Ep. 69: Cardinal virtues

[wondersforoyarsa]

Brad, Brad, Brad. So much personal kindness mixed with such hatred for all I hold dear - I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I can only continue to think you, I suppose, for the huge amount of time you've taken to respond to the podcast. I'm not sure I'll be able to do you justice in my response, but I'll certainly try.

By the way, I lost my job today. Don't worry, Winston, it wasn't related to me posting anything here - my company laid off half its employees. So, Christians, keep me in your prayers, and Atheists, think some nice atheisty thoughts about me.

[Pseudonym]

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.

I have no authority around here at all, but could everyone please consider calming down?

[mitchellmckain]

I have no authority around here at all, but could everyone please consider calming down?

Authority is given by those who accept it, and I a mere resident with 3 measely stars bow to the authority represented by your greater participation. I accept your chastening and ask you to pardon and forgive me for my crass and ill mannered ways.

I have removed my involvement in this. Mostly because it was detracting from the expansion on my answer to Winston.

[JustJim]

By the way, I lost my job today. Don't worry, Winston, it wasn't related to me posting anything here - my company laid off half its employees. So, Christians, keep me in your prayers, and Atheists, think some nice atheisty thoughts about me.

Wow, man. I'm really sorry to hear you lost your job. I hope you're able to find something just as good - and soon. Sometimes I forget, as a retiree with three decent pensions but no savings or stocks/bonds, that most people still have to work to survive. Six of my nine siblings in Michigan are either laid off or had their jobs terminated or are disabled. I help them when I can, in small ways, but they'd much rather work....

I won't be praying for you, of course, and I can't have genuinely atheisty thoughts about you, either, but I'll surely keep you in mind and wish you the best you can have.

Jim

[Angela]

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.

Oh yes, I am very flexible. Actually, you should try it some time, flexibility. It's quite handy for seeing things from different perspectives.

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.

Oh, calling a halt, are you? I do not argue for the sake of arguing. Tell you what, if you'll give me the benefit of the doubt here, I'll assume that while it appears that you are arrogantly dismissing an idea without first understanding the idea, that may not actually the case (or if it is, it's not because you are an arrogant or unintelligent person). I'm going to make another attempt at this thing called communication, and hope you make another attempt at understanding what I am saying. Maybe put your head on the ground and see if that helps? Or just tilting it sideways a little might do it.

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.

OK, deep breath (both of us. yes, you too Mitch). Yes, some facts depend on logic. We agree on that. I will not argue that mathematical facts do not depend on logic. OK? Good. The question we haven't agreed on is this: does logic depend on anything? My answer is yes. I don't know what you think of Nietzsche, but he put it this way: "Logic, too, also rests on assumptions that do not correspond to anything in the real world, e.g. on the assumption of the equality of things, the identity of the same thing at different points of time" (from Human, All Too Human)

I would not say "do not correspond" but rather the more tentative "may not correspond." What it comes down to, the point I am trying to make, is that we are stuck inside our own heads. Not just that each one of us is inside our own individual head, but that as human beings, we share a basic brain structure that predisposes us to our uniquely human perception and understanding of reality. We cannot escape our subjectivity. We can limit its effect, as the scientific method does with a great deal of success. But we cannot eliminate it entirely.

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.

I'm sure that you agree that one does not need to be a physicist to understand the difference between physics and metaphysics. I am aware that the argument I am making does not fall within the purview of science, but rather it is an issue in the philosophy of science.

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.

Yes, we agree here. (Would you like a cup of coffee?) I do not argue that individual scientific results depend on the subjective beliefs of the scientist.

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.

Right, we won't find it there because it is not a matter for math or science. (I was helping my son with algebra yesterday, and I said, "now, remember, when we say "x=3 here, it's only true if we assume that x at this time and place is the same thing as x at a different time and place, which may or may not be the case. In fact, quantum physicists are finding that it may be possible for x to be x and not x at the same time!" No, of course I didn't actually didn't say that, and won't say it today either. We'll save it for our philosophical discussions. And for when he's older.)

The scientific method, and the development of better tools for making observations and measurement, has gone a long way in increasing the objectivity of scientific results. You are right that science recognizes that our perceptions do not give us reliable information, up to a point. Science takes into account that there are variations in human perception. Science knows that our eyes and ears can fool us. Science has even increased the limits of human perception. We have tools that enable us to "sense" things that we couldn't with just our eyes, ears, etc.

But these tools are used by humans, operating within the confines of their human brains. What is traditionally called objectivity might be more accurately termed "collective subjectivity."

I'll respond to the other part of your post later.

[Brad]

Wonders,
Wow, that's a tough break. Hang in there, pal.
And don't worry about responding to my posts at all right now.
Take care of yourself and your family, and surround yourself with love and support - wherever you find it.
And I wish you the best and quickest success with your search for new work that's meaningful and not just on payday.
If by any chance you find yourself looking for work around Atlanta, send me a pm.

[Angela]

Sorry to hear about the job, Wonders. Good luck with the search for a new one. Hey, maybe I can pray for you anyway, cuz I'm not sure what good my atheisty thoughts would do. Something like,

Dear God Who Wonders Believes In (if you exist, since who knows, you might): Please see what you can do for Wonders. As you probably know, he just lost his job. He's a good guy; even some of us atheists think so. Please help everything work out for the best for him.
Thanks, and amen and all that,
Angela

[NH Baritone]

Sorry to hear about the job, Wonders. Good luck with the search for a new one. Hey, maybe I can pray for you anyway, cuz I'm not sure what good my atheisty thoughts would do. Something like,

Dear God Who Wonders Believes In (if you exist, since who knows, you might): Please see what you can do for Wonders. As you probably know, he just lost his job. He's a good guy; even some of us atheists think so. Please help everything work out for the best for him.
Thanks, and amen and all that,
Angela

May I suggest that links to Monster.com or Linked-In would provide more benefit than this nonsense?

If Wonders really would like some help, he could provide his general location and the career path he is following. Networking here could be every bit as helpful as other places. Prayer, whether devout or snarky, provides about as much job search benefit as bulimia provides nutritional benefit: You feel like you're doing something, but it's wasted effort.

[Brad]

It appears to me as though Wonders is easily smart enough to use every reality-based resource at his disposal to remedy his employment problem, but in the event Wonders doesn't know about the links NHB offers, another unemployed person I know has apparently found some good leads through those kinds of means.

I'd guess the men here can especially empathize with Wonders at this time, because we know how deeply a man's identity and sense of worth is tied up in our work - especially a young man with a young family. I even feel a little bit guilty about throwing some confusion, at least potentially, his way at this time.

So again, hang in there, Wonders!

Prayer, whether devout or snarky, provides about as much job search benefit as bulimia provides nutritional benefit: You feel like you're doing something, but it's wasted effort.

Oh, I don't know, NHB, when there was a big drought in Georgia, the Governor here held a prayer service at the state capitol to pray for rain. Oddly, he didn't invite any Native Americans, who really know about this sort of thing, to lead him and his invited ministers in a dance around the capitol.
Anyway, it didn't rain much for quite a long time, but recently it rained, well, Biblically, in Georgia, flooding a lot of Atlanta and surrounding towns. Then it rained some more. Then we had few sunny days (the Gov's name is Sonny, a bit of heterographic irony), and now as I look out the window, it's about to rain again.
So maybe God's timing is just off, and of course the knobs on his spigots are apparently very large and really far away.
All the same, I wish "Sonny" would have another service now and ask the "Big Guy" for more days we might pronounce like his name.

[wondersforoyarsa]

It appears to me as though Wonders is easily smart enough to use every reality-based resource at his disposal to remedy his employment problem, but in the event Wonders doesn't know about the links NHB offers, another unemployed person I know has apparently found some good leads through those kinds of means.

I'd guess the men here can especially empathize with Wonders at this time, because we know how deeply a man's identity and sense of worth is tied up in our work - especially a young man with a young family. I even feel a little bit guilty about throwing some confusion, at least potentially, his way at this time.

So again, hang in there, Wonders!

Yeah, I've been around the block a few times on this. I'm working on sprucing up my resume and working my immediate connections. I'll be looking for contract work in the immediate future (computer graphics programming or flash/flex application development).

[Angela]

Sorry to hear about the job, Wonders. Good luck with the search for a new one. Hey, maybe I can pray for you anyway, cuz I'm not sure what good my atheisty thoughts would do. Something like,

Dear God Who Wonders Believes In (if you exist, since who knows, you might): Please see what you can do for Wonders. As you probably know, he just lost his job. He's a good guy; even some of us atheists think so. Please help everything work out for the best for him.
Thanks, and amen and all that,
Angela

May I suggest that links to Monster.com or Linked-In would provide more benefit than this nonsense?

If Wonders really would like some help, he could provide his general location and the career path he is following. Networking here could be every bit as helpful as other places. Prayer, whether devout or snarky, provides about as much job search benefit as bulimia provides nutritional benefit: You feel like you're doing something, but it's wasted effort.

Hi NH,
My "prayer" was meant as emotional support. Sometimes when my Christian friends are going through something difficult, I would really like to be able to say "I'll pray for you," because I know that is what they would most like to hear, and my aim is to be as encouraging and supportive. I can't do that, though, because it would be dishonest of me. But here on this board where we talk about and respect one another's views, I thought perhaps it was possible that I could offer a prayer for Wonders while still maintaining my integrity. Maybe that was misguided? I don't know.

[humanguy]

Anyway, it didn't rain much for quite a long time, but recently it rained, well, Biblically, in Georgia, flooding a lot of Atlanta and surrounding towns. Then it rained some more. Then we had few sunny days (the Gov's name is Sonny, a bit of heterographic irony), and now as I look out the window, it's about to rain again.
So maybe God's timing is just off, and of course the knobs on his spigots are apparently very large and really far away.
All the same, I wish "Sonny" would have another service now and ask the "Big Guy" for more days we might pronounce like his name.

Hey, what do you know. I, too, live in Atlanta, and it sure does look like rain. I'm heartily sick and tired of the rain. I feel downright soggy! Time to run to the store before the next down pour.
(Sorry to get off-topic.)

[Angela]

Hi Mitch, I'm responding as promised to the second part of your post above.

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.

Thanks f or the example ; it illustrates your point well. And I think yours is an important insight. If I value people not because of any particular characteristic, belief, possessions, etc. that they may have, but rather because of my common humanity with them, I will have an excellent foundation for "loving my neighbor as myself." I think a passage from Chris Hedges' American Fascists that I recently quoted in another thread may be relevant to this discussion as well:
"When people come to believe that they are immune from evil, that there is no resemblence between themselves and those they define as the enemy, they will inevitably grow to embody the evil they claim to fight. It is only by grasping our own capacity or evil, our own darkness, that we hold our own capacity for evil at bay. When evil is always external, then moral purification always entails the eradication of others."
Thoughts?

My hunch is that you won't find many Christians to agree with you that morals are primarily based on human values rather than on God's. Do you find that to be the case? If so, why do you think that is?

[mitchellmckain]

I think a passage from Chris Hedges' American Fascists that I recently quoted in another thread may be relevant to this discussion as well:
"When people come to believe that they are immune from evil, that there is no resemblence between themselves and those they define as the enemy, they will inevitably grow to embody the evil they claim to fight. It is only by grasping our own capacity or evil, our own darkness, that we hold our own capacity for evil at bay. When evil is always external, then moral purification always entails the eradication of others."
Thoughts?

Oh yes I very much agree and this is why I see myself as a radical moderate - standing in the middle not because I am confused or indesicive but because I see great danger in the extreme positions which refuse to compromise. My thoughts go quite often to that Non-aggression pact between Hitler and Stalin, an agreement between those supposedy representing the opposite ends of the spectrum but proving that in fact they have far more in common than they advertise.

My hunch is that you won't find many Christians to agree with you that morals are primarily based on human values rather than on God's. Do you find that to be the case? If so, why do you think that is?

Well it is not that simple and those are not the terms of the disagreement with other Christians. The actual ones can be found in the discussion with Frank Turek in the other thread. It is certainly not human values versus God's values, for there is no doubt in the mind of any Christian that God has it right and we have it wrong.

Going back to the psychopath that lacks the values which gives morality any meaning to him, this does not mean that if we were all psychopaths or Nietzsche's "ubermench" then it would not matter what we did at all. Yes we are valuing beings and free to make our own choices, but that does not mean that all choices are equal. Some choices and ways of life are better than others. On the other hand, some choices are equal -- that is not all choices are between the right way and the wrong way. But obviously the living organism that does not value life is a contradictory existence. Perhaps this is the reason you find it hard to fathom that anyone would choose death over life - because to be sure it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[humanguy]

But obviously the living organism that does not value life is a contradictory existence.

Let us take, then, a fish. It's a living organism, and a relatively complex one. Does a fish value life?