The last post was getting long, so I wanted to break out my own observations in another screed to make it easier on you.
Some people see no problem with punching religion into schools and say, hey, what’s the harm. Well, as the Discovery Institute is well aware, there are broad scientific and cultural implications to tinkering with education and what that means for society.
Ultimately, schools serve a variety of functions. But there are a couple of functions that need specific attention. They socialize children to baseline cultural norms, and they prepare kids for their adult lives through practical and vocational education. In many ways, schools establish the bodies of knowledge that will inform decision making into adulthood.
Because of the wide variety of races, cultures, languages and religions in our country, schools have been a battleground. Each group of people wants their heritage, culture, language and religion preserved and respected in education, and they don’t those items marginalized or attacked in government run institutions. Therefore, schools have to minimize and to a certain extent, homogenize the educational environment to appeal to the widest possible distribution of people and beliefs, while at the same time providing valid, useful information that all kinds of people will be able to apply throughout their lives. Tough job.
But this is where science comes in. Science is a body of knowledge built on understanding natural phenomena through repeatable testing and peer review. It is not perfect by any means, but generally provides an excellent baseline body of knowledge about our world that is equally true for all people. People from any race, creed or religion can conduct the same tests and arrive at the same conclusions.
As far as developing a body of knowledge about the world and the universe, it’s probably about the best place to start. Thus its position of prominence in schools and in our culture.
But science is in essence more than just a body of knowledge, it’s an approach to understanding the world. It’s an approach that depends on natural causes for the things around us, or at least causes that can be repeatedly observed or measured by our technology, which by all accounts is pretty advanced at this point. True scientific method is incredibly rigorous, and demands a skeptical world-view driven by a need for proof.
Science by its nature precludes many avenues of thought and pursuit which rely on subjective observation or belief. This is not a condemnation, as many would view it, but does cast doubt on the applicability of that information to the rest of the world or universe. It’s certainly possible that there is a great deal of information that remains outside the reach of our awareness or technology and therefore outside the reach of science.
What disturbs many people with beliefs that extend outside of science’s reach is the widening view that information not currently validated by science is irrelevant. This has important cultural implications. Strict, widespread adherence to commonly accepted truth, whether scientifically proven or not leads to a sort of flattening in variety. Some would call this progress towards a common understanding of our world and one global culture. Others would call this the inevitable end to the variety that makes human kind so great, a way to grind away the things that make us different.
Lets focus this down the the Intelligent Design debate and the Discovery institute’s agenda in specific. What has risen from science is a baseline body of knowledge about the world, and a new more skeptical way of interacting with the world that demands proof. Many modern christians have no problem layering their beliefs atop a foundation of scientific knowledge. Their beliefs are usually not terribly dogmatic and are flexible.
The kind of christians behind the Discovery Institute however advocate a literal interpretation of the bible that depends on a world-view dominated by supernatural causes for the things around us, and faith that the supernatural forces are benevolent and purpose driven. Not very compatible with a culture that increasingly asks for proof, and looks first to natural causes instead of God. What the Discovery Institute strives to do is remove the scientific influence on culture that encourages this world-view and replace it with their own. They would then only encourage science when it conforms to their beliefs. You could see how this might be a problem for anyone who does not share those beliefs.
You can also see how it would become an even larger problem when the campaign moves out of churches and into legislation and schools. The Dover case is an excellent example of this machine in action. The disclaimer that was read before teaching evolution specifically attacked evolution without calling into question a greater understanding of the scientific method, while referring children to a book that has no basis in fact, but was being given equal weight to a scientific text. By couching their beliefs in scientific language, they are seeking to equate themselves to science in the minds of the public and establish science as a “belief”.
At the center of this movement is the belief that a “godless” scientific culture is not how humans were meant to live, and they try to support that assertion with random bits of history that are often poorly understood or just outright misstated for the purpose of confusion. It is itself a belief unsupported by research, critical thought, testing, or peer review.
And there is the heart of it. Some people believe that the best way for humanity to move forward is with a common understanding of our world brought about though a disciplined process of learning which others can verify. Others like the Discovery Institute think it is better to enforce religious belief systems which they feel are the only way to ensure a moral future, which they equate to a successful one.
One of the big problems that many christian theologians have with a scientific world view is that it is seen to encourage “moral relativism”, the idea that there are is no absolute right or wrong. It’s so big a topic that the new pope named it one of the biggest evils facing the church. Not to take an easy shot here, but it’s pretty rich given the catholic church’s history and recent child abuse scandals. More about moral relativism here.
obligatory great quote:
Moral absolutism leads conservatives to oppose the murder of innocent fetuses, but moral relativism led them to support the potential murder of millions of innocent Russians in a nuclear defense of America.
Science is very bad at dealing with absolutes, as the universe simply loves dealing out exceptions. Just as nature abhors a vacuum so does it abhor absolutes. Even the speed of light, the gold standard of absolutes, has been proved pretty flexible recently. So it’s widely seen that science contributes heavily to a world view without absolutes, which is very bad for religious dogma which depends on infallibility and unchanging rules.
Well, I’m running out of time for this, so I’m going to sign off. Maybe I’ll put together some conclusions later.
If you are going to take cheep shots at the Roman church for Benedict’s statements about moral relativism, especially in light of the recent clergy sex scandals, I assume then that you will be equally willing to suggest that clergy misconduct, and abuse of power and position in order to take sexual advantage of young boys is in some instances acceptable and even good?
Not an argument I would be keen to make.
This is why moral relativism, and its ugly spawn post-modernism, can’t bear the weight of its own support.
At the same time it is equally important to be aware that there is a significant distinction to be made between knowing what an absolute is and knowing that there is some absolute – known or unknown.
You’re creating a false dichotomy here. There are other reasons to discourage and forbid activities other than absolute judgments of good and bad. We know that abuse has drastic consequences on people’s psychology and negative implications for society in general. I don’t have to think the priest is “bad” or even that the behavior by itself is “bad”.
I don’t see a reason for moral judgments or considerations of the absolute to come into it. Social implications alone are more than enough to discourage this kind of behavior.
I’m more than willing to recognize that given what psychology and sociology currently know about humans and human civilization that clergy misconduct and abuse of power to take sexual advantage of young boys are probably harmful to society and to individuals and should therefore be forbidden, but I would feel uncomfortable making moral judgements.
In addition, I think the church’s coverups of the abuse, and then subsequent protection of priests from prosecution is pretty retched. But again from a social and legal point of view.
What bothers me about absolutes is that humans are simply incapable of dealing with them in any capacity. Given the relative nature of our universe and the subjective perception and interpretation of it, any understanding of absolutes or actions coming from that understanding will be deeply flawed.
I don’t want to have a debate about whether or not absolutes exist in a concrete way, since it would be impossible to prove or disprove, but using absolutes to condemn behavior that you don’t approve of is tenuous ground indeed. Especially when you have demonstrated so much behavior in direct opposition to your own interpretation of those absolutes. You, the guardians of the realm of the absolute. By you I mean the catholic church.
When you start dictating behaviors based on absolutes, you’re making a huge abstraction that I’m not sure any human is capable of making.
Is moral relativity the greatest evil facing Catholicism? No. Is it the greatest threat to organized religion at the moment? Absolutely. It places the power of making decisions about right and wrong into the hands of the great, dirty, unwashed masses, who can make those decisions based on their own local custom, scientific discovery, or if they want, their own whim.
I guess at the root of the debate about moral relativism is the function of clergy in general, to be observers and communicators of the absolute to a relative existence, handing down concrete behaviors to people who cannot perceive that which the clergy can. Moral relativism takes that role away from the clergy as “God experts” and places them on the same ground as the rest of us. It also calls into question our anthropomorphic understanding of God as a “super human” who sees and understands the universe in fundamentally the same way as we do, but extrapolated out to comic book proportions.
I don’t agree that moral relativism and post modernism can’t bear their own weight. There are certainly questions of what behaviors societies allow and disallow, and what governing principles form those decisions, but there’s no reason those principles have to be based on absolute right and wrong. They can certainly be based on what that society finds works best for the people in it. From a purely behavioral standpoint there’s little to suggest that people with firm beliefs about moral right and wrong act in significantly “better” ways socially than anyone else. There’s a lot of christians in jail.
Now, if we’re talking not about behavior in society, but behavior aimed at the ultimate redemption of one’s soul in the afterlife, it very well could be that you have a point. It’s hard to say. But am I willing to trust the judgments of absolute right and wrong from people who clearly don’t adhere to their own understanding of them? Granted, humans are fallible, and subject to character flaws, but how am I to know that their interpretations of absolutes are not equally flawed? When it comes right down to it, I find it hard to believe that we would ultimately be held accountable for adhering to absolutes when we are so clearly incapable of interacting with them in meaningful ways.
Now, this is not to say that I think absolutes don’t exist, but I think that fundamental changes to our physical organisms and our psychology would be necessary to really extract anything meaningful from them if they do. I think that’s something to strive for, but we’re clearly a long way from it.
I think justifying your behaviors on absolutes is ridiculous and paramount to fantasy at this point in our development and generally is an indication of fundamentalism more than an understanding of God or our universe. Furthermore, selective application of which absolutes you’ll be using in any given situation leads me to believe your understanding of the absolute is pretty tenuous, or some absolutes are simply more important than others, which makes them pretty relative.
As an aside: The pope’s assertion that moral relativism leads to dissolution of personal responsibility is a crock of shit. Ultimately, people feel justified in doing anything they do, even if they feel guilty afterwards or even during. If there isn’t a psychological structure of justification, someone isn’t going to do it. Whether or not the people around them feel that justification is valid is another matter. “Because you felt like it” isn’t a valid justification in most cases, but for some people that is indeed enough justification. Moral absolutism is just one external expectation for justification, put in place by the church, while law of the land is another set of external expectations for justification. Responsibility depends on how well someone is socialized to those expectations and what consequences are in place for not meeting them. One could argue that everlasting consequences to not meeting those expectations might be a more powerful motivation than jail time, but I doubt that would be supported by psychology or simple observation of how people act.
This is a conversation that you and I have had before –and no doubt will have again. I do get the feeling that we are talking past each other already this time. But it is interesting to see that we are still no wear near a common understanding. I do however find your view of clergy somewhat troubling, and not one that is particularly well formed – not one that I think would be articulated by any clergy I know – and by few lay people either. I know you grew up in a significantly shitty church, but it might be helpful to look as critically at how that has informed your feelings about organized religion, as you do at organized religion itself.
Absolutism has nothing to with what one believes, but with what is. Relativism on the other hand has nothing to do with what is, but with what one believes. Unfortunately, every opinion is not equally valid, every belief is not equally true, and every view point should not be taken with equal seriousness. If it were not so, then teaching Intelligent Design would be perfectly acceptable; but clearly it is not.
Well, as you’re well aware, I’m not too terribly impressed by the role clergy play in general, or in religion for that matter. Resorting to Ad Hominem arguments does little to advance your position here. My view of the clergy is informed by more than just experiences of my own childhood church, but by extensive study, experience with multiple religions and interactions with clergy of many different religions. Seeking to minimize the points I make by calling into question my motivations and suggesting a lack of self reflection is not only insulting, but deceptive and a little disappointing.
You may not agree that human perception is inherently relative along with a relative universe, therefore limiting any meaningful interaction with whatever absolutes truly do exist. But claiming that absolutes are “what is” is tenuous at best, and demands some substantiation beyond the claim itself.
There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the universe is a relative place, and that humans are subject to changing perception and thought processes. In light of that, the idea that we can prescribe behaviors based on these abstracted absolutes is on pretty shaky ground.
Moral Relativism is a nasty phrase for people making decisions based on their circumstances with the assumption that considerations of right and wrong are weighing heavily in the process. I don’t know that considerations of good and bad enter into the normal decision making process of most people. It doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with “what one believes”. As you know from your psychology studies, the decision making process depends on a huge number of factors, and I would argue that in most people, morals are not high on the list. But placing all other factors besides morals into a “beliefs” category is just callous.
If you have found some method for uncovering absolutes in the universe, I’m sure the scientific community would love to learn of your discovery. Until then, relativism is how most humans really live their lives.
I remain unconvinced that absolute morals serve any purpose at all in society.
As I remain unconvinced that moral relativism serves as anything more than a poor excuse for a lack of intellectual rigor, emotional maturity, and through introspection.
But as I said before – I think we are talking past each other this time.
On a completely unrelated note; I am sorry that you were obviously upset by my suggestion that your views may be colored by your past – but it is a conclusion I am pretty comfortable with. If anything my statement was intended to be a charitable explanation for what seems to be an inaccurate and mean-spirited view of the clergy; it was certainly not intended to be an attack of any kind, certainly not on you or who you are today. As you well know, I have a great deal of respect for those, like yourself, who have thrown off the bonds of a crummy childhood church experience, accept the consequences of that decision, and rise above it.
Given your reaction however – I would recommend to anyone – that they spend some time considering why they would react so. This is not a question of not taking you seriously or of somehow diminishing what you have to say on personal grounds – you know that I like you a lot, and have a lot of respect for what, and the way you think (even, and perhaps especially, when I disagree with it). This is about you understanding something about yourself and what makes you feel the way you do – and I would bet that it is completely an emotional experience. This isn’t a homework assignment, and I don’t expect a report – I am not your teacher or guru; I don’t know more than you do, and I don’t have the answer – and in fact this has nothing to do with me – you are the only one who will ever know or benefit, or not, from your effort.
Again Steve, the reason it’s insulting is that you’re insinuating I haven’t gone through this introspection. My views of clergy and religion in general come not from negative experiences with both in the past (which I would say got me interested), but by the roles I think clergy and religion play in society. You’re also assuming a level of knowledge about me that I respectfully don’t believe you have. I wouldn’t feel comfortable making judgments about what drives your views about religion.
By calling into question my motivations for saying things, rather than challenging the points I make or arguing your own views, you take the discussion from being a reasonable discourse to a schoolyard “you’re a poopy head” situation. The reason I post this kind of thing on the page is to further discussion about the topic. Questioning my motivations moves the discussion from the topic, to me as a person and instead of me arguing my points, I’m defending validity as part of the discussion. That’s what’s disappointing.
And again, you’re offering advice on introspection that I’m not sure you’re really in a position to offer. I’m glad that you’re comfortable with your assessment of me. And you’re welcome to it, but I would not be so comfortable making the same assessments about you.
To be clear, I don’t think your intentions are bad here. But it is insulting when make pronouncements about one’s development or reasoning process, especially when you’re not asking someone why they feel this way, but instead telling them why. I know personally that you respect me and what I’m saying, but that is not at all clear in what you have written here. I would say, re-read our conversation as if two other people were having it, instead of you and I. Can you see why it would be insulting?
I don’t think my views of the clergy are mean spirited. I expect when Pope Benedict is going to make the assertion that moral relativism is the biggest evil facing the church today, that he would look at the striking amount of moral relativism that exists within the church, including his own sheltering of priests suspected of abuse. I don’t think that’s mean spirited, I think it’s holding him accountable for what he’s saying.
The reason I think clergy are not reliable interpreters of the absolute is far more to do with my views about humans in general and their abilities to deal with absolutes, and the fact that clergy are in fact human. Now you may submit that it is in fact NOT the job of clergy to be interpreters of the absolute, and that’s fine, as in some sense, I can agree with that. But you’ll have to be a little more clear in how you think I’m being mean spirited to the clergy for me to explain where I’m coming from.