interested, every month in the Freedom from Religion Foundation newspaper, there is a long list of religious authorities around the U.S. who have been arrested and/or convicted of various crimes, the majority of which involve sex offenses, usually with minors. Granted, that list is a tiny percentage of all the religious authorities in the nation, so somebody here will say it’s inevitable, or we’re all humans / sinners, it’s not what Jesus taught, etc. But taken together with the constant drumbeat of similar stories, not to mention those in our own experiences that don’t make the news, and the repressive and unhealthy teachings of the Bible itself, I say that sexual perversity and religion are intimately connected – again, no pun intended.

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make to you personally, Wonders, is that while you do have to take responsibility for your life, your views and your actions, doing so will be a lot easier if you have some more basic understanding of where some of your internal conflicts came from, especially those having to do with sex and relationships. And that knowledge is unlikely to come from your minister or from a week locked up sweating bullets praying.

I’d like to point out one more historical and current consequence of Biblical teachings and resulting practices regarding sex, which has everything to do with Biblical (and Koranic) subjection and debasement of women, and with scriptural emphasis on sex as being only useful for procreation.
I refer to the simple fact that the scriptures have the effect – hard to imagine that it’s not intentional – of ensuring sexual satisfaction for men while making no provision whatsoever for the sexual satisfaction of women, in fact making the likelihood of female sexual satisfaction unlikely indeed other than as a coincidence for most of history.
Granted, just in the last few years, thanks to knowledge of female anatomy, needs, and capabilities becoming more widely available for the benefit of both genders, even some religious folk are making use of that knowledge.
It's no coincidence also that virtually all of that information came through secular research and secular authors, much to the outrage and horror of a great many "moral" Christians.
And that knowledge has been, and still is, difficult to gain for the vast majority of women in religious settings around the world, and even when it is obtained by the women, often their men could care less. After all, the Bible or Koran doesn’t encourage, or even say anything about, such a notion.

Finally, since you were candid in the podcast, Wonders, here’s a little bit about me – a classic story common to many men my age. When I was a teen and had started to fool around with, and be obsessed with, girls, whom I thought must already know about, and/or expect me to know something about, sex (Wrongo! :lol: ), I decided I’d better try to learn “how it was done” meself. But how?
From my uptight, Bible-thumping, prudish parents? Not a chance.
Friends? Just as dumb as I was.
Church? Please.
Books? There were none I knew of, and had there been, I would never have had the courage to buy them or check them out of a library.
So I put on a coat, dark sunglasses, a pipe in my mouth for disguise and off I went to the local dark, smelly, blurry-screened, sound-wavering porno theater. I spent many hours there alternately mesmerized and bored silly (better not say stiff), rolling my eyes at how infantile everything but the sex was. :shock: :lol:

But the real joke was that I didn’t learn ANYTHING of use about sex there, ESPECIALLY about the things a man might need to know if he wants his female lover to consider him “good,” not to mention if he wants to help her have an orgasm.
You’ve probably already figured this out, but there’s really nothing useful to learn from porn today, either – almost all of it (to my knowledge) leads in exactly the wrong direction (and that's just the "normal" porn :shock: ). It generally depicts what any kangaroo or other marsupial can figure out on his own.
Women in porn are of course not only objectified (gee, where could that notion have come from?), but made to appear as if
1) the sexual activity itself is all that’s required for most women to feel the greatest pleasure and fulfillment during sex (ask any woman – that’s not even close to the half of it :shock: :oops: :wink: ), and
2) most often porn makes it appear as though women get equal pleasure as do men from the activities that men like most (also nonsense - made to boost male fantasies), and
3) porn depicts all women as being essentially alike in their needs, desires, feelings, and basic anatomies (other than differences obvious to anyone with eyeballs). Again, that’s not the way it is at all – women are far more different from one another when it comes to sex than are men. We males are far simpler creatures, but I hope I don’t get the women here started on that.
So if you’ve ever justified your porn habit with the rationalization that I used, that you'll learn something, you’re barking up the wrong, ummm, well, whatever. :lol:

Good grief, what a tome! :shock:
But there you go, FWIW.
Last edited by Brad on Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:25 pm, edited 3 times in total.
Those who know the most of nature believe the least about theology. - Robert Ingersoll
User avatar
Brad
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 1070
Joined: Wed Jun 17, 2009 8:23 am

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Angela » Wed Sep 30, 2009 12:06 pm

Angela wrote:Except. . . even math and science rest on our choice to believe that logic and/or our perceptions give us reliable information about reality. Mathematical and scientific "truths" are perhaps the most objective of our beliefs.


mitchellmckain wrote:
The human beings who do math and science may require these beliefs, but I am not talking about human beings being without beliefs that are subjective for on that I would agree. No the point is that there are facts in math and science that are purely a matter of logic and objective observation and they DO NOT rest on any such beliefs.


It is a fact that 1 + 1 = 2 if and only if logic gives us reliable information about reality.
It is a fact that gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree if and only if our perceptions give us reliable information about reality.
Actually, people who do math and science do not need to believe in the reliability of logic/perceptions. For example, one could conduct a scientific experiment while retaining skepticism about the basic reliability of human perceptions. It's like playing a game. One does not need to believe that the rules are anything other than arbitrary in order to play by them.

The proof of any scientific fact ultimately depends on the subjective assumption that human perception is reliable.


Angela wrote:I didn't ask what these hypothetical various ethicists may think, I asked your opinion. But I think I'm with what Pseudo said a few posts back; a useful ethics would take into consideration multiple aspects of a moral choice.

mitchellmckain wrote: And I think the virtue ethics approach DOES take all these aspects into consideration. It has to, because the meaning that an action has for the character of the person depends on the these things. But the point is that it is the virtue ethics approach that points right to where the flaws are in these other approaches.

Ok example, what makes the difference between someone who is a murderer and someone who is not? Is it simply the fact that someone dies, is it a strict observance of the rules or is it the concern one has for the well being of others? So which is the murder? Is it the person who has every intent of causing a person's death but sticks the to rules (doesn't pull the trigger) so no one can accuse him and doesn't actually suceed or is it the person who is breaking every rule in the effort to keep people alive but takes the action that causes someone's death.


I see what you are saying, and of course our justice system takes intent into account when there is a murder charge. And I see how virtue ethics might be more comprehensive than the other approaches that have been mentioned here.

I wonder though if virtue ethics doesn't require circular reasoning. Don't you first have to decide what moral character is before you can determine the ethical value of any action? And how do you judge the moral character of a person except by his or her actions? E.g a truthful person is one who tells the truth, and telling the truth makes one a truthful person.
People are very open-minded about new things--as long as they're exactly like the old ones.
--Charles Kettering

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.
--Joseph Campbell
User avatar
Angela
resident
resident
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Angela » Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:21 pm

Wow, great post Brad (I read the whole thing! :D )

I wonder why it is that religion has been so concerned with controlling sexual behavior? Perhaps because, as you point out, sex is a powerful, volatile force.

As parents of a couple of kids fast approaching teenagehood (gulp :shock: ), my husband and I have been doing a lot of talking about how best to teach them about sex and associated issues. I think you express very well the general ideas we hope to communicate:

that sex and loving relationships with non-family members would become very important to them some day, bringing both the potential for great pleasure and some very real dangers, that for those reasons they should take their time learning a great deal about the various aspects of it, and that above all they should feel free, no matter what, to discuss their feelings and desires and activities about it with mom and/or dad, without fear of repercussion of any kind.


For any other parents who are in the same boat as we, I highly recommend the books by Robie H. Harris and Michael Emberly: It's So Amazing (for younger kids) and It's Perfectly Normal (for 10 and up). These books make it so much easier to talk about sex with our kids in an honest, open, informative way. What has amazed me is that, so far, my kids are not the slightest bit embarrassed. They ask questions just like they would about anything new, and have yet to utter even one "ewww, that's gross!" (which is the reaction I expected; maybe I've watched too many sitcoms).

On another note, I'd like to point out that all porn is not created equal. There are some (most of them female-directed) films out there that, while perhaps still suffering somewhat from the limited budget, questionable acting ability, and unimpressive production values common to the genre, attempt to avoid the male-pleasure-centered misogyny of typical porn. My hubby and I have actually "learned a few things" from some of these films (although that was not our primary purpose in watching them ;-) ). One could perhaps make a distinction between "porn" and "erotica" here.
People are very open-minded about new things--as long as they're exactly like the old ones.
--Charles Kettering

God is a metaphor for that which transcends all levels of intellectual thought.
--Joseph Campbell
User avatar
Angela
resident
resident
 
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 1:38 pm

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Rian » Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:49 pm

humanguy wrote:You guys, Mitchell and Pseudonym, are really, well, intelectual about being Christians. It causes me to wonder if that's what Jesus intended, all this philosophical back and forth, all these fancy words and philosophizing.
I think intellectuals that become Christians become intellectual Christians. I think people-type people who become Christians become people-type-people Christians. And each of them have different ministries - that's that whole talk about the Church being like a body and one part shouldn't look down on another, even though they're different. I think Christ takes you where you're at and heals your areas that need healing and takes your good areas and makes them even better and turns them to serve others. That's why I don't have trouble with lots of different denominations and opinions - all sorts of different people come to Christ, and they each have their own journey.

However, I think that intellectuals need to be careful to not hide in intellectualism (their comfort zone) and push themselves to get out with people more, and ditto with people-type people - they need to exert and exercise their intelligence. Balance!
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby Rian » Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:53 pm

Brad wrote:Rian,
Thanks very much for your patient explanations of quote quoting techniques now to not one but two heathens!
You're welcome! Happy quoting :)

(now what's really fun is to make up a quote and type it in ... :twisted: ;) )
"Aurë entuluva! Auta i lómë!" ("Day shall come again! The night is passing!") -- from JRR Tolkien's The Silmarillion

Christianity is the red pill - go for it! Seek the truth, wherever it leads you.
User avatar
Rian
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 3644
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 12:36 pm
Location: Arizona, USA ... for now ...
Affiliation: Christian/truth-seeker

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby mitchellmckain » Wed Sep 30, 2009 4:43 pm

Angela wrote:It is a fact that 1 + 1 = 2 if and only if logic gives us reliable information about reality.

Now you are bending so far backwards your head is on the ground. Did I not say that some facts depend only on LOGICand objective observation. So now you are going argue that the dependence on logic proves that this is not the case??? LOL You can believe that reality is whatever you want, and it will not change the fact that logic alone gives you certain fact in math and science.

Angela wrote:It is a fact that gravity causes an apple to fall from a tree if and only if our perceptions give us reliable information about reality.

You confuse physics with metaphysics. Physics is not concerned with the question of what is reality. That is what metaphysics deals with. Physics is only conserned with the mathematical realtionship between measurements. However, if you are not a physicist like I am then it is not so surprising that you don't know the difference between these things. Science already recognizes that our perceptions DO NOT give us reliable information and that is why science restricts itself to this abstraction we refer to as objective observation.

Angela wrote:Actually, people who do math and science do not need to believe in the reliability of logic/perceptions. For example, one could conduct a scientific experiment while retaining skepticism about the basic reliability of human perceptions. It's like playing a game. One does not need to believe that the rules are anything other than arbitrary in order to play by them.

Which was exactly my point! (getting REALLY tired here) The results don't depend on such things. So I said that yes they personally might need such beliefs for whatever reason but the results of their research often do not.

Angela wrote:The proof of any scientific fact ultimately depends on the subjective assumption that human perception is reliable.

No it does not. You will not find any such assumption being used anywhere in any mathematical proof or scientific journal. The need you are seeing is only in you.

But I am calling a halt to the discussion on the above topic, because your incredible impulse to argue for the sake of arguing is just too over the top for me. Ok maybe that isn't it, but my interest in the topic is exhausted regardless of whether this is true or not.


Angela wrote:I wonder though if virtue ethics doesn't require circular reasoning. Don't you first have to decide what moral character is before you can determine the ethical value of any action? And how do you judge the moral character of a person except by his or her actions? E.g a truthful person is one who tells the truth, and telling the truth makes one a truthful person.


Life is full of such circlularities because logic doesn't give you anything. Logic is a tool and so asking logic to tell you what is moral is like asking a hammer. Anyway I never thought that the virtue ethics was a prescription for the logical derivation of what is moral. I simply saw it as correctly identifying the most significant conseqence of an action that ties it to morality.

Morality has to start with something that is valued and either you value it or you don't. And so to the psychopath who cares nothing for the well being of others, morality is just a bunch of meaningless rules. In the other thread Frank Turek argues that this has to come from God. I deny this and say that on the contrary this valuing must come from us. Morality is only valid and meaningful because WE value things. But from that beginning, logical consistency and the consequences to our own identity also play important roles.

So lets go back to our example of murder. First of all, we are not going to get anywhere unless we value life. Then we would find a logical inconsistency with the valuing of life in this act of murder. It is in the identification of self with others that has a bearing on virtue ethics. For example, suppose we decide that it is only people who wear green clothing that deserve to live. Every time we kill people that don't wear green, we are making a value statement about everything else those people are and do and a thus we are making a contrary statement about ourselves -- that nothing we are and do is of any value except the wearing of green clothing. If we do that then can we justifiably demand anything else of our lives but green clothing?

In any case, whether or not I can actually derive all of what is moral in such a logical manner, I can nevertheless see the role of certain things that allows me to draw some conclusions, like my rejection of this moral argument for the existence of God and this other about what I think is the most important consequences of an action.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby humanguy » Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:03 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:Now you are bending so far backwards your head is on the ground.

However, if you are not a physicist like I am then it is not so surprising that you don't know the difference between these things.

Which was exactly my point! (getting REALLY tired here)

The need you are seeing is only in you.

But I am calling a halt to the discussion on the above topic, because your incredible impulse to argue for the sake of arguing is just too over the top for me. Ok maybe that isn't it, but my interest in the topic is exhausted regardless of whether this is true or not.


You know, Mitch, your posts all have a really haughty, patronizing and almost sneering tone to them. Gosh, you're so superior! Poor baby, having to deal with all these peons. I can see how that must make you REALLY tired there!
PITA.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Trouble Town U.S.A.
Affiliation: Human

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby WinstonNoble » Wed Sep 30, 2009 7:05 pm

@mitch:

I am engaging with you on another thread, but I am finding your discussion here interesting. What I want to ask you, that you may have answered already either here or somewhere else is the following:

Why are you a Christian?

On several various posts, you claim that your belief in God does not stem from this particular argument or that God is not meant to explain this or that.

You always state it in the negative. So I wondering if you could quantity your belief using positive terms. Why believe in God? Why do you accept that there must be a God?

~Winston Noble
It is evidently socially impolite to point out hypocrisy when one sees it...

Is this what allows untenable positions to remain tenuously tenable?
WinstonNoble
resident
resident
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2009 6:42 pm
Affiliation: 6 on the Dawkins Scale/Deist?

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby mitchellmckain » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:02 pm

WinstonNoble wrote:You always state it in the negative.

No. I do not.


WinstonNoble wrote:On several various posts, you claim that your belief in God does not stem from this particular argument or that God is not meant to explain this or that.


Here is a quote of myself earlier in this thread:
I perceive in the laws of physics an intentional design of the universe to give birth to the self-organizing process of life in such a way that there is interactions with causes outside the physics worldview. This is a subjective perception. I perceive in the vast diversity and near universality of human belief in a nonphysical aspect to reality, evidence that there is indeed an irreducibly subjective aspect to reality. This is a subjective perception of evidence which is therefore subjective. I percieve in the gestalt of my experiences of life the actions of a person (God) who is not spacially localized that gives substance to my fundamental faith that life is worth living. This is a subjective perception.



WinstonNoble wrote:Why are you a Christian?


Well First of all I am not just Christian, I am a lot of other things too. Read my intro.

Second, ...
from my intro wrote:While I may not have been raised Christian, I was born in the United States which is immersed in a culture and history that is heavily influenced by Christianity. For example, I really liked the books of C. S. Lewis, with his effort to convey Christian ideas under the cover of fantasy and science fiction. Anyway, I have every reason to believe that there are hidden premises and presumptions riddling our language, entertainment and academic studies that ultimate derive from a Christian world view that we have inherited from the middle ages. Such things are not shed very quickly even when effort is made to intentionally do so.


Linked by my web page is one of the oldest things I have written addressing this.

This is from the comments page off my blog
So since I do not believe in any of these common Christian ideas of God, then why is it that I call myself Christian? It is because the God I do believe is a very very uniquely Christian idea of God too. This is humble God, who is gentle and lowly in heart, who not caring anything about being God, set aside all His power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant, and after growing up perfectly blameless to show how we should live, He was mocked and whipped before being excecuted on a cross. This He did this in order for us to get past all the lies and misunderstandings, to show how much He loves us and thus to heal our relationship with the infinite God in whom we can find eternal life.
Last edited by mitchellmckain on Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 4455
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City
Affiliation: Christian

Re: Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

Postby humanguy » Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:12 pm

mitchellmckain wrote:
humanguy wrote:You know, Mitch, your posts all have a really haughty, patronizing and almost sneering tone to them. Gosh, you're so superior! Poor baby, having to deal with all these peons. I can see how that must make you REALLY tired there!
PITA.

Interesting. That is exactly my impression of your posts.


Oh please. It most certainly is not and you know it.
User avatar
humanguy
Senior member
Senior member
 
Posts: 2478
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 3:50 pm
Location: Trouble Town U.S.A.
Affiliation: Human

PreviousNext

Return to Podcasts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: marcuspnw and 1 guest