Christian Non-Realism
Peter
I just discovered "Christian Non-Realism".
I am impressed with how it reconciles Christianity with science, but
does it do better in this regard than Catholicism?
Regards,
Peter
From
http://www.faithnet.org.uk/powerpoint/Cupitt%20Ethics.ppt
Don Cupitt and the New Christian Ethics
===============================
‘The end of the old realistic conception of God as an all-powerful and
objective spiritual Being independent of us and sovereign over us…
makes it now possible and even necessary for us to create a new
Christian ethic… it is we ourselves who alone make truth, make value,
and so have formed the reality that now encompasses us.’
Don Cupitt was ordained to the Diocese of Manchester in 1959 and until
recently was Dean of Emmanuel College, Cambridge (and was Lecturer in
the Philosophy of Religion in the University of Cambridge).
In the course of his thinking Cupitt has gone from realism to
non-realism via critical realism.
Realism
- Plato’s Forms
- Objective independent truths
- A God ‘up there’
- Moral absolutes
- Traditional Christian belief
Critical Realism
- Does not reject ultimate truth
- Humans participate in the cognitive process
- Truth needs to be applied into each context
Non-Realism
- Projection theory of religion (Feurbach)
- No ultimate truth claims
- No external God - God is internalised!
- Ethics are relative to each individual
Christian non-realism is not atheism!
Atheism rejects God completely.
Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of
our highest ideals.
Talk of God is still retained.
Cupitt accepts theological non-realism because:
- The believer does not receive theological meaning but creates it.
- The limits of religious language (via negativa = God is nothing!?).
- Internalisation of the ‘God image’.
- An external God is morally oppressive.
Ethics as the Creation of Human Value
==============================
'How can such a hetronomous faith ever be the means whereby I become
autonomous and fully-liberated spirit? It is impossible. This appears
to be a conclusive religious argument against the objective existence
of God. An objective God cannot save…’
‘The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with the
possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant who will
allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change and develop…’
‘Where previously the nature of God had dictated what could and could
not be said of him, now the nature of language dictates what can and
cannot meaningfully be said of anything, God included.'
Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is no
longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and ethics.
‘There is no bedrock and nothing is fixed, not my identity nor my
sexuality nor my categories of thought, nothing… There is external
measure or value or disvalue - and therefore our life is exactly as
precious or as insignificant as we ourselves make it out to be.’
In the light of this Cupitt argues that:
- Morality must be creative (ex nihilo)
- It must inject value into life
- Prophetic not passive.
The End of Two–Worlds Dualism
==========================
‘… Christian humanism is religious and explicitly presents itself as a
temporalisation and humanisation of God. Thus the human being acquires
a dignity and status that is directly derived from the ancient
holiness and worshipfulness of God. God indeed just was such a symbol
of the goal towards which our moral development is heading and of the
dignity to which we should ultimately attain.’
Cupitt believes the new ethics should be religious because secular
humanism has not got the necessary symbols of value
In Christ God has embraced the fullness of the body
‘Thou art a man, God is no more’
Morality in the past was about pursuing the Ideal:
- Seeking Absolute Being
- Contemplation
- Avoidance behaviour
- Inactivity (commit no sin!)
‘Our task,then, is to redeem people from the old masochistic
‘orthodox’ Christianity by curing them of the sense of sin, restoring
their self-esteem and vindicating Christian action.’
So what will a life based on these new Christian ethics look like?
- Life is an endless striving of activity or endeavour
- There will be no final success (no Ideal)
- One cannot claim perfection
- Just fight till you drop!
We are to be artists:
- Creative and imaginative
- Absorbed in our work
- Experiencing timelessness in time
We need to get rid of notions of ‘sin’ and ‘guilt’.
We need to forget the Platonic idea of higher truths which we need to
understand before we can act aright.
We need to reject the egoistic notion of ‘saving your soul’.
Solar ethics!
‘A Christian is supposed to lose his life, not to save it’
==============================
ka...@aya.yale.edu
Peter> Christian non-realism is not atheism!
Peter> Atheism rejects God completely.
Peter> Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of our highest
Peter> ideals. Talk of God is still retained.
But it's talk of a God who isn't God. Why should a God who isn't real,
who's just a poetic image or figure of speech, who's on a par with
Mother Nature or Santa Claus, matter to us? Also, if autonomy is the
ideal, why talk about God at all? Why not just talk about me?
Peter> Cupitt accepts theological non-realism because: - The believer
Peter> does not receive theological meaning but creates it. - The
Peter> limits of religious language (via negativa = God is nothing!?).
How does Cupitt know what the limits of religious language are? Is he
somehow able to stand outside of language and knowlege, measure just
what it is, and so describe its limits?
Peter> An external God is morally oppressive.
The absence of an external God imprisons us morally in ourselves. To say
God exists is to say that we live in a very large moral world, one that
is much bigger than we are and in fact is infinite. It is to say that we
can truly grow in our knowledge of the moral world and make real
discoveries in it.
It also says that you and I and all men can inhabit a common moral
world. On Cupitt's scheme you have your world, I have my world, and
there is no way the two can ever intersect.
Peter> 'How can such a hetronomous faith ever be the means whereby I
Peter> become autonomous and fully-liberated spirit?
Why should those be the goals? The question is how we can become what we
most truly are. Radical autonomy means individual man creates his own
world and so in effect is God. We obviously aren't God though. At least
I'm not. So radical autonomy is not a goal that fits what we are. Since
it doesn't fit what we are it can't liberate us.
Man is social and by nature exists as part of a world he does not
create. He becomes fully what he is by participating knowingly and
willingly in that world. Doing so is not heteronomous because it is
acting in accordance with one's nature.
Peter> The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with
Peter> the possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant
Peter> who will allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change
Peter> and develop.
Cupitt seems to deny the possibility of divine love. He seems to say
that it is the essence of the other always to be opposed to oneself.
Also, it's not clear why he says that the existence of an absolute makes
change and development impossible. I would have thought that it's
necessary for change to be meaningful. For example, if there is absolute
truth then it is possible for my changing understandings progressively
to approximate it. If there is no absolute truth but only personal
opinion then all that can be said when my views change is that I used to
think one thing and now think something else. The change really doesn't
matter.
Peter> Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is
Peter> no longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and
Peter> ethics.
Who is this society that tells me what to do? Why should I accept its
authority?
Peter> our life is exactly as precious or as insignificant as we
Peter> ourselves make it out to be.
If true then from my perspective your life has exactly the significance
I attribute to it. It can have no significance for me other than the
significance I give it for purposes of the private drama that I freely
create for myself. I am perfectly justified in using you as a stage
prop in that drama.
The most logical implementation of Cupitt's views is Naziism. I'm not
saying that at all rhetorically, by the way. I really think that what
Cupitt is doing is restating the philosophical basis of Naziism.
Peter> Life is an endless striving of activity or endeavour - There
Peter> will be no final success (no Ideal) - One cannot claim
Peter> perfection - Just fight till you drop!
The Nazis couldn't have said it better.
--
Jim Kalb
Turnabout: http://jkalb.freeshell.org/tab/
Peter
>
> Peter> Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of our highest
> Peter> ideals. Talk of God is still retained.
>
>But it's talk of a God who isn't God. Why should a God who isn't real,
>who's just a poetic image or figure of speech, who's on a par with
>Mother Nature or Santa Claus, matter to us?
I don't quite agree with the above definition of God.
However, one could ask, if one believes in the traditional idea of an
omnipotent, omniscient, loving God, how does one reconcile that with
the fact that this God, allows innocent children to be periodically
killed by natural disasters?
The evidence is, that the traditional God is either loving but less
powerful than Nature and therefore unable to protect children, or he
is omnipotent but sadistic, or he does not know what is happening.
I think most people would prefer to believe that God is less powerful
than Nature than to believe he is sadistic, or unknowing, but if God
is less powerful than Nature, what is God?
I feel it is an open question that individuals need to consider for
themselves.
However, my personal concept of God is currently as follows.
Throught history, Nature has created people who were capable of
forming high ideals (eg Moses, Jesus) who could help mankind. The fact
that Nature could create such people is evidence to me that Nature is
worthy of being revered as God. While Nature is nearly ominipotent
(she allows us some independence) she is not all knowing, therefore
even if she is loving in many ways, she cannot protect innocent
children from her own natural disasters.
Thus believing Nature is God makes more sense to me than believing in
the traditional idea of God.
Regarding "the sum of our highest ideals", of which I would consider
the commandments to be examples, I would regard our capacity to have
ideals as a gift of God or perhaps of what Quakers call the "Light
within".
From http://www.quaker.org/friends.html
"George Fox preached the Good News that we were all children of God
and that, as children of God, we had inherited powers from God. Each
of us was given a measure of this power or light and in accordance
with how we used it, so more would be given to us. Jesus had possessed
this power or light, without measure so that he became the Light and
the Light within is Jesus Christ."
This idea that Nature is God is Pantheism. But unlike Mystical
Pantheism which seeks union with God and abolishment of self, I think
the practice of a Christian form of Pantheism should seek to
strengthen our awareness of self and non-self.
>Also, if autonomy is the
>ideal, why talk about God at all? Why not just talk about me?
>
I think Cupitt is troubled by people who seem trapped in
Fundamentalist beliefs, who accept every word of the Bible as the
literal truth.
My personal view of autonomy is like this.
"Me" can only exist in relation to "non_me".
In order for "me" to be "truely" happy and healthy, the "non_me" must
also be happy and healthy. Natural empathy means I cannot be happy
unless I work for a healthy, happy society and a healthy natural
environment.
Shark like people who lack empathy for others (which may be due to a
defect in the area of the brain that is responsible for empathy) would
perhaps not share the above sentiments.
> Peter> Cupitt accepts theological non-realism because:
> Peter> - The believer does not receive theological meaning
> Peter> but creates it.
> Peter> - The limits of religious language
> Peter> (via negativa = God is nothing!?).
>
>How does Cupitt know what the limits of religious language are? Is he
>somehow able to stand outside of language and knowlege, measure just
>what it is, and so describe its limits?
>
I don't know how he would answer this.
> Peter> An external God is morally oppressive.
>
>The absence of an external God imprisons us morally in ourselves.
>To say
>God exists is to say that we live in a very large moral world, one that
>is much bigger than we are and in fact is infinite. It is to say that we
>can truly grow in our knowledge of the moral world and make real
>discoveries in it.
>
It seems to me that for all practical purposes Nature has the features
of an external God. Humans and human society evolved in Nature.
Morality is those standards of behaviour that allow us to get along
with each other. These standards can be discovered and verified just
as we discover and verify physical laws. Although twelve commandments
are attributed to Moses and Jesus, these commandments could well have
been discovered as being useful for social harmony by earlier people,
with Moses and Jesus making them more effective by claiming divine
authority for them.
>It also says that you and I and all men can inhabit a common moral
>world. On Cupitt's scheme you have your world, I have my world, and
>there is no way the two can ever intersect.
>
When Cupitt speaks of "the sum of our highest ideals" I believe he
means the highest ideals of humanity. If humanists can be allowed to
accept Cupitts definition of God (or the Pantheist one that I prefer)
Jews, Christians, Muslims and Humanists could probably all accept the
twelve commandments of Jesus and Moses. Thus there is room for
considerable intersection plus opportunity for debate.
> Peter> 'How can such a heteronomous faith ever be the means whereby I
> Peter> become autonomous and fully-liberated spirit?
>
>Why should those be the goals? The question is how we can become what we
>most truly are. Radical autonomy means individual man creates his own
>world and so in effect is God. We obviously aren't God though. At least
>I'm not. So radical autonomy is not a goal that fits what we are. Since
>it doesn't fit what we are it can't liberate us.
>
I think I agree with you here. We depend on each other and on our
environment, so attempting to be "fully-liberated" could be self
destructive.
>Man is social and by nature exists as part of a world he does not
>create. He becomes fully what he is by participating knowingly and
>willingly in that world. Doing so is not heteronomous because it is
>acting in accordance with one's nature.
>
I think I agree
> Peter> The more God is absolutised, the more we are presented with
> Peter> the possibility of living under the dominion of a cosmic tyrant
> Peter> who will allow nothing, and least of all religion, to change
> Peter> and develop.
>
>Cupitt seems to deny the possibility of divine love. He seems to say
>that it is the essence of the other always to be opposed to oneself.
I think Cupitt has been overly influenced by Fundamentalist notions of
the nature of God. This God only loves those who are completely
submissive. This is not a healthy form of divine love.
>Also, it's not clear why he says that the existence of an absolute makes
>change and development impossible. I would have thought that it's
>necessary for change to be meaningful. For example, if there is absolute
>truth then it is possible for my changing understandings progressively
>to approximate it.
I think he is reacting to Fundamentalists (perhaps in the Anglican
church) who want to turn the clock back. Their view that Scripture is
the absolute truth would make change and development impossible if
they had their way.
>
> Peter> Cupitt believes society has embraced non-realism and as such is
> Peter> no longer bound to follow realist forms of religious belief and
> Peter> ethics.
>
>Who is this society that tells me what to do? Why should I accept its
>authority?
>
I don't think he is saying society is an authority. I think he is just
saying out that as a trend, society is moving away from realist forms
of religious belief to non-realist forms. I think this is the case in
the UK.
> Peter> our life is exactly as precious or as insignificant as we
> Peter> ourselves make it out to be.
>
>If true then from my perspective your life has exactly the significance
>I attribute to it. It can have no significance for me other than the
>significance I give it for purposes of the private drama that I freely
>create for myself. I am perfectly justified in using you as a stage
>prop in that drama.
>
Thats quite true. But if you have a natural sense of empathy you
won't. :-)
>The most logical implementation of Cupitt's views is Naziism. I'm not
>saying that at all rhetorically, by the way. I really think that what
>Cupitt is doing is restating the philosophical basis of Naziism.
>
If the sentence "Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum of our
highest ideals", refered to Nazi ideals, then I would certainly be
concerned.
However Nazi ideals included such things as eliminating homosexuals
and Jews, creating an Aryan master race, obedience to authority, blind
following of law and revering a leader.
I don't see anything like this in Cupitt's views.
Regards,
Peter
ka...@aya.yale.edu
Peter> one could ask, if one believes in the traditional idea of an
Peter> omnipotent, omniscient, loving God, how does one reconcile that
Peter> with the fact that this God, allows innocent children to be
Peter> periodically killed by natural disasters?
You're asking why God would create a world in which there is natural
evil. I don't think any very definite answer is possible, because none
of us know what's involved in creating a world and it's hard to imagine
what a world with no natural evil would be like.
I suppose the general answer is that the possibility of natural evil
makes possible a greater good. One can think of ways in which that might
be so. For example, if there were no possibility of natural evil, if we
lived in a sort of lubberland in which all our needs and desires were
taken care of without risk or effort, it's not at all clear to me that
would be for the best. In such a condition why would we ever look beyond
our immediate sensations? Are we really best off in a world in which
everything revolves around *us*?
That's speculation of course. My general response to the problem of evil
is to say that the basic question is how there can be a real distinction
between evil and good, and whether you need the notion of purpose in the
Universe -- and therefore God -- to make sense of that distinction. If
you do, then the problem of evil becomes an objection that can be
handled by pointing out that it's possible that the presence of some
evil may make more good possible.
Peter> Throught history, Nature has created people who were capable of
Peter> forming high ideals (eg Moses, Jesus) who could help mankind.
Peter> The fact that Nature could create such people is evidence to me
Peter> that Nature is worthy of being revered as God.
"Nature" seems rather indefinite. All it tells me is that Moses and
Jesus come from somewhere and must somehow reflect the nature of things,
and that for some reason there's something specially good about their
ideals. Christianity tries to deal with that situation in a more
distinct fashion. Instead of just talking about "nature" it tries to say
something about what the nature of things is.
Peter> If the sentence "Christian non-realists speak of God as the sum
Peter> of our highest ideals", refered to Nazi ideals, then I would
Peter> certainly be concerned.
Peter> However Nazi ideals included such things as eliminating
Peter> homosexuals and Jews, creating an Aryan master race, obedience
Peter> to authority, blind following of law and revering a leader.
Peter> I don't see anything like this in Cupitt's views.
It seems to me the particular Nazi ideals you mention are secondary.
They were after the Jews, Gypsies and Slavs but it would have been the
same if they had been after Canadians instead.
What's primary I think is the notion that something has exactly the
significance for me that I attribute to it, and that life is essentially
the struggle to make my chosen goods prevail. If that notion is true
then I think the consequence is that my natural relation to you is
struggle for mastery. You choose your goods and I choose my goods. The
goods we choose are sure to conflict, if only because one of the things
I choose as a good will be the victory of my choices (and similarly for
you). We are therefore essentially enemies. If that is not Cupitt's view
I don't see why believes that an omnipotent God is necessarily an
infinitely tyrannical God.
Man is a social animal. If Cupitt's view is right that we have no common
good, because each of us independently invents his own good and tries to
make it prevail, the social order that defines what we are becomes the
war of all against all. And since there's no agreed-upon good within
that social order at which victory aims other than victory itself
there's no convincing way to show I've won other than by treating you as
the Nazis treated their victims.
I'm not of course saying that Cupitt is a Nazi. What I'm saying is that
the view he seems to be presenting, the view of the world as endless
struggle in which it is the will and the will alone that creates values,
is the view that quite logically led to Naziism.
Peter
:
>
> Peter> one could ask, if one believes in the traditional idea of an
> Peter> omnipotent, omniscient, loving God, how does one reconcile that
> Peter> with the fact that this God, allows innocent children to be
> Peter> periodically killed by natural disasters?
>
>You're asking why God would create a world in which there is natural
>evil.
No, I am claiming that if God were omnipotent, omniscient and loving
he would save innocent children from being killed by natural
disasters.
The fact that God does not do so, proves that God is not omnipotent,
omniscient and loving.
So we must in my opinion reject this view of God, and replace it with
a more realistic one.
For example:
Deists hold that God is omniscient and loving but not omnipotent,
therefore although he presumably would like to save the lives of
innocents, he does not have the power to do so.
Pantheists identify God with Nature. In this view God is mindless, so
cannot be held responsible for acts of God that destroy innocents.
Christian non-realists identify God with the sum our highest ideals.
This God exists in our minds, so like the Deist God, lacks the ability
to save the lives of innocents.
>
>That's speculation of course. My general response to the problem of evil
>is to say that the basic question is how there can be a real distinction
>between evil and good, and whether you need the notion of purpose in the
>Universe -- and therefore God -- to make sense of that distinction. If
>you do, then the problem of evil becomes an objection that can be
>handled by pointing out that it's possible that the presence of some
>evil may make more good possible.
>
That is quite a good argument, but I do not think it is compatible
with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God because such a
God would be capable of miraculous powers if he chose to use them.
Such a god would therefore not need to introduce evil to make more
good possible.
>What's primary I think is the notion that something has exactly the
>significance for me that I attribute to it, and that life is essentially
>the struggle to make my chosen goods prevail. If that notion is true
>then I think the consequence is that my natural relation to you is
>struggle for mastery. You choose your goods and I choose my goods. The
>goods we choose are sure to conflict, if only because one of the things
>I choose as a good will be the victory of my choices (and similarly for
>you). We are therefore essentially enemies.
That would only be the case if one or other party chooses to value
conflict. If both parties choose to value tolerance and the ability to
agree to disagree, then they will not be enemies.
It is also the case that no opinion is perfect or fixed. Therefore a
debate provides an opportunity to learn and improve ones own opinions.
>
>If that is not Cupitt's view
>I don't see why believes that an omnipotent God is necessarily an
>infinitely tyrannical God.
>
I think what he should have written is that an omnipotent, jealous God
of the type portrayed in the Old Testament is necessary tyrannical.
According to a Christian Fundamentalist freind of mine, it was the
will of God that all the inhabitants of Jericho be put to the sword
for not worshipping Jehovah.
>Man is a social animal. If Cupitt's view is right that we have no common
>good,
I am sure Cupitt believes that there is much common good.
That is because we live in an age where most people (in the West at
least) have accepted humanist values such as protection of basic human
rights, rights of women, rule of law etc.
>
>And since there's no agreed-upon good within
>that social order at which victory aims other than victory itself
>there's no convincing way to show I've won other than by treating you as
>the Nazis treated their victims.
>
That is not correct. In the Western society in which we live there is
a great deal of agreed-upon good. Also I am sure the majority of
people would agree that to enjoy life it is better to have freinds
rather than enemies.
>
>I'm not of course saying that Cupitt is a Nazi. What I'm saying is that
>the view he seems to be presenting, the view of the world as endless
>struggle in which it is the will and the will alone that creates values,
>is the view that quite logically led to Naziism.
>
I don't think that Cupitt has anywhere said will alone creates values.
What he has said is that all meaning, truth and value are man-made.
Taoists, Buddhists, humanists and Marxists among others would agree
with this, so it is not true that the above view would logically lead
to Naziism.
As I pointed out, Nazi ideals included such things as eliminating
homosexuals, obedience to authority, faithful following of doctrine
and revering a leader.
I think you would agree these ideals are also shared by conservatives
in the Catholic church, and it that it was Austria, a mainly Catholic
country that spawned Hitler.
Cupitt who advocates freedom of individual expression, is at the other
end of the spectrum.
Regards,
Peter
ka...@aya.yale.edu
>> natural evil.
Peter> No, I am claiming that if God were omnipotent, omniscient and
Peter> loving he would save innocent children from being killed by
Peter> natural disasters.
Don't see the difference. You're just naming a particular example of
natural evil.
>> My general response to the problem of evil is to say that the basic
>> question is how there can be a real distinction between evil and
>> good, and whether you need the notion of purpose in the Universe --
>> and therefore God -- to make sense of that distinction. If you do,
>> then the problem of evil becomes an objection that can be handled
>> by pointing out that it's possible that the presence of some evil
>> may make more good possible.
Peter> I do not think it is compatible with the idea of an omnipotent,
Peter> omniscient, loving God because such a God would be capable of
Peter> miraculous powers if he chose to use them. Such a god would
Peter> therefore not need to introduce evil to make more good
Peter> possible.
But we don't know what making a world is like. Making a world of finite
beings with intelligence and responsibility for running their lives in
which no one can get hurt looks at least very difficult. For all we know
it would be impossible in the same way it would be impossible for God to
make a rock so big he couldn't move it.
>> What's primary I think is the notion that something has exactly the
>> significance for me that I attribute to it, and that life is
>> essentially the struggle to make my chosen goods prevail. If that
>> notion is true then I think the consequence is that my natural
>> relation to you is struggle for mastery. You choose your goods and
>> I choose my goods. The goods we choose are sure to conflict, if
>> only because one of the things I choose as a good will be the
>> victory of my choices (and similarly for you). We are therefore
>> essentially enemies.
Peter> That would only be the case if one or other party chooses to
Peter> value conflict. If both parties choose to value tolerance and
Peter> the ability to agree to disagree, then they will not be
Peter> enemies.
But why would they happen to value tolerance? Cupitt seems to emphasize
that things have only the value we choose to give them, so there's no
reason to expect in advance they would do so. On the whole people
haven't valued tolerance over more substantive goals or even over
getting their own way. People feel that victory is sweet, revenge is
sweet, getting one's own way is sweet. I don't think there's quite the
same tendency to feel that tolerance is sweet.
>> Man is a social animal. If Cupitt's view is right that we have no
>> common good,
Peter> I am sure Cupitt believes that there is much common good. That
Peter> is because we live in an age where most people (in the West at
Peter> least) have accepted humanist values such as protection of
Peter> basic human rights, rights of women, rule of law etc.
Where can he get those common goods? He finds it outrageous that God
should prescribe to us what our goods are. Why should he let the age we
live in prescribe that to us?
Peter> In the Western society in which we live there is a great deal
Peter> of agreed-upon good. Also I am sure the majority of people
Peter> would agree that to enjoy life it is better to have freinds
Peter> rather than enemies.
Sure, but it's not necessary to be friends with everyone and actually
it's awkward to take everyone into account.
Peter> I don't think that Cupitt has anywhere said will alone creates
Peter> values. What he has said is that all meaning, truth and value
Peter> are man-made.
Peter> Taoists, Buddhists, humanists and Marxists among others would
Peter> agree with this, so it is not true that the above view would
Peter> logically lead to Naziism.
Taoists, Buddhists, humanists and even Marxists don't believe that life
is essentially struggle ending only with death.
Peter> As I pointed out, Nazi ideals included such things as
Peter> eliminating homosexuals, obedience to authority, faithful
Peter> following of doctrine and revering a leader.
Peter> I think you would agree these ideals are also shared by
Peter> conservatives in the Catholic church, and it that it was
Peter> Austria, a mainly Catholic country that spawned Hitler.
Don't agree. Elimination of homosexuals and revering a leader are not
conservative or Catholic views. The wrongfulness of homosexual conduct
and respect for legitimate authority are, but those things are quite
different. And following doctrine wasn't a Nazi view -- the highest law
was the will of the Fuehrer and not any doctrine. So far as I know,
elimination of homosexuals wasn't really a Nazi view either. Otherwise
they would have gotten rid of more of them and had fewer homosexuals in
their own ranks.
Peter> Cupitt who advocates freedom of individual expression, is at
Peter> the other end of the spectrum.
Hitler also talked about freedom and equal rights. The issue though is
what the actual political consequences are likely to be of the view that
our good is what we make our good, that things have no meaning whatever
apart from our decision to give them meaning, and life is fundamentally
struggle.
Peter
>But we don't know what making a world is like. Making a world of finite
>beings with intelligence and responsibility for running their lives in
>which no one can get hurt looks at least very difficult. For all we know
>it would be impossible in the same way it would be impossible for God to
>make a rock so big he couldn't move it.
>
You have a point, but if it is true, it could be equally difficult for
God to provide us with a risk free heaven. In that case, if I were to
go mountain climbing in heaven and fall over a cliff, perhaps the
results would be much the same as on earth. That is, I would die and
go to heaven again.
Further, if the making of heaven is subject to difficulties similar to
those associated with making this world, then perhaps entry to heaven
will have to be via similar means, that is via birth. We could then
wonder if perhaps we are not already in an imperfect heaven. Admitting
that possibility then opens the door to wondering if we might
experience an infinite series of reincarnations.
>
>But why would they happen to value tolerance?
>
Because man is a social animal. All social animals must exhibit a
minimum degree of tolerance in order to get along with each other.
Individuals that avoid belonging to a group due to being intolerant
tend to be reproductively unsuccessful and don't pass on their
intolerant genes.
Valuing tolerance is not quite the same as having a natural tendency
to exhibit tolerance, but people with such a natural tendency will
probably tend to value it as well.
Although you and I have some differences of opinion, we are continuing
to communicate cordially. That indicates to me that we both value
tolerance to some degree.
>
>On the whole people
>haven't valued tolerance over more substantive goals or even over
>getting their own way.
>
Its unreasonable to expect people to tolerate actions by others that
harm their material interests. For example, a group of people will
quite naturally not tolerate an individual who steals because that
would make all feel at risk.
In the case of a group that wishes to make an aggressive attack on
another group, the aggressors will often justify the attack by first
making unjust accusations against the victim.
However in both the above cases the problem is not caused by lack of
tolerance, but by a pathological phenomenon that overrides whatever
natural tolerance exists.
However, when it comes to religion there are examples of both
tolerance and intolerance being ingrained in the teachings of the
religion.
The Taoist, Pantheist, Buddhist, Shinto, Quaker and Unitarian
Universalist Religions are all tolerant in the sense that none claims
to be the sole path to salvation. Thus they don't condemn anyone for
following an alternate path.
In contrast, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have by tradition claimed
to be the sole path to salvation. These claims puts them at odds with
each other and with other religions.
I have the impression that repeated exposure to such claims trains
followers to suppress their natural feelings of tolerance, so they may
become artificially intolerant.
>
>People feel that victory is sweet, revenge is
>sweet, getting one's own way is sweet. I don't think there's quite the
>same tendency to feel that tolerance is sweet.
>
When people are involved in a conflict, the stress of the conflict can
make them feel and think that way.
We can see this very clearly in the Israel/Palestine conflict.
However if you were to ask people who are not currently involved in a
conflict if they would like to get involved in one so they could
experience the sweetness of victory, what proportion of people would
answer in the affirmative? I think the proportion would be very low.
>
> Peter> I am sure Cupitt believes that there is much common good. That
> Peter> is because we live in an age where most people (in the West at
> Peter> least) have accepted humanist values such as protection of
> Peter> basic human rights, rights of women, rule of law etc.
>
>Where can he get those common goods?
Well, Cubitt claims that his beliefs are 50% Christian, 30% Buddhist
and 20% Jewish. So, he is finding common goods or at least compatible
goods in these three religions.
>
>He finds it outrageous that God
>should prescribe to us what our goods are. Why should he let the age we
>live in prescribe that to us?
>
The Hindu, Torah, Gospel and Koranic scriptures all claim to be
inspired by God. I have the impression that of the above you accepted
the Gospels as best describing the goods that God prescribes. However,
how did you make this choice?
If you made up your own mind, then I think it is you, not God who has
prescribed what your goods are.
Regarding the age we live in, this age does not prescribe we accept
any particular set of beliefs, but provides us with a smorgasbord of
beliefs. Cubitt claims we should choose freely from this smorgasbord
in whatever proportion we choose, according to our evolving tastes.
If we wish to partake of only one dish as you have done that is fine,
but what he thinks is outragious is that the chefs responsible for
some of the dishes have added little notes that say words to the
effect "Only this dish is edible, all others are poison".
>
>The wrongfulness of homosexual conduct..;
>
This is not a belief that everyone shares. Many would hold the view
that it is wrong to discrimminate against homosexual behaviour.
Asian women who have reached menopause and no longer wish to have sex
with their husbands, worry about sexual frustration affecting their
husbands health. As few husbands can afford a mistress, some turn to
other men to solve their problem. If the husband finds this
satisfactory, wives are sometimes very relieved to learn about it.
This means that she does not need to feel guilty about not being able
to have sex, and since her husband is sexually relaxed when at home,
their relationship will be less troubled by tension.
In this situation, homosexuality helps maintain stable marriages. This
may result in men who are capable of homosexual relations being better
able to support their families. This may tilt evolution in favour of
men who are capable of a certain degree of homosexuality.
In contrast, the view that homosexual conduct is wrong can destablize
marriages. If a couple believes that and a frustrated husband happens
to get involved with another man the feelings of guilt may cause him
to suffer considerable stress. Furthermore, if the wife finds out,
her moral outrage may lead her to demand a divorce, thus subjecting
the children to the problems of a broken home.
Taoists, Pantheists, Buddhists, humanists, Pagans and many Christians
don't believe it is wrong.
Jesus never said anything against it and I think he was correct not
to.
The following verses reveal he enjoyed physical intimacy with one of
his disciples in a way which if observed today, would probably cause
he and his partner to be labeled as gay, simply because we are
oversensitive to this issue.
John 13:23 Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples,
whom Jesus loved.
John 13:25 He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is
it?
John 21:20 Then Peter, turning about, seeth the disciple whom Jesus
loved following; which also leaned on his breast at supper, and said,
Lord, which is he that betrayeth thee?
>
>The issue though is
>what the actual political consequences are likely to be of the view that
>our good is what we make our good, that things have no meaning whatever
>apart from our decision to give them meaning, and life is fundamentally
>struggle.
>
It needs to be considered, but I will limit myself to the following.
If religious authority was diluted by everyone making their own
choices as to what to believe, religious authorities might need to
display greater leadership in order to retain control. This could
certainly make life more difficult for them. We have also observed the
phenomenon of Churches fragmenting and of new churches being created
from compatible fragments. This process might be accelerated. I think
some would find this distressing, while for others it would be an
adventure.
On the other hand if Muslims, Christians and Jews became more
accepting of religious diversity within their own communities, the
communities might find it easier to accept each other. In time, the
boundaries between these communities might become blurred, leading to
greater social harmony and less violence in places where they are
currently in conflict.
Divisive ideas such as the Jews are the chosen people, salvation is by
Christ alone, and infidels will burn in hell, might gradually fade
away.
Regards,
Peter.
ka...@aya.yale.edu
>> But we don't know what making a world is like. Making a world of
>> finite beings with intelligence and responsibility for running
>> their lives in which no one can get hurt looks at least very
>> difficult. For all we know it would be impossible in the same way
>> it would be impossible for God to make a rock so big he couldn't
>> move it.
>>
Peter> You have a point, but if it is true, it could be equally
Peter> difficult for God to provide us with a risk free heaven.
Quite true. I know even less about constructing heavens than I know
about constructing earths. As always though I can speculate. For
example, heaven is said to involve eternity and the beatific vision,
both of which suggest a sort of all-at-once quality. So quite possibly
there's no risk in heaven because "before" and "after" don't have the
same significance there as they do among us here and now. Or so one can
guess.
Remember that from my standpoint all I have to do is show that the
existence of evil doesn't make an all-good and all-powerful God
impossible, that there could be some reason for such a God to permit
evil to exist. So I don't have to demonstrate that a risk-free version
of this world would lose something essential, or that a risk-free heaven
wouldn't. All I need is to show that those things are possible.
>> But why would they happen to value tolerance?
>>
Peter> Because man is a social animal.
Sure. But sociality involves coming together on definite principles and
definite principles for carrying on social life are necessarily
intolerant of opposing principles that might also be chosen. That's true
even if somebody tries to make tolerance the governing principle. In
Europe, for example, tolerance means that you're a criminal if you say
hello the wrong way or disagree with accepted historical interpretations
(e.g., if you use the Nazi salute or "diminish the importance" of the
Holocaust).
My point is that it's self-contradictory to make tolerance the supreme
principle. Tolerance can't tolerate intolerance, so it must violate its
own principles to exist at all.
Peter> The Hindu, Torah, Gospel and Koranic scriptures all claim to be
Peter> inspired by God. I have the impression that of the above you
Peter> accepted the Gospels as best describing the goods that God
Peter> prescribes. However, how did you make this choice?
Peter> If you made up your own mind, then I think it is you, not God
Peter> who has prescribed what your goods are.
Does that comment apply to all assertions regarding good and evil? For
example, Adolf Hitler, the guy who shot Leon Klinghoffer, and Mahatma
Gandhi had differing views on whether killing randomly-chosen Jews is a
good idea. I suspect you would agree with Gandhi on the point and
disagree quite strongly with the other two. Do you think your view on
the subject just represents your personal tastes at present, and maybe
some day you'll choose something else from the smorgasbord of belief, or
do you think your view is really better than the opposing views?
Peter> On the other hand if Muslims, Christians and Jews became more
Peter> accepting of religious diversity within their own communities,
Peter> the communities might find it easier to accept each other. In
Peter> time, the boundaries between these communities might become
Peter> blurred, leading to greater social harmony and less violence in
Peter> places where they are currently in conflict.
If religions make no very definite assertions you'll still have to have
definite principles of some sort for social life to be carried on. There
won't be universal agreement on what those principles should be. So
instead of religious conflict you'll get ideological conflict. The last
century suggests that ideological conflict is a lot bloodier than
religious conflict. That makes sense, because in the case of ideology
there's no notion that there might be some standard of right and wrong
superior to the theories of the ideologist.
Peter
>
>My point is that it's self-contradictory to make tolerance the supreme
>principle. Tolerance can't tolerate intolerance, so it must violate its
>own principles to exist at all.
You are correct from the point of view of Aristotelian logic, but
although this came to be the prefered form of logic in the Western
world, it does not always match reality.
Aristotelian logic is binary. A statement is either true or false with
no shades of grey in between. In contrast the logic of reality is
often fuzzy. There can be many shades of grey.
In reality tolerance does exist and it can do so because fuzzy logic
allows the above contradiction to be resolved.
Lets suppose our religion is prepared to tolerate 999 different types
of human behaviour other than intolerant behaviour.
Then our religion is 99.9% tolerant and only 0.1% intolerant, so from
a fuzzy logic point of view it is a tolerant religion.
This principle of fuzzy logic is embedded in the Taoist symbol for
Ying and Yang.
If one looks carefully, one can see that the black half contains a
small dot of white, and the white half contains a small dot of black.
This reflects the teaching of Taoist philosophy that everything
usually contains a small amount of its opposite.
In extreme cases, when we are dealing with pure black and pure white,
fuzzy logic reverts to Aristotelian logic.
> For
>example, Adolf Hitler, the guy who shot Leon Klinghoffer, and Mahatma
>Gandhi had differing views on whether killing randomly-chosen Jews is a
>good idea. I suspect you would agree with Gandhi on the point and
>disagree quite strongly with the other two. Do you think your view on
>the subject just represents your personal tastes at present, and maybe
>some day you'll choose something else from the smorgasbord of belief, or
>do you think your view is really better than the opposing views?
>
Like most people I would agree with Gandi. However, I am quite sure
that most atheists, most secular humanists, and most pagans would also
agree with him.
The reason is that in social animals such as humans, treating each
other decently is a natural prerequisite for social groups to form and
survive.
When white explorers ran out of food and water in the outback of
Australia, they were often saved by Aboriginal natives who had never
seen a white man before. These Aboriginals were said to have a stone
age culture, yet they were still able to treat the explorers with
decency, even though the explorers must have seemed completely alien.
Even though no words could be understood, the Aboriginals recognised
the alien was in distress and deserved to be helped.
We could say this widespread existence of natural decency is evidence
of a natural divinity at work. This divinity is not a supernatural
force but is simply a product of evolution.
The thinking of Gandi seems right to me because I am fortunate to be a
healthy product of social and biological evolution.
Needless to say, I would like to stay this way. If I were at any time
to start thinking like Hitler et. alia. it would be a sign of mental
illness in my opinion.
>
>If religions make no very definite assertions you'll still have to have
>definite principles of some sort for social life to be carried on. There
>won't be universal agreement on what those principles should be.
Nearly all countries in the world have signed the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights which provides a minimum standard of
decency regarding our treatment of others. This is in spite of the
fact that different countries have different religious cultures.
There are also concepts of natural law and natural justice that can be
appealed to.
The following expresses faith in secular culture.
From:
http://www.media.anglican.com.au/tma/2001/2001_02/cupitt.html
---QUOTE---
To return now to today's church and to the decline of religion, how
are we to interpret the present situation in the West? I hope that my
conclusion will already have occurred to you. It is that since the
Enlightenment secular culture in the West has continued to move
steadily onwards towards the historical realization of the ancient
religious dream. It has gone very much farther than the church. For
example, Western secular culture is much more egalitarian and
democratic than the church, and more consistent in its respect for
human rights. Secular culture has become much more globalised and
supranational, while the church too often has become merely national
and lost in admiration for its own past. Very strikingly, secular
culture has recently ceased to believe in progress and has effectively
ceased to believe in life after death. It therefore knows that we
already live in the last world, and that there will not be any further
world beyond this one. Secular culture is therefore already committing
itself to the here and now, to the value of life and to the new
religion of life. Thus religion becomes more serious when we stop
believing in life after death. In addition, the 'ecumenical' attempt
to build a new and globalised world-order, a United Nations, and a
range of international institutions, has gone much further in the
secular sphere than it has in the churches. Humanitarian ethics of the
'Kingdom' type is much more developed in an organization like Medecins
sans Frontičres than it is anywhere in the churches. And finally,
secular culture is becoming intensely communicative on a global scale,
and is much more committed to freedom of speech than is the church.
---END QUOTE---
>So
>instead of religious conflict you'll get ideological conflict. The last
>century suggests that ideological conflict is a lot bloodier than
>religious conflict. That makes sense, because in the case of ideology
>there's no notion that there might be some standard of right and wrong
>superior to the theories of the ideologist.
>
In principle I don't see any difference. Religion is ideology and it
could equally be said that there is no notion that there might be some
standard of right and wrong superior to the words of its prophets.
Here is what Moses instructed his men to do with captives.
Numbers 31
[17] Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill
every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
[18]But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying
with him, keep alive for yourselves.
Given that example, I don't think religious authority can provide an
ultimate standard of right and wrong. We should always keep an open
mind and be prepared to judge things for ourselves.
I think in the hearts of individual people, feelings of natural
decency might be regarded as a kind of divine authority, and a stable
guide to right and wrong might be obtained via public discussion
involving as many people as possible. This is how we have arrived at
such things as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which I
think nearly everyone agrees with.
I believe progress is being made.
I think Jesus was more decent than Moses, and the Catholic church is
more decent than it was 50 years ago.
I am not entirely happy with Christian non-realism, but I see it is
stimulating a lot of debate in the "Sea of Faith" network.
Christian non-realism defines God as "our highest ideals". However I
think what has made it possible to have high ideals and decency is our
biological and social evolution. I feel Nature should therefore be
regarded as the source of our ideals. Thus Christian non-realism could
return to being Christian realism by choosing to regard Nature as God.
This could lead to a theology that is more credible than the
supernatural theology that has existed up to now.
This credibility could give it the authority that you think religion
should have in order to provide a balance to political power.
Incidentally, I just came across an article called
"Does the Universe Care?" which discusses ideas related to this, so I
have posted it to a new thread.
Regards,
Peter