Today, I stumbled upon a book by Dale McGowan called Parenting Beyond Belief: On Raising Ethical, Caring Kids Without Religion.
(sigh)
I have to admit, I'm a tad interested in reading the book in order to highlight (literally) all the logical errors that MUST be inside a manuscript whose very title is inconsistent. I, like apparently many atheist parents, am curious to know how one would teach "morals" without an Author of Morality. Unless your children become the only ones never to ask "why should I?"--I honestly don't know what they could say.
If you don't see a problem with the concept of teaching ethics without a belief in God, let me ask you this: what does the word "ethical" even mean if there is no Absolute High Standard? If we crawled out of a slimey pit 10 million years ago, why should we be "caring" individuals, trying to raise "caring" children? It seems to me, a parent dealing with a child asking "Why should I keep my hands to myself?" is in the same sticky spot as the talk show host answering the question, "Why shouldn't a husband cheat on his wife?" (I'm referencing a previous post, "Risen From Apes")
There is no way around it: if we originated from apes, there is no reason to "be good." In fact, it gets more cerebral than that--because the word "good" implies a standard. To say something is good means something else is bad, and I would have to ask, "According to who/what?"
Many people argue their morals are based on what brings the "most benefit to the most people," or what brings the least harm to the most people. But why is that definition better or worse than the belief that a shrinking, suffering population is "best?" Keep in mind, we all originated from nothing and for no reason! At what point did one of our ancestors say "if our numbers grow, and we feel pleased with ourselves, then rightness has been accomplished!?"....and, even if you can hypothesize and answer to that question, where did the very concept of "rightness" and "wrongness" come from anyway?
The point is, there's no explanation for "ethics" and "morals" and no need to be "caring" without a God who put those laws in place. Even the supposedly-nobel effort to advance human life and make people happy falls short of being an acceptable standard, since human life itself is not sacred unless it was created intentionally. In other words, if there was no reason for our origin--if we evolved through chance rather than being planned with purpose--then there is no reason to continue existing.
It must be tough teaching that to a Little Ape....
remeber Jesus called us Pigeons lol therefore children are apes...
ReplyDeleteThe title "Raising Children with Godly Morals and Beliefs without Giving God the Rightful Credit" didn't go over well with the public.
ReplyDeleteJust a quick question for you and your superior intellect...
ReplyDeleteIf God is the supreme being of the universe, what stops him from just, you know, changing his mind? Why can't he all of a sudden decide that, say, cold-blooded murder is okay? Because if he's all powerful, then he can do that.
Your answer? He wouldn't because it's wrong? But if God decides what's right and wrong, then he can change it. But obviously something is preventing him from doing that.
Thus, you meet the moral realist, not the theological voluntarist. The moral realist believes that morals and ethics exist outside of our individual thoughts, our culture's thoughts, and our religious thoughts.
It'd do you some good to read about nontheological ethicists (of which there are manyyyy - Kant, Mill, Cudworth to name a few) before you try to make some ignorant comments about the development and implementation of morality and ethics.
Whoops, I missed one of your comments! I didn't mean to overlook a question. I'd love to answer, and I'll even use my regular intellect, as opposed to my superior one...
ReplyDeleteOne of God's attributes, according to His words in the Bible, is that He's unchanging. If I didn't believe the Bible were true, or if I believed God were the exact opposite in character that He is, I WOULD be afraid He'd change the definition of right and wrong. I WOULD worry that cold-blooded killing would be the norm, or that selfishness rather than service were admirable. And, though your question doesn't prove God is fictional, it's a relevent one. It's exactly my point! How do we regulate "right" and "wrong" in a society which is devoid of a constant moral standard--where good and bad aren't concrete? Very slowly, as people try to convince themselves humanity just "happened," they are asking, "Says who?!" about more and more serious offenses. So, even though there IS an unchanging, perfect moral standard called "God," I'm STILL a little worried that society will accept cold-blooded killing at some point. Hey, we might call it abortion! Anyway, I promised my friend Searching a post about why I believe the Bible to be true, and I'd love for you to join the discussion then. If you can be nice.
You're right, it has done me good to read Kant, Mill, Cudworth, and many other philosophers with whom I disagree. I've read chunks of writing by all of them along with many other intelligent, atheist thinkers. Then, I marched straight to their blogs to tell them how stupid they were. No, wait, I didn't.
I went to OTHER resources and studied what the OTHER side of the argument was, and when looking at two mutually-exclusive ideas next to eachother, I selected the most logical. But, I could speak more specifically if you would narrow down the topic and summarize which ideas you want to address? In the meantime, since we're giving eachother opportunities to read outside our beliefs, I'll take the liberty of suggesting Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias, or C.S. Lewis' nonfiction. (Two of these guys DO have blogs, so you can join thousands of angry atheists attacking them personally, if it feels appropriate to do so.) :)
Well Kant, Mill, and Cudworth never had blogs, so it would have been interesting if you had. <- my attempt at humor.
ReplyDeleteI will look into the philosophers that you have suggested, but I too have read outside of my beliefs and disagreed, mostly the writings of pre-Thomas More, several early Popes (Innocent, Leo), and other historic theologians.
It's convenient that you interpret the Bible as saying that - but they key with the Bible is that it's easily re-interpreted and mis-interpreted. We are man, and the Christian belief that man is flawed is one that perpetrates every Christian sect of belief, so who's to say that we are getting anything right?
I have two questions for you now:
1. Why does God say that cold-blooded murder is wrong?
2. Can God create a rock that is too heavy for God to lift?
Now we're getting somewhere!
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I usually find that people who argue there are "many ways to interpret the Bible" generally haven't read it. If they did, they'd realize the majority of it is pretty straight-forward. Yes, we're finite, falible beings. But nobody who actually read the book "To Kill a Mockingbird" thinks it's about fowl hunting. Even if you disagree with some of it--you get the basic message...
As for your questions, a genuine heartfelt thank you for giving me something to answer! Seriously, I'm smiling right now. (And thanks for the humor, too. Conversation is much more enjoyable when we keep it...uh...conversational?)
Anyway, I admit being stumped by your very first question--in the same way I'm stumped by my preschoolers who ask a string of "why" questions until I simply reach the end of my knowledge.
The easy answer for "why does God say murder is wrong" would be, "You'll have to ask God Himself," but I'll try to do better than that by sharing some of his character traits. (Just understand: I can explain to a child "why" the sky is blue through science and color-spectrum lessons. But, if he or she keeps asking why, the answer eventually is "that's just how it is.")
God says life is sacred, and humans are valuable because they were created by Him for a purpose. Therefore, it would follow that killing is wrong because it shows a disregard for the value of life and interferes with a person's ability to fulfill his/her purpose. Now, "why" did God create us with purpose? "Why" does he care what heppens to us at all? It's like that preschooler asking if the sky COULD have been neon green. Well, I suppose it's possible it COULD have been. But what can I tell that child except, "I don't know," which is a very unsatisfying answer I wish I didn't have to give sometimes. Likewise, at some point I must say, God simply ISN'T a cold-blooded, life-hating, murder-supporting Being, and I don't know why. Now, if your question is "why do I believe God isn't cruel and murderous," that's a little different...
As for the second question, it's a paradox. (As someone familiar with ancient philosophers, I suspect you know this.) It's like writing "This sentence is false" and asking someone whether or not it's a true statement. No matter what you answer, you're contradicting yourself because--by nature of the words used--it becomes nonsense.
Most people use the heavy rock question to "prove" God cannot be all-powerful, since the answer seems to indicate there is something God can't do. But, first, I would argue there is no answer at all. And second, it only proves the limits of our language--the limits of our ability to describe things--without limiting God's actual abilities.
That said, it may not surprise you to hear there are MANY things God "can't" do because of definitions. For example, things can't exist AND not exist at the same time. So, by that reasoning, if God exists, then He CAN'T not-exist. Good and bad are mutually exclusive ideas, too. So, if God is good, He CAN'T be evil at the same time.
"Luckily" for God, the word "can't" doesn't always refer to a limit in physical ability. In this case, it's the nature of definitions...
Good questions!
I appreciate your interpretation of the questions, let me offer you mine and we can see if we have common ground.
ReplyDeleteAs for the first one, the way I see it, your answers all still leave open the opportunity to ask why.
Which, like almost all questions, implies that there can be doubt and, as Peter Abelard said, "The first key to wisdom is this: constant and frequent questioning. For by doubting we are led to question, and by questioning we arrive at the truth."
For instance, "why does God say that humans are sacred?"
The answer of a moral realist (like myself) is that a moral truth exists outside of the idea of God - something that is unchanging, even to God. I believe that despite anything God could say - as, you said, he is all powerful - the murder of another living, breathing human being in the cold blood is wrong. There is an inherent wrongness that exists outside of human interpretation, cultural interpretation, and theological interpretation that murder is a wrong action.
This belief doesn't necessarily end the idea of God existing - it has for some, for others it encourages it - but I believe that we and even God obey some sort of exogenic moral code.
As for the second question, it is a paradox, but that doesn't delete its importance in considering God. I'm not using this to prove that God doesn't exist - I respect your beliefs to much to even attempt to do that (faith in or not in a supreme being is a personal choice, and it is my belief that each person is entitled to discerning that for themselves and independent of judgment). However, as human language is all we have to describe God and his supremacy, that's what we have to fall back on.
Language is tricky - i'm referring mostly to the idea of something being all-powerful. I don't believe it is possible because, as you said, some things simply cannot be done simultaneously. But explaining that we just don't understand, in my opinion, is a cop-out in the discussion.
I have no problems referring to God as most-powerful - if a supreme being does exist, then his or her power is most certainly higher than anyone else's. However, calling God all-powerful is misleading and incorrect because, as you said, some things just cannot be done.
Galileo once said, "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." I personally have no qualm with people who profess belief in God - but what I see so often (and yes, on this blog as well) is a refusal to think critically about things and forego questioning and progression for a stoic acceptance of whatever is fed from the pulpit.
As a sidenote - discussions like this one are much more fruitful and more telling of the intelligence you do have than petty tales of so-described ignorant facebook friends and youtube users. Though I suppose I do understand that this is a personal blog. Just some food for thought
Love the Abelard quote.
ReplyDeleteLove the Galileo one, too, for that matter.
Finally, I love that you express disgust for the many people who don't think critically or ask important questions (although I wonder where from my blog you got the idea that I’m one of them?) because this same issue is my reason for writing as passionately and as in-your-face as I sometimes do. I’m disgusted by ignorance, and I think it’s justified! With all the questions to ask and all the answers available, there is no excuse for using half our minds all the time…
Since I’m a Christian, I’ll even say the politically incorrect thing: Christians are often the worst culprits. They think telling someone “You’re going to Hell” and “I know because God says so” should be good enough, and they don’t understand that others have honest questions… It's those people from ALL walks of life—who don’t read, study, or think—to whom I write in anger and which apparently comes across as rude or arrogant. I'm only sorry that strangers stumble upon my blog, read one of my rants, and then take offense at my bold style of writing instead of critiquing the actual words I’m using. (Though, on the other hand, I simply can't preface every, single entry with "this is what I believe" and "I don't mean to offend" and other cusioning statements like that... Instead, I can only hope those readers stick around long enough to realize that confidence is not the same as closed-mindedness, and personally I’d love the chance to answer questions and think critically.
I admit, I’ve not read much about moral realism. But I don’t have major problems with what you just described. A high moral code, regardless of human/cultural/religious interpretation, MUST exist, or no one has the right to judge ANYTHING—including cold-blooded murder or the child who spits on his sister. That’s the very point of this post. True atheism rejects the idea of God and places man at the highest level of authority. And my point was, good luck teaching your children “ethics” without an unchanging Authority on ethical behavior.
The biggest thing I question is the idea of “Something higher than God,” because “god” is defined as “THE supreme” or “highest being.” If there is something higher—a force, spirit, or system, then wouldn’t THAT be “God?” It’s like saying better than best. As soon as something is better, it becomes the new best…
(continued from previous post)
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if God imposed a High Standard on himself, that would solve both our problems, wouldn’t it? If he initiated the limits and determined the standards, then he would remain in control and Most High. But, because of his character and the standards he imposed on himself, we can know he won’t suddenly become un-good. For instance, here’s an imperfect example. From a kids perspective, Mom can do anything. But, most kids don’t sit around and wonder whether, some day, their sweet, boo-boo-kissing mother will abandon them, even though she has the ability to do so. When Mom says, “I will never leave you,” most kids believe they’re safe in her care. Is the mom incapable of leaving? No, she has the power. But, she has limited herself because of her nature and by saying she won’t go anywhere. For practical purposes, mothers are “powerless,” not because they don’t have the means to walk away, but because it’s not in a mother’s nature to do so. Plus, it IS part of her nature to tell the truth.
The Bible teaches God is capable of anything, but he limits himself for the sake of his own character/nature, and he also limits himself when making promises to his people.
It’s like the loyalty and promises made by mothers, except times a million because God is perfect or absolutely good. By His own definition of himself, He is justice-loving, totally dependable, and constant… and we can trust Him to remain that way because, if He were to change, he wouldn’t actually have BEEN dependable and constant in the first place. I think I just popped a circuit in my head.
Anyway, I’m pleased to announce that, as usual, we have more in common that an outsider may have guessed previously. But, I would like to ask: how does one determine right and wrong, or arrive at an understanding of the absolute moral standard? As you know, I believe God condescended to give instructions to humans, about himself and about what we “ought” to do. But if one disregards the Bible, how do we decipher the Absolute Moral Code and follow it?
I'm glad that you recognize that Christians can be the morally-superior, belief-pushing crazies that some turn out to be. I also recognize that the opposite exist - Christians who are wholly respectful and engaging of others' beliefs yet still stand true to their own - I have no fault with these kinds of Christians as I believe that everyone is entitled to their own view on life, etc.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if your statement that "true atheism" places man at the highest authority is correct however. I would believe that there are atheists who think that man is at the top of some hierarchy of intelligence, but as there is no set dogma of atheism (and, even if their was, it's likely that, like Christianity, different 'sects' of atheism would interpret their role in the world differently - but I digress), it's hard to attribute one way of thought to everyone who declares atheism as their worldview.
Your analysis of the High Standard is something I can agree with - a High Standard that God, as a rational being and, in your words, a justice-loving, totally dependable, and constant being would be inclined to obey it as well. Whether he initiated this standard or it has always co-existed with Him is, for all intensive purposes, irrelevant, because the answer to that question does not change its existence.
To answer your final question, I offer this. It is my belief that humanity is a powerful, intelligent, and rational collective. I refuse to accept the notion that humanity is flawed in some way, and without, for instance, the Ten Commandments (or an equivalent of another religion), we would be a stealing, murdering, barbaric collection of people. In short, humanity has the amazing capacity to become the best versions of ourselves through merely existing and always progressing towards change and insight into the world - something i believe every human does with or without religion. I, in all honesty, find the last seven commandments (to keep with the same example) completely irrelevant because they are moral laws that humanity would have (and has) discovered without the direction of a higher power.
Perhaps I was unclear. I don't believe humans would be a stealing, murdering, barbaric collection of people without the Ten Commandments. Quite the contrary--I believe God has written those commands in our hearts and all people KNOW his law, deep down. But, I question those who claim to be "Good" people, not because I think they're BAD (I recognize they ARE trying to be good) but because I want them to ask themselves the obvious question, "How do you know you're getting it right?"
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I also make the argument "It's impossible to teach morality without God" which falls along the same lines. Without God (aka an Absolute Standard) there is no such thing as right and wrong. The fact that MOST humans are not barbaric, murdering, psychopaths actually is my point exactly. It points to the Standard, which we all are compelled to follow.
I realize every human looks for ways to become "better versions" of themselves--with or without religion. But, my questions are: What does "good" or "best" mean without some absolute standard? AND, if we agree there is a goal for any "decent person" to try and achieve, how do we know what that goal is?
That's what I meant by the question: "How does one decipher the Absolute Moral Code and follow it?" How can we know we're getting it right unless God has revealed it to us?
Oh, I meant to speak to your point about atheism, too. The word "Athesim" means "without God." The one standard which must be present for someone to be a true "atheist" would be a rejection of a highest moral being we define as "God." Regardless of "doctrine" (ha, I've never referred to atheism as having "doctrine" before) this should be the minimum requirement.
ReplyDeleteBut, as soon as you say there IS a moral standard--a right and wrong--you are defining a god of some sort. That isn't true atheism. Even those who say they create their own moral standard are defining a god. Themselves. And, when you take away the God of the Bible, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Mr. Rogers, the Wise Tress from Disney's Pocahontas, and all other external possibilities for "god," the only thing you are left with is man as the highest authority.
To reject the idea of a god (true atheism) is to be left answering only to yourself (man).