Thread: Philosophy, and Being Good For Goodness’ Sake Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020447
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Stoicism is making a comeback in some circles. On Facebook, for instance, there are a number of pages offering resources for studying Stoicism, and daily inspiration from Stoic authors.
I find myself enjoying these pages. I think part of the appeal to me is the idea of pursuing a good life without the baggage of guilt and perfectionism and moral accountancy that tends to with religious discussions of morality and ethics.
My background is Lutheran, and in sectors of our particular religious circle there is such an inherited terror of “ works- righteousness” that even talking about seeking to be a good person risks criticism: Why, I must be trying to earn my way to heaven, or trying to rank myself spiritually against other people! Who do I think I am, anyway? ( Even the Third Use of the Law is viewed with some side eye here.)
And of course on the other side of the equation are the moral bean counters for whom every day is a struggle to be “ good enough” for God... people like the guy I knew back in college who firmly believed that at the end of his life God was going to show him a playback of everything he'd ever done and demand an accounting.
How refreshing, then, to read advice from people like Marcus Aurelius: “ If it isn’t right, don’t do it; and if it isn’t true, don’t say it.” No promises of heaven or threats of hell; no bean-counting; just an appeal to goodness for goodness’ sake.
In a society where the Christian brand has been damaged perhaps beyond redemption by Christians who really don’t seem to give a damn about being good — why not look to secular philosophy for answers about how to be better, more functional individuals and help create better, more functional communities?
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
If Christianity is about love of God and love of others as ourselves, I fail to see how that translates to anything but doing and being what is good and right.
If some call themselves Christians so that they will go to heaven, or give themselves airs, or benefit from it in any way, perhaps the sight of Jesus on the cross and the sound of his words might persuade them otherwise, better than any man made philosophy will do so.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
... In a society where the Christian brand has been damaged perhaps beyond redemption by Christians who really don’t seem to give a damn about being good — why not look to secular philosophy for answers about how to be better, more functional individuals and help create better, more functional communities?
Because if Christianity is true, then we have to follow Christ, irrespective of how we and our fellow believers have damaged his reputation.
Secular philosophy only stands or falls as an independent guide if Jesus was not born, did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Because if Christianity is true, then we have to follow Christ, irrespective of how we and our fellow believers have damaged his reputation.
That only hold true for particular interpretations.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I know the standard argument is that God has hardwired humans to have a capacity for doing good, whether or not we recognize it as a gift of God or always do the right thing. That is a different argument. What I am suggesting is that secular philosophies that concern themselves with leading a good life give people permission to think about good and bad behavior in a way that doesn’t involve divine sin accountancy or particular theological doctrines.
I was just reading about how the head of a “ Christian” organization in the US — one that routinely demonizes groups of people ranging from pro- choice voters to the LGBTQ — blithely dismissing was our Fearless Leader’s serial sexual infidelities/misbehavior as “a mulligan.” And that is just one example of the hypocrisy infecting institutional Christianity and sullying its reputation, especially among young people and the unchurched.
My attitude is that , in our current state of chaos, if someone finds comfort and guidance reading Seneca or the Buddha or whomever, that’s a good thing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My attitude is that , in our current state of chaos, if someone finds comfort and guidance reading Seneca or the Buddha or whomever, that’s a good thing.
My attitude is along these lines, but I find it dismaying that Christians are not fighting against the hypocrisy of Christian Trump apologists.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My attitude is along these lines, but I find it dismaying that Christians are not fighting against the hypocrisy of Christian Trump apologists.
Some are, and are doing so very publicly. One of my favorites is here. Others are doing so in their own communities or spheres of influence.
I find it dismaying that more Christians are not fighting against the hypocrisy of Christian Trump supporters, but I am thankful for those who are. May their numbers increase.
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on
:
There is the story of an old German Lutheran pastor on his deathbed saying, "I can rest in peace for I have done no good works."
Let that sink in a bit.
Luther himself said that we need to do good works because it is the neighborly thing to do--Most Lutheran pastors tend to ignore that point.
Lutherchick, if you can look up the theology of Pelagius. Most of what we have from him comes from the reaction of Augustine to him.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
LutheranChik quote:
LutheranChik: How refreshing, then, to read advice from people like Marcus Aurelius: “ If it isn’t right, don’t do it; and if it isn’t true, don’t say it.” No promises of heaven or threats of hell; no bean-counting; just an appeal to goodness for goodness’ sake.
To which Paul would ask the question "Why do I find it so difficult to do what I know to be good?" And "Why do I find it so easy to do what I know is not good?" (Romans 7:19).
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Because something is hard to do is not an argument for not trying to do it. And unlike many Christian theologies, I am not aware of any Stoics, for instance, arguing that anything short of perfection in seeking the good is an affront to God and ticket to eternal damnation.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Pelagius is perhaps the most calumnied theologian in history. The hatchet job that Augustine does on him is annoying as all hell. Nobody knows what Pelagius actually believed, only the straw man that Augustine created.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
LutheranChik: Because something is hard to do is not an argument for not trying to do it. And unlike many Christian theologies, I am not aware of any Stoics, for instance, arguing that anything short of perfection in seeking the good is an affront to God and ticket to eternal damnation.
Well, I don't think those theologies are soundly-based, do you, LuthernChik? Do not the gospels endorse the Jewish view that "None is good, save one, that is God?" Does not the incarnation reveal God as one who consorts with publicans and sinners? Do not Paul and the apostles preach that salvation is due to the merits and righteousness of Christ?
ISTM that Stoicism, as you present it, is admirable for urging us to do good because it is right, and in that sense is not in conflict with Judaism or Christianity, but it has an over optimistic view of the possibilities of human nature about which Christianity is sceptical. I don't think we have to believe in the fires of hell or even God to adopt such a view.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Secular philosophy only stands or falls as an independent guide if Jesus was not born, did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead.
That’s absurd. Secular philosophy is not contingent on any religious stories. It’s secular like that.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Secular philosophy only stands or falls as an independent guide if Jesus was not born, did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead.
So there was no philosophy before Jesus was born?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Enoch--
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
... In a society where the Christian brand has been damaged perhaps beyond redemption by Christians who really don’t seem to give a damn about being good — why not look to secular philosophy for answers about how to be better, more functional individuals and help create better, more functional communities?
Because if Christianity is true, then we have to follow Christ, irrespective of how we and our fellow believers have damaged his reputation.
Secular philosophy only stands or falls as an independent guide if Jesus was not born, did not die on the cross and was not raised from the dead.
A couple things:
a) Yes, re continuing to follow Christ, if Christianity is true. Sometimes, though, the best thing you (gen.) can do for your faith is take a break from it. Especially if you've gotten to the point where you're really sick of it. I'm *not* saying anyone *should* take a break. But ISTM "maybe we need a break" is part of what Lutheran Chik is saying.
Also that the non-Christian world is probably extremely sick of Christianity right now, at least the public face of it. If they want guidance in how to live, good secular advice may be an answer--at least for now. Christianity needs to earn back trust. It's going to take a long time. Medical and other charity work. If a non-Christian respects Christianity at all, it's usually for good works. And ALL churches need to take abuse very seriously, protect kids, root out the abusers, inform and cooperate with civil authorities, and point abusers towards serious help--*more* than saying "you sinned; repent; Jesus loves you".
But the RCC especially needs to get its at together. Rightly or wrongly, the RCC is the primary face of Christianity to the world.
b) Actually, secular thought *and* other faiths contain good things that basically agree with Christian ethics.
CS Lewis wrote "The Abolition Of Man", a book that's mostly about "natural law" (Full text at Archive.org). The Appendix, about 4/5 of the way down the page, compares and contrasts quotes about ethics from both secular and religious sources. (Plus some where that's hard to tell.)
The Religious Tolerance site has a section on Reciprocity (aka the Golden Rule) in various belief systems--both secular and religious.
And this page includes quotes from several philosophers, plus Humanism.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
I would have said that one of the best things about Christian faith is precisely that it allows one to do good without any ulterior motive of self-benefit.
In Christ I am accepted just as I am. My faults and failings are overcome by what Jesus Christ has done on the cross. Brought into the family and household of God by the grace of God, I seek to live a good life, not because of anything I must do to secure or improve my position, but in thankfulness and love towards the God who has already irrevocably given me all good things in Jesus Christ both for now and for the age to come.
Thus, if I do good, it is purely for goodness’ sake (and for God's sake), and not for any advantage to me.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Interesting. Do you feel no happiness or gratification in believing your good thoughts and deeds please your God, or that you reciprocate His love?
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Pelagius is perhaps the most calumnied theologian in history. The hatchet job that Augustine does on him is annoying as all hell. Nobody knows what Pelagius actually believed, only the straw man that Augustine created.
This. Sometimes, it is necessary to go back to the root in order to understand how we got to where we are.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Sorry to pursue the point without waiting for a reply, but I need to dash.
I believe it is impossible to love without self-benefit. Indeed, many iterations of human loving are overwhelmingly selfish (some, to a malignant degree).
The same can be said about charity and all other virtuousness, the self-beneficial blowback of which is inevitable. Denial of this is bogus (and often rather sanctimonious).
There is no such thing as being good for goodness’ sake. I don’t mean to be cynical or curmudgeonly, but to encourage an admission and celebration of the truth that we serve our own benefits by being good to others.
Win-win. Yay.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Sorry to pursue the point without waiting for a reply, but I need to dash.
I believe it is impossible to love without self-benefit. Indeed, many iterations of human loving are overwhelmingly selfish (some, to a malignant degree).
The same can be said about charity and all other virtuousness, the self-beneficial blowback of which is inevitable. Denial of this is bogus (and often rather sanctimonious).
There is no such thing as being good for goodness’ sake. I don’t mean to be cynical or curmudgeonly, but to encourage an admission and celebration of the truth that we serve our own benefits by being good to others.
Win-win. Yay.
Of course it pleases us to please those we love with our actions, but pleasing the other or gaining the gratitude of the other for doing so is not necessarily the motivation for the original action.
There is such a thing as self-giving sacrificial love.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. What I am saying is that it is not possible to give lovingly or act virtuously without self-benefit, so there’s no such thing as being good purely for the sake of it. It is at least partly for our own benefit that we do good things.
This would not seem to be controversial to the tenets of Christian faith, so I find it intriguing that there is always so much resistance to the idea.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I find it too vague, in any case. What does good for goodness' sake mean? That I might love someone else with no feelings on my part? That doesn't make sense to me.
I suppose treating others well might be irritating, but I carry on. I wonder how long for.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I think the real mystery is how the central Christian belief in grace got so bent out of shape. Pharisaic Christianity is poisonous. As is complacent exclusive Crosstianity.
We get into a Hell of a lot of trouble if we deny image of God, or the reality of human fallibility. Also if we overemphasise one and discount the other.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I’m not arguing that there isn’t self- interest involved in being good. I want to. be good in a way that encourages others to be good, so that we can all benefit from living in a society where people are trying to be good. Self- interest? You bet.
“ Being good for goodness’ sake” was a phrase I lifted from a humanist group that used it in advertising. I didn’t parse it the way some of you are insisting on doing, but using it as a contrast to “being good to make God happy,” or “ being good to keep God from being angry,” or just not giving a rip about being good.
BroJames: What you describe is actually the viewpoint I ascribe to, and the one which I was taught: Grace frees us to love God and serve our neighbors in an authentic way. HOW to do that , though, is often not articulated in helpful ways in popular Lutheran circles, for reasons I explained in my OP. It can almost be like squeamish parents trying to explain sex to a curious child and coming out with inanities like, “When Mommy and Daddy love each other very much, something special happens and...um...erm...that’s how your brother wound up in Mommy’s tummy. Let’s go out for ice cream!” For us it’s like, “ God loves us very much, and something special happens that takes away our sins so we can be God’s friends and do what God wants; so...um...erm... we go out and do that...oh, look! Beer!”
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
I would have said that one of the best things about Christian faith is precisely that it allows one to do good without any ulterior motive of self-benefit.
It is the benefit of some interpretations of Christianity, but not all of them.
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
I believe it is impossible to love without self-benefit.
I disagree. I have done the right thing with 0 benefit to myself and I'm not even a good person.
Yes, we are wired to feel good when we do good. But your absolutist view presupposes that this is the initial motivation, and my experience tells me it isn't always. Most of the time, I do think biology factors into what we do than many would care to admit. I disagree that it is the sum total.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's an interesting OP, but I'm not sure why philosophy is needed in order to do good. I grew up in a tough area, where most people were pretty kind and generous to each other. As far as I know, none of them had done courses in Stoicism or any other ism, and I didn't know any who were religious. Is this surprising?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I have done the right thing with 0 benefit to myself.
I find that impossible to imagine, though perhaps we are talking past each others’ definitions? Even the most selflessly directed acts of good must benefit the actor, and motivation is irrelevant.
If you could unpack your own experience a little, that may shed light. Otherwise, please could you (or anyone) propose a hypothetical situation in which a person could do good with no self-benefit?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Quetzalcoatl: I take your point. But there are times when we all need guidance or validation in doing good. In my country at the moment, many of the institutions we’ve depended on to help set our moral compasses are either entirely untrustworthy ( unless you take what they say and go 180 degrees in the opposite direction), or else have recused themselves from the discussion.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That's a good point. I suppose added to this is the sense that (some) Christians are the worst ones of all.
I think in the UK the welfare state made a kind of explicit contract out of treating each other well, and roughly equally. But of course, this is now being undermined in various ways.
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I have done the right thing with 0 benefit to myself.
I find that impossible to imagine, though perhaps we are talking past each others’ definitions? Even the most selflessly directed acts of good must benefit the actor, and motivation is irrelevant.
If you could unpack your own experience a little, that may shed light. Otherwise, please could you (or anyone) propose a hypothetical situation in which a person could do good with no self-benefit?
I am not unpacking the most effective examples from my own life.
Why must? benefit. If a building caught fire and a person dies from smoke inhalation because they rescued others, where is their benefit?
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Okay, that’s a good example. Well, maybe try this. If they had not died attempting to rescue others their lives might be tortured by guilt. It may be a stretch that being dead is better, but many people would perhaps insist on this being true.
More profoundly but possibly less directly, there is personal benefit from such selfess acts of heroism as it engenders reciprocation, which benefits our species in general and therefore all of us as individuals.
Even when taken to the extreme of dying for a good cause, kindness may easily be imagined to be personally self-beneficial when compared with the prospect of living without it.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
For us it’s like, “ God loves us very much, and something special happens that takes away our sins so we can be God’s friends and do what God wants; so...um...erm... we go out and do that...oh, look! Beer!”
Brilliant. You have the gifts of honesty and clarity. Such observations cut through so much crap and confusion.
Posted by BroJames (# 9636) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I have done the right thing with 0 benefit to myself.
I find that impossible to imagine <snip> Otherwise, please could you (or anyone) propose a hypothetical situation in which a person could do good with no self-benefit?
I would suggest as RL examples Michael Skippen who died aboard The Herald of Free Enterprise in 1987, or Andrew Parker (who survived). You could argue for Andrew Parker that there was some personal benefit to him in saving his wife and daughter, but not I think the other 20 passengers he helped. It’s hard to see, though, what benefit there was to Michael who clearly might have been able to save himself, but in fact lost his life trying to save others.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Okay, that’s a good example. Well, maybe try this. If they had not died attempting to rescue others their lives might be tortured by guilt. It may be a stretch that being dead is better, but many people would perhaps insist on this being true.
More profoundly but possibly less directly, there is personal benefit from such selfess acts of heroism as it engenders reciprocation, which benefits our species in general and therefore all of us as individuals.
Even when taken to the extreme of dying for a good cause, kindness may easily be imagined to be personally self-beneficial when compared with the prospect of living without it.
This is a stretch though. One cannot know how one will feel until after. and often there is no time to think of the aftermath, there is only do or do not. We like to think that we think about everything and the reality is that in such situations it is react rather than act.
[ 24. January 2018, 17:44: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Even when taken to the extreme of dying for a good cause, kindness may easily be imagined to be personally self-beneficial when compared with the prospect of living without it.
You're taking this on faith, though. It's not as though you can interview a dead person about their motivations, and how they feel having taken option A, versus how they feel they might have felt if they plumped for option B.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
In a society where the Christian brand has been damaged perhaps beyond redemption by Christians who really don’t seem to give a damn about being good — why not look to secular philosophy for answers about how to be better, more functional individuals and help create better, more functional communities?
Christians have been looking to non-Christian philosophies for advice since the fathers. Thomistic ethics makes use of Aristotle for example. That's not to say that one should do ethics and politics as if Christianity weren't true.
The main difference between Stoic ethics and Christian ethics is that Stoic ethics are an ethics of non-feeling while Christianity is an ethics of love. You can probably try to finesse the difference but one's going to take precedence.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. What I am saying is that it is not possible to give lovingly or act virtuously without self-benefit, so there’s no such thing as being good purely for the sake of it. It is at least partly for our own benefit that we do good things.
This would not seem to be controversial to the tenets of Christian faith, so I find it intriguing that there is always so much resistance to the idea.
The problem with this much ballyhooed POV is that it is unfalsifiable. It is always possible to whip up some angle, some way of looking at every deed so that it somehow benefits the doer. Everything fits because it's always possible to make up something to bridge the gap, whether or not that something has any actual backing from the facts of the case.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Yes.
Whereas I think the OP encourages us to look again at an issue of faith. The continuing weakness and propensity to behave badly found in believers. Becoming more like Christ appears to be a chancy business. This isn't a new issue but it is a challenging one. Which (thanks LC) does not go away after beer!
Yorick's viewpoint is not falsifiable but I'm not sure if it really looks at two or three key questions.
Is our perception of human selfishness a real thing?
If the answer to that is yes, is it a bad thing?
And if it is a bad thing, what steps should be taken to grow out of it?
Perhaps controversially, I think that where conversion to Christianity is presented as an appeal to self interest (say this prayer and you won't burn) many people who go that way get off to a bad start. 'Christianity will be good for me'. That's never been the call to follow Christ.
[ 25. January 2018, 07:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Perhaps I wasn’t clear. What I am saying is that it is not possible to give lovingly or act virtuously without self-benefit, so there’s no such thing as being good purely for the sake of it. It is at least partly for our own benefit that we do good things.
This would not seem to be controversial to the tenets of Christian faith, so I find it intriguing that there is always so much resistance to the idea.
The problem with this much ballyhooed POV is that it is unfalsifiable. It is always possible to whip up some angle, some way of looking at every deed so that it somehow benefits the doer. Everything fits because it's always possible to make up something to bridge the gap, whether or not that something has any actual backing from the facts of the case.
Actually, I think it's perfectly possible to do good in your own self interest. E.g., volunteering somewhere in order to distract yourself from depression, worries, grief, etc. And I think that's ok, as long as you don't dump all that on the people you're helping.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with this much ballyhooed POV is that it is unfalsifiable.
Well that’s true, but it’s not really the point, is it? The point is that acts of goodness are somehow claimed to be more virtuous because they are done selflessly, and I’m interested in why this should be.
A man acting bravely to save strangers from a burning building is doing something which results in an objective quantum of good- say, 3 lives are saved, or 8. That quantum is not affected by whether he himself gained reward for it.
It’s interesting that many such rescuers play down their heroism after the event, saying they only did what anyone else would have done and they deny the heroism. I wonder why this should be, but it often looks like some sort of coyness or embarrassment.
Anyway. My point is that we value add to the quantum when the hero acts without regard for reward, and I think religious people are especially prone to this.
Why might that be? Well perhaps it’s because they feel these selflessly virtuous acts are especially pleasing to their deity, or that in doing them they observe some divine imperative. I dunno.
It seems ironic though, that the purity of their selflessness may thus be contaminated by the personal gain of gratification by which they benefit, even if it is merely in the sense that they feel more holy because of it. I suspect this is the reason that religious people sometimes seem reluctant to admit the self-benefit component of goodness, which is rather a pity because the concomitant sanctimoniousness is somewhat distasteful and I feel that their goodness should be thoroughly celebrated regardless of the value added by the degree of piety conferred by its selflessness.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
It’s never all or none imo
I volunteer because I love the job, it gives me so much. Sense of purpose, challenge, a reason to go out, a reason to get up in the morning - I could go on. But if the job were to pay me money I wouldn’t do it. My motivation is to help people, not to make money.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Virtue is its own reward Yorick. The self interest enters in when we believe we are accumulating brownie points, with God, other people, whatever.
Back on the OP, I think there is everything to be gained by reading what philosophers, folks of other faiths, etc, have to say about virtuous behaviour. Comparing and contrasting never did anyone any harm and it can open our minds about our own blind spots.
Following Christ does require a offering of self. He said so in various ways. I guess we offer, take back, repent, offer again. Not meant dismissively, but the journey of a snail up a drain pipe comes to mind.
One of the old mystics observed that selfishness hurts us more than anything else in the world. It can take a lot of living to get to the point of accepting there is a lot of truth in that.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
I've had Yorick's argument before, in Another Place with (probably) Another Person. In that context it was a denial that there is really any such thing as altruism, or a genuinely altruistic act.
Ultimately I don't find it particularly helpful, as (as has been stated above) whatever argument you bring to bear against it can be refuted with cunning "Ah, but ...". It is essentially a self-reinforcing axiom if you choose to view the world that way.
Personally whilst I accept the argument (it's hard not to, in the abstract) I actually think it's fundamentally a category error. Further, it ultimately leads to a position which essentially removes any kind of moral agency (or culpability) or indeed genuine choice from all actors. Spend too long dwelling on it and you end up in a very bleak, jaded, nihilistic place.
So for me, it's more of a 6th form debating point, where one can feel intellectually smug to have won the debate, but ultimately bereft because you've a) missed the point and b) lost all beauty in the world.
Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on
:
Pfft. Seriously.
Perhaps I failed adequately to express my admiration and profoundest gratitude of all those who act selflessly for the benefit of others? Perhaps I failed to mention how deeply I respect people who act kindly towards others when motivated by their religious faith? Perhaps I failed to say how I value the message of charitable kindness championed by Jesus Christ as the single most positively influential beneficence in the history of mankind?
Well there we are. I hope that makes you feel better.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Personally whilst I accept the argument (it's hard not to, in the abstract) I actually think it's fundamentally a category error. Further, it ultimately leads to a position which essentially removes any kind of moral agency (or culpability) or indeed genuine choice from all actors.
Yorick’s point can be verified scientifically. To a point, at least. We get a dopamine rush when we do good. This has been measured. No one else might know you did that Good thing, but you do. And there is solid scientific theory that suggests a a level of altruism has a species benefit.
There is a psychological phenomenon where, after a good deed or Doing The Right Thing, a person will allow themselves an indulgence. A bit of naughty behaviour.
If the deed brought no reward, the sense of entitlement would not exist.
Where I was arguing with Yorick was on the absolute nature of his point, not that it had zero validity.
A lot of our behaviour is built into the hardware and software. This doesn’t mean we have no agency, just that choice is made less often than we’d like to believe. And certainly not how we’d like to believe.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't understand why it matters. If I get a kick from loving someone, so what? Are we supposed to live in total austerity, with no shred of self? That would just lead to some kind of nit-picking obsession. I also find it hard to believe that we can compute such things ourselves. Yeah, I just helped that old lady cross the road, and there was no ego in what I did! Well, good boy.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand why it matters.
It should be obvious why it matters to some types of Christian. If one cannot help what they do, if it is merely self-interested, this invalidates their beliefs.
It matters to anyone who believes they control what they do.
And, this is a discussion board. If nothing matters, then why are you here? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
ETA: And knowing how we function can help us control what we do.
[ 25. January 2018, 15:03: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand why it matters.
It should be obvious why it matters to some types of Christian. If one cannot help what they do, if it is merely self-interested, this invalidates their beliefs.
It matters to anyone who believes they control what they do.
And, this is a discussion board. If nothing matters, then why are you here?
ETA: And knowing how we function can help us control what we do.
I'm not suggesting that it's merely self-interest, but that most human actions contain a combination of both self-interest and other-interest.
I also doubt that one can monitor oneself in this regard, for any trace of self-regard. We are so good at self-disguises. But why torture yourself that your love for someone might feel good for you?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not suggesting that it's merely self-interest, but that most human actions contain a combination of both self-interest and other-interest.
Of course they do. The problem is that people think they use reason and balance far more than they do. It is a lot more instinct and reaction than is comfortable to admit.
ETA: I realise this is along the lines of the bit I didn't quote, but the emphasis is on why I think it matters.
[ 25. January 2018, 15:29: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If I get a kick from loving someone, so what? Are we supposed to live in total austerity, with no shred of self?
Do you think selfishness can hurt you?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
To the post up there somewhere that suggested conversion as an act of self- interest is a Christianity that’s gotten off to a bad start — I agree.
Which is a reason why secular philosophy can provide a safe space for people to discuss how to live a good life without getting dragged down by Christian or other theistic baggage of divine sin accounting, soteriology ( at least in the sense of “ going to heaven when I die.”) My perception is that various sectors of Christianity have , for various reasons,made thoughtful discussions of leading a good life almost impossible.
As far as one’s motivations for being good: Yes, love of one’s neighbor is the motivation, or should be, for a Christian. But what about the simple idea that if I further good in society, I create a world where good is likelier to happen, or evil less likely to happen? That I, say, show hospitality to strangers because I want to live in a world where, if I’m ever a stranger, people will be more inclined to treat me well? Or that I refrain from stealing, in its various forms, because I want to live in a society where people don’t have to be constantly guarding their property and being suspicious of others’intentions? Why are those reasons not good enough reasons to do the right thing, for someone without the addd mandate of Christian charity?
One respondent suggested that the Stoics were too optimistic about human nature. I’d argue that they were actually more realistic than people demanding hat everyone assume some saintly degree of altruism in ordering their daily affairs. Frankly, I’d rather be surrounded by people taking seriously an impulse to do good in practical ways than by a bunch of idealists setting up an impossibly high bar of behavior — not only behavior, but internal motivation — and being so intimidated by that that they do nothing at all ( the quietism in parts of my tribe), or abstracting/spiritualizing it to the point of meaninglessness,’/compartmentalizing to the point of hypocrisy ( much of the US religious right wing).
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
My perception is that various sectors of Christianity have , for various reasons,made thoughtful discussions of leading a good life almost impossible.
We agree. It is a central point. Impossible standards foster guilt. Growing up is something different. As I read here from a Shipmate a decade or so ago, 'growing up is when you realise it's not all about you.'
quote:
As far as one’s motivations for being good: Yes, love of one’s neighbor is the motivation, or should be, for a Christian. But what about the simple idea that if I further good in society, I create a world where good is likelier to happen, or evil less likely to happen? That I, say, show hospitality to strangers because I want to live in a world where, if I’m ever a stranger, people will be more inclined to treat me well? Or that I refrain from stealing, in its various forms, because I want to live in a society where people don’t have to be constantly guarding their property and being suspicious of others’intentions? Why are those reasons not good enough reasons to do the right thing, for someone without the addd mandate of Christian charity?
One respondent suggested that the Stoics were too optimistic about human nature. I’d argue that they were actually more realistic than people demanding hat everyone assume some saintly degree of altruism in ordering their daily affairs. Frankly, I’d rather be surrounded by people taking seriously an impulse to do good in practical ways than by a bunch of idealists setting up an impossibly high bar of behavior — not only behavior, but internal motivation — and being so intimidated by that that they do nothing at all ( the quietism in parts of my tribe), or abstracting/spiritualizing it to the point of meaninglessness,’/compartmentalizing to the point of hypocrisy ( much of the US religious right wing).
Absolutely. And I think you are right that a bit of compare and contrast between philosophy and the traditional Christian understanding can foster sensible discussions about doing good. Communities which foster guilt are toxic.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
LutheranChik: But what about the simple idea that if I further good in society, I create a world where good is likelier to happen, or evil less likely to happen? That I, say, show hospitality to strangers because I want to live in a world where, if I’m ever a stranger, people will be more inclined to treat me well? Or that I refrain from stealing, in its various forms, because I want to live in a society where people don’t have to be constantly guarding their property and being suspicious of others’ intentions? Why are those reasons not good enough reasons to do the right thing for someone without the addd mandate of Christian charity?
The question I would want to ask is why if it is to my advantage to do good, however defined, am I and others so disinclined or unable to do so with any consistency. If your proposition is as plausible as you suggest why does it fit so imperfectly with observed human behaviour? Is it because my rational intention to do good, if only for personal advantage, is frustrated by my flawed nature, my inordinate passions? Or, is it, perhaps, because the socio-political contexts in which I and others find themselves frustrate to varying degrees an individual’s desire to do good? Speaking for myself, I’m sceptical about both the capacity of humans and societies to be good, though I think it’s also clear that some individuals and some societies are (frequently,much) more virtuous than others.
As a Lutheran, LutheranChik, you are doubtless aware of Moral Man and Immoral Society: A Study in Ethics and Politics (1932) by Reinhold Niebuhr, which discusses such questions.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Kwesi
I am not sure that view gives equal weight to the twin truths of human beings made in the image of God and human beings born fallible.
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
Barnabas62: I am not sure that view gives equal weight to the twin truths of human beings made in the image of God and human beings born fallible.
Barnabas62, what is "that view" to which you are referring? I'm sure you are making a valid point to which I should respond, but I'm unclear as to what it is. Some clarification of your post would be a great help.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
It's the use of the term 'flawed nature'. One of the baleful legacies of the Augustine-Pelagius dispute, which got carried over into Protestantism chiefly by Calvin, is that the Augustine/Calvin view of our human nature is much more influenced by the Fall and our fallenness than our created image of God inheritance. The latter is thought to have been all but obliterated, hence the emergence of terms such as Total Depravity.
The truth is that we do not always fail to do good, despite our fallibility. We are not complete moral bankrupts. Pelagius believed in both Divine Grace and the importance of human responsibility. I agree entirely with mousethief that he got a bad press, because Augustine misrepresented him.and his beliefs.
I really believe we do better to hold in tension both image of God, which speaks of our amazing potential and destiny, and also fallenness, which speaks about the reality of our human weakness.
This tension can save us from both pride and helplessness, enable us to grow in Grace. God is with us, He is our helper, He wants to see us grow up, come into our own. The epitome of good Fatherhood, good parenting.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
It's the use of the term 'flawed nature'. One of the baleful legacies of the Augustine-Pelagius dispute, which got carried over into Protestantism chiefly by Calvin, is that the Augustine/Calvin view of our human nature is much more influenced by the Fall and our fallenness than our created image of God inheritance. The latter is thought to have been all but obliterated, hence the emergence of terms such as Total Depravity.
I know I can start to harp when the topic of Total Depravity comes up, as it is an oft-distorted idea. (And I’ll readily admit that its proponents have been just as guilty of distorting it as its opponents.)
But Total Depravity does not mean that the image of God has been all but obliterated by humanity’s fallen nature, nor that our human nature is more influenced by our fallenness than by our created image of God inheritance. The “depravity” (“corruption,” in the sense of “not pure” or “infected”) intended by the term is not “total” in the sense of overpowering our nature as bearers of God’s image. It is “total” in the sense of all-pervasive—touching, even if only slightly, every aspect of our human nature.
[ 26. January 2018, 13:43: Message edited by: Nick Tamen ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Kwesi: Niebuhr wasn’t Lutheran — I believe he was in what is now the UCC — and I haven’t read that particular book; but I have read the work of Lutheran ethicists. Their ideas do not, unfortunately, often trickle down to the average person in the pew. But, that aside — I think you are overstating Stoicism’s optimism about the human condition. That’s not a agood nsecI glean in my admittedly rather superficial reading of Stoic thinkers.
There’s also the problem of turning what can easily be seen as a natural design flaw in our species — and, as such, something that could be discussed in a fairly dispassionate way with non- Christians and disaffected Christians — into the usual baggage-loaded discussion of “ sin.” To me the tragedy of the human condition is all about the tension involved between our amazing — yet not omniscient — cognitive power and the impulses of our primitive, “lizard “ brains. Why do we do things we know are bad, to ourselves and others? Why do we do bad things for good reasons, or bad things for the right reasons? Why do we not act when we should? Why do we often feel frustration, even despair, at these moments? All questions whose answers can be seen in physiological terms, without the Garden of Eden story.
Is there any way to solve our essential limitations? No. Is it possible to try and moderate our lizard inclinations so that we minimize our hurting ourselves and others? Yes. Well, we don’t always succeed, so should we just stop trying? No. Most people don’t have the internal fortitude to make this process a mindful lifestyle, so should we just stop trying? No.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
There’s also the problem of turning what can easily be seen as a natural design flaw in our species — and, as such, something that could be discussed in a fairly dispassionate way with non- Christians and disaffected Christians — into the usual baggage-loaded discussion of “ sin.” To me the tragedy of the human condition is all about the tension involved between our amazing — yet not omniscient — cognitive power and the impulses of our primitive, “lizard “ brains. Why do we do things we know are bad, to ourselves and others? Why do we do bad things for good reasons, or bad things for the right reasons? Why do we not act when we should? Why do we often feel frustration, even despair, at these moments? All questions whose answers can be seen in physiological terms, without the Garden of Eden story.
Is there any way to solve our essential limitations? No. Is it possible to try and moderate our lizard inclinations so that we minimize our hurting ourselves and others? Yes. Well, we don’t always succeed, so should we just stop trying? No. Most people don’t have the internal fortitude to make this process a mindful lifestyle, so should we just stop trying? No.
This. Not only is the concept of sin unnecessary to deal with this, it can be counter-productive.
The idea that one is conquering sin puts behaviour as completely cognitive choice instead of the reactive one it often is. And it oversimplifies even the cognitive bits.
Sin as doing bad things? No problem. Sin as causing bad things? Problem.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, the notion of sin strikes me as getting in the way, and often counter-productive, as lilBuddha says. Obviously, this is not so for Christians, who use the term a lot, but in therapy, most of which is secular, it is definitely a no no.
If someone is struggling with their own tendency to do harm, or some other wrong, the introduction of the notion of sin is going to make things worse. It's interesting to speculate as to why this is, but for one thing, it over-complicates. For another, it will put people's backs up. But I must think more about it, since therapy can be seen as a kind of secularization of confession and forgiveness.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Nick Tamen
I understand that Total Depravity actually means all-pervading depravity i.e that there is impact of fallenness on our thoughts, words and deeds. I also understand that Calvin is more nuanced and complex than the TULIP proponents would wish, on this topic and many others.
But that being said, I have a feeling that all but obliterated, or something like it, is pretty much Calvin language.
My thesis, which is by no means original in mainstream theology, is that Augustine and Calvin resolved the tension between image of God and fallenness by emphasising fallenness. And this can and does give rise to an over-pessimistic view of human nature.
I am very much on LutheranChik's side in this thread. Her last post is worthy of profound reflection.
[ 26. January 2018, 18:32: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks Barnabas. I agree it can lead to an overly-pessimistic view of human nature, though I also think that, kept in proper perspective, it does have to and shouldn’t.
And while I’m in a pondering mode rather than a taking-sides mode right now, I agree that there is much in LutheranChik’s post worthy of reflection. The same can be said of some other posts as well.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sorry Nick that text autocorrect messed up your name. I put that right.
I was right about all but obliterated being Calvin like language. It can be found in Book 3 Chapter 3 para 9 of the Institutes. And Chapter 3 is worth reading in its entirety.
Link
[ 26. January 2018, 18:57: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Thanks Barnabas. It’s been a while on that part of the Institutes—I’ll take a look. Admittedly, Calvin can come across a bit over the top sometimes. There’s a reason why as a group we call ourselves Reformed rather than Calvinist.
/tangent
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
LutheranChik wrote:
quote:
There’s also the problem of turning what can easily be seen as a natural design flaw in our species — and, as such, something that could be discussed in a fairly dispassionate way with non- Christians and disaffected Christians — into the usual baggage-loaded discussion of “ sin.” To me the tragedy of the human condition is all about the tension involved between our amazing — yet not omniscient — cognitive power and the impulses of our primitive, “lizard “ brains. Why do we do things we know are bad, to ourselves and others? Why do we do bad things for good reasons, or bad things for the right reasons? Why do we not act when we should? Why do we often feel frustration, even despair, at these moments? All questions whose answers can be seen in physiological terms, without the Garden of Eden story.
Well, I think your OP and other posts are excellent. I'm not sure why our complicated nature is tragic really. I think you have suggested that we are primates, and of course, primate behaviour seems to vary from the cooperative to the destructive (and murderous).
This doesn't seem all that mysterious, does it? I suppose its tragic nature depends on your viewpoint.
One thing that your OP points to is that secular philosophies tend to get rid of the notion of sin, which, from my point of view, can only be beneficial. In this sense, I suppose morality has been secularized in the last two centuries.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Coming in a bit late for the discussion about the "benefit" of doing the Right Thing:
Aymen Derbali did the Right Thing in distracting the shooter for a few seconds while other people escaped. His Reward? Permanent paralysis and a difficult future for his family.
But he says he would do exactly the same in any case, because it was for the good of others. He does not hide behind his religion, or glory in it.
He just lives his philosophy.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I thought that the whole notion of sin is now a big barrier for many people. It smacks of guilt, superplus, and many people are already guilty enough, and then they have to consider that they have annoyed the big cheese. How many layers of guilt do we need? At the same time, I know that some people positively enjoy feeling bad, and hoping to be punished, so there you are, satisfaction guaranteed.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I agree. I find the Eastern emphasis on the idea of sin as disease very helpful and a welcome counter-balance.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Speaking of tragedies, to me the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms is one of the great mistakes of Christendom. It ‘s a very Roman ( in the cultural sense) mindset.
I agree. I find the Eastern emphasis on the idea of sin as disease very helpful and a welcome counter-balance.
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
I think it’s better because I think it more accurately reflects the human condition. How does it ignore how our minds work? As for "magical cure," I'm not sure how think that's still emphasized (or even quite what you mean by it still being emphasized), but the assertion strikes me as dismissive at best.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Encouraging folks to take personal responsibility for their own thoughts words and deeds has always struck me as a positive thing. Sometimes the concept of sin, missing the mark, can be very helpful. However, the 'burn in Hell' approach basically encourages fear, self-interest or disbelief. The notion of moral imperatives doesn't do that. The challenge to behave better is often an appeal to our better nature, or our sense of fairness.
I think grace comes in when we come to terms with the fact that we break our own rules, through forgetfulness, or wilfulness, or even through deliberate calculation. What's the point of any moral code if you sling when it gets in the way of your own perceived self interest.
Such challenges do not foster guilt but they may cause us to take a long hard look at ourselves.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
Agreed, Barnabas.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
A couple of times in this thread it was written: 'If Christianity is true'. To which I ask, what ever do you mean? It's easy to say the creeds or belief in being forgiven for sins, eternal life, born again and the like. That's for the True Believers I guess. What about the tentative and never-to-be-certain? Those who like the aesthetic of the story, find the miraculous difficult to swallow, but live in the comfort of possibility of something better than the difficult exploitive world they see, remote from salvation from death and damnation because they experience damnation already. Longing for the long sleep of death, the fade to black.
To be a little more crisp: can you imagine Christianity without any personal eternity. That your life is all you get, and at its end is annihilation of you, your personality - you're done - and the living eternally is only through your children and those you've passed on friendship with. Could there be Christianity then? Goodness then? Following the example of Jesus even if there's no heaven for you, nor hell, nor anything?
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Seriously? You can look at human history and think there is any major difference other than scale? Our ability to readjust what we consider us is greater, but then so is our ability to fuck over them. We have so much more potential, which makes our failures even greater.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
How is this better? It still ignores how our minds work and still places emphasis on a magical cure and/or will. I’m not saying a spiritual focus is useless, BTW, just that it isn’t enough.
I think it’s better because I think it more accurately reflects the human condition. How does it ignore how our minds work?
Because a lot of why people "sin" is due to how our brains work. Without dealing with that, it is unlikely the basic issue will change.
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition"
"Pray as if everything depends on God, work as if it all depends on you"
Those are two phrases that, IMO, are the right blend of religion and practicality.
quote:
As for "magical cure," I'm not sure how think that's still emphasized (or even quite what you mean by it still being emphasized),
You never watch the telly or interact with the more conservative of your brethren? Actually, that is not fair, I've seen it in the more liberal as well. And it isn't a Christian phenomenon, it is a human one. If you give people a simple solution, they will take it. Without evaluation or evidence of efficacy.
quote:
but the assertion strikes me as dismissive at best.
I suppose it might be. From my observation, merely praying to God and wanting to end a behaviour rarely achieves that goal. One needs to work at changing that behaviour. Some Christians do this. Some do not. But the concept of sin as disease or evil does not inherently address the psychological and physiological realities.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But the concept of sin as disease or evil does not inherently address the psychological and physiological realities.
I didn’t say it does. I said I find the Eastern Orthodox idea of sin as disease to be a welcome and helpful counter-balance to what LutheranChik called "the excessive fondness for framing sin in penal terms."
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Seriously? You can look at human history and think there is any major difference other than scale?
Chimps and gorillas will kill every member of a rival family they can get their hands on (if they don't get killed first, of course). They have no concept of diplomacy, alliances or peaceful coexistence. So yes, I'd say we're doing better than them.
quote:
Our ability to readjust what we consider us is greater, but then so is our ability to fuck over them.
I'm not so sure. Killing is killing whether it's done with teeth and claws or guided missiles.
quote:
We have so much more potential, which makes our failures even greater.
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
As a background, though, we are a social species of animal, and they tend to treat each other OK, as well as sometimes, not OK. I would imagine that early hominids were like this, and maybe things have gone downhill, not sure about that. Historical generalizations make my teeth ache.
I'd say that if anything we treat each other far better than most other primates. It's all very well watching a chimp or gorilla family living together in peace and harmony and wondering why humans can't do that, but doing so ignores what happens when those chimp/gorilla families come into contact with other chimp/gorilla families.
Well, it's probably correct that primate species vary in their degree of aggression and destructiveness, and also cooperation. But this seems to miss my original point - that the notion of sin gives a supernatural gloss to human wrong-doing. Well, OK, if that's your thing, carry on. But my point is that human virtue and vice don't seem particularly unnatural, that is, outside the parameters of other species. Think of the invertebrates that eat their mate. I don't think supernaturalism is required as an explanation of human benevolence or malevolence.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
Then bonobos have the highest marks of any primate, higher than humans
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I'm OK with the concept of sin, provided is used to label, or even explain the darker side one's own human nature.
Having said that if someone with a robe on starts wagging their finger at me with Sin this and sin that I become a lot less OK with it.
I would agree it does seem that people these days are, in many ways, generally nicer and kinder to each other. This isn’t to say secularism has been universally more successful in banishing dark deeds over and above the endeavours of Christian doctrine. It has though so far proved that there must be a natural element which helps people get on with eachother
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
To the OP: Seems to me that (some versions of) Christianity took a wrong turn when they decided salvation was simply a matter of faith alone.
There is, in philosophy, doing (ethics), knowing (epistemology), and being (ontology). They all form essential parts of the human condition, and the idea that a just God might disregard any of them in the sole preference of another of them strikes me as unlikely.
Truth is, they all feedback on each other. What we believe affects what we do, and what we do affects the way we are. And other similar relationships, also. But if I were to choose the most telling of these considerations, it would be the way we are, our ontological, spiritual status, rather than what we believe.
By all means, pursue virtue for virtue's sake, rather than any hope of salvation or fear of damnation. But also remember that we need justify virtue in it's wider context, or we cannot know it is virtue.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Interesting. Ontology was of great importance in Patristic thought and continues in Orthodox Christianity today.
I'm pretty dumb about Orthodox ontology re being human but I have a vague memory of three stages. Being (existence) well-being, eternal being. I think image of God is in there, however obscured, well-being arises out of some cleansing of the obscuring of the image of God, and eternal being is the destiny. The word theosis comes in somewhere.
That might be all toffee; is an Orthodox Christian kibbitzing?
[ 29. January 2018, 18:44: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Interesting. Ontology was of great importance in Patristic thought and continues in Orthodox Christianity today.
I'm pretty dumb about Orthodox ontology re being human...
Me too. I await enlightenment from the forum.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I'll PM mousethief, to see if he's interested. Haven't been able to find a good link.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I remembered that my half-remembered stuff came from Maximos the Confessor.
Here's a link
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
Thanks for that. There is much I find, in that link, to agree with.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I am quite innocent of the teachings of Maximos the Confessor. Nor do I know anything about "Orthodox ontology." Indeed the phrase is weird to me --
"ontology" means one's tally of what exists, or what it means to exist, or the study of what entities do or do not exist. But this is coming at it as an analytical philosopher (my training) rather than as an Orthodox theologian (my faith tradition).
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
Yes, that is how I understand the term ontology, as well. I am really focused here on 'what it means to exist'. Part of what it means to be human is to have a character, a way of being. That character can be built by practicing virtue and eroded by practicing vice. Thus, we are rewarded and punished for our virtues and vices directly and automatically. By 'spiritual stature' I simply mean the quality of character as so affected at any given point in time.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
I found this link.
The paragraph beginning 'From the earliest ..' contains a neat summary including the importance of the word 'being' in Orthodox thought.
Worth adding that I am not Orthodox, but I've found Orthodox thought quite clarifying in helping me to understand church history, the foundation and development of central doctrines.
The whole article is fascinating also in its linking of being and morality. A good read, I just found.
[ 30. January 2018, 08:47: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I found this link.
...
The whole article is fascinating also in its linking of being and morality. A good read, I just found.
Indeed. Though I would take issue with the idea of morality being simply a matter of obeying or disobeying rules and laws. Seems to me that the ethical involves more traction on reality than that. But the general line of argument in the link is promising.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
With thanks to Isaac Asimov, I have this nice paradox to help me. 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.'
What I found interesting in the article is the need to see morality in terms of the journey from being to well-being to eternal being. What that says to me is there is a real value in being open to what our experiences teach us about our present moral understanding. There is a dynamic there which I relate to very strongly.
This is one of the reasons why I am very grateful for this thread. Being prepared to look further, both without and within, for our guidance to doing what is right seems a natural part of a journey towards well-being. If our historic sense of morals is challenged by our present choices, that seems a significant part of the journey. One needs to avoid self-deception in this, but honest wrestling seems a really good thing.
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
With thanks to Isaac Asimov, I have this nice paradox to help me. 'Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.'
I like that.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
What I found interesting in the article is the need to see morality in terms of the journey from being to well-being to eternal being. What that says to me is there is a real value in being open to what our experiences teach us about our present moral understanding. There is a dynamic there which I relate to very strongly.
I can't speak for 'eternal being', never having experienced that. But, having been selfish and a coward, and having been somewhat less selfish and somewhat less cowardly, I can speak for well-being. I would tend to sympathise with the virtue ethicists, here, in that for a human to flourish in this life, virtue is necessary. If one wishes to extrapolate from that to the afterlife, well, that might not be an unreasonable projection.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Our failures are the same as any other creature, but the fact that's we're largely peaceful and willing to live alongside one another rather than constantly waging war against our neighbours counts as a definite plus mark for our species.
Then bonobos have the highest marks of any primate, higher than humans
Good for them.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
@ 2RM
None of us who are alive have! Eternal being is the final state of being. The complete restoration of the image of God. Being taken up into God so He will be 'all in all'.
What we get are glimpses on our way to well-being.
Not sure how much this relates to Orthodox understanding, but it has always impressed me that mathetes, the Greek for disciple, contains the twin notions of learning and following. Again a journey thing. There is value to be found in both questioning and obedience. Learning embraces both. So does following.
[ 30. January 2018, 15:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Not sure how much this relates to Orthodox understanding, but it has always impressed me that mathetes, the Greek for disciple, contains the twin notions of learning and following. Again a journey thing. There is value to be found in both questioning and obedience. Learning embraces both. So does following.
I am sure that's right. But some of us are sheep by nature, and others goats. I have no time for a theory of heaven that excludes goats, for no other reason than that they are goats. Indeed, I think scripture does goats a severe injustice, and sheep, perhaps, are unworthy of the glory they are promised.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Sounds Calvinist. Some created for salvation, some for destruction? Limited atonement? I don't believe that.
The Orthodox view is we are made in the image of God. That may be obscured but it is not effaced and cannot be lost. The journey is from being to well-being, or from being to corruption. Another way of looking at that is we become more sheepy or more goaty, but live with both aspects in our journey.
Who judges sheepiness or goatiness in the end? One thing is for sure. We don't.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And some Orthodoxen believe that even Satan will ultimately be redeemed.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Probably worth adding answers to the sheep/goats metaphor. Sheep are characterised by unselfish loving service to the suffering and disadvantaged. Goats are characterised by indifference to the suffering and disadvantaged.
Which of us can claim to be a fully fledged sheep? Or to be completely free from the characteristic indifference of goats?
If we're honest, we'll put our hands up to somewhere in between.
The move from being to well-being is a process. Becoming more Christ-like. We get somewhere down the road but don't complete the journey. And some people without any formal connection to the Christian faith can be very Christ-like in their loving unselfishness towards the poor and disadvantaged.
If we are wise, we leave any eternal judgment on these matters to the eternal judge. Meanwhile, getting on which such good stuff as comes to hand. And dumping any notions of making comparative judgments of others. Just not our job.
[ 31. January 2018, 10:50: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
Barnabus62: Eternal being is the final state of being. The complete restoration of the image of God.
I guess we are all struggling to get a handle on human nature. Personally, I’m attracted to the notion of “original sin” though not in there having been a pre-existing state of grace as traditionally understood. That is why I’m uncomfortable with the notion of “complete restoration in the image of God,” as suggested by Barnabus62’s quotation, because we are the product of our genetic inheritance in the evolutionary process. Sin to my mind is a combination of consciousness, self-awareness and fear of death, which is hard-wired into our make-up. Without these elements concepts such as right and wrong actions are meaningless and creatures in such a state live in innocence, even when ‘red in tooth an claw’, which, I would suggest, is why infants are born without sin and those who have lost their minds cannot commit sin. I would also suggest that a belief in morality and/or God, true or not, is essential for the survival of the species, because without such notions humanity would degenerate into constant conflict.
What do we mean when we say that humans are created in the “image of God” because ISTM mortality is a significant difference between us and an eternal being? What are we to understand by God seeing the emergence of humans as “good,” any more than the creation of anything else? Does it refer to an empirically observed moral state? Or what? Human beings may, like God, be able to distinguish between good and evil, but unlike him sometimes choose one and not the other. Furthermore, in creating humans did God create evil or its possibility? Over to you, shipmates!
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Probably worth adding answers to the sheep/goats metaphor. Sheep are characterised by unselfish loving service to the suffering and disadvantaged. Goats are characterised by indifference to the suffering and disadvantaged.
Actually, that's not how I read the sheep/goat metaphor.
Seems to me sheep are obedient and bunch together in herds, and are reluctant to take responsibility for themselves or anyone else. Just what you want of the laity if you are top of the hierarchy of some organised religion.
Goats are less biddable. They make up their own minds, and choose their own paths, and, should they come across authority, flick a v-sign at it. Just what you don't want in the laity, if you are top of the hierarchy of some organised religion.
It may be that meek sheep will inherit the earth. But it will be the goats of the world, demolishing the presumptions of the powerful, that will earn them that inheritance.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Kwesi wrote:
quote:
Sin to my mind is a combination of consciousness, self-awareness and fear of death, which is hard-wired into our make-up. Without these elements concepts such as right and wrong actions are meaningless and creatures in such a state live in innocence, even when ‘red in tooth an claw’, which, I would suggest, is why infants are born without sin and those who have lost their minds cannot commit sin. I would also suggest that a belief in morality and/or God, true or not, is essential for the survival of the species, because without such notions humanity would degenerate into constant conflict.
This is very good; the stuff about consciousness reminds me of Jung, who argued at length that Adam and Eve is a story about the birth of consciousness and loss of innocence. See Jung's famous statement, 'consciousnness is a crime against nature'.
I still don't get the notion of sin really, as it relies on some kind of supernatural foundation, which the OP seems to be trying to avoid. Well, I keep saying, working as a therapist, the one word you have to avoid is sin. Most of your clients would walk out.
I don't see morality as all that mysterious, if you look at proto-morality in animals; things like cooperation seem to be wired in.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
SecondRateMind
I was referencing this scripture
It is fascinating to see that the separation is of people like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. So the text makes it clear that sheep and goats are simply an analogy.
The rest of the text makes it clear what the reasons for the separation are, and it points to active response to need compared with indifference to need. So in this context 'sheepness' corresponds to active response and 'goatness' to indifference.
So the reasons for separation seem to have little to do with the natural characteristics of sheep as animals. The thing is that when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep and himself as the good shepherd, what he is referencing is the obedience of the sheep to the shepherd, not the natural herd behaviour of sheep. Indeed, elsewhere he points to the helplessness of sheep without a shepherd as an analogy for people.
Posted by SecondRateMind (# 18898) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
SecondRateMind
I was referencing this scripture
It is fascinating to see that the separation is of people like a shepherd separates sheep and goats. So the text makes it clear that sheep and goats are simply an analogy.
Indeed so.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
The rest of the text makes it clear what the reasons for the separation are, and it points to active response to need compared with indifference to need. So in this context 'sheepness' corresponds to active response and 'goatness' to indifference.
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
So the reasons for separation seem to have little to do with the natural characteristics of sheep as animals. The thing is that when Jesus refers to his followers as sheep and himself as the good shepherd, what he is referencing is the obedience of the sheep to the shepherd, not the natural herd behaviour of sheep. Indeed, elsewhere he points to the helplessness of sheep without a shepherd as an analogy for people.
Maybe, maybe not. Would you contend that the sheep is saved by its works? By succouring the poor, healing the sick, visiting prisoners in gaol, etc? Is works alone what qualifies us for heaven?
It seems to me that this scripture, however analogous, depends for it's effectiveness on the differences in nature of sheep and goats. Their character, their way of being, rather than just their doing or believing.
The one flocks, and wants for leadership. The other pursues a more individual direction, and leads itself, according to its own priorities, ethics and beliefs. They may coincide with those of the sheep; they may not. But who is to say that being a sheep is more representative of God's intention for us, than being a goat? Presumably, having given us free-will, God intended for us to use it, and not have others dictate to us what is 'good', by which the powerful so often mean, what is 'good' for them.
Best wishes, 2RM.
[ 31. January 2018, 14:28: Message edited by: SecondRateMind ]
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Well, there is a whole range of well known topics there, SecondRateMind.
In the context of this thread, what I think we were looking at was guides to good behaviour as a good thing in itself, not the relationship between good behaviour and salvation.
Are good works a consequence of salvation or a means of salvation. I think the scriptural answer is probably yes! What Jesus says is not the same as what Paul says. And James says faith without works is dead. I'm inclined to think there is a dynamic relationship between faith and works.
I'll think about the possibility of a new thread. Possibly in Kerygmania rather than Purgatory. They might even have one already. Give me a little while to look.
[ 31. January 2018, 15:02: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Kwesi (# 10274) on
:
quote:
quetzalcoatl : I still don't get the notion of sin really, as it relies on some kind of supernatural foundation, which the OP seems to be trying to avoid.
I've no problem with that. I'm happy to see sin as bad moral behaviour (as I usually do). As a John 3:17 (sic) man, I see God's concern with bad behaviour not as an affront to himself that needs to be satisfied, but as one who has great concern for the consequences of it for both perpetrators and victims.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
SecondRateMind
We'll, that didn't take long. I've reactivated a dormant thread in Purgatory which seems to be a good thread for continuing this sheep and goats tangent.
Here's a link to the thread.
Suggest you review contents then resume your interest by posting there.
That's respectful of the rather different purpose of this thread.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Of course it's an analogy. Nobody thinks he's talking about livestock. We realize he's talking about people.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Simple category error, mousethief.
In the general context of this thread, I've been wondering about what causes inhibitions over considering other ideas. There seems to be some kind of 'touch pitch and be defiled' taboo.
I'm not sure I understand where this came from. I see the reality of an Index Expurgatorious. But I guess my education and further education taught me how to think critically, be prepared to compare sources, look for unwarranted assumptions.
I'm in favour of using education to help people develop their own anti-BS armour as a first priority. It seems to me to be the corollary of a free society that folks are helped to spot the snake oil merchants.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Bring that whole thought stream back to sheep and goats for me. I'm not seeing the connection.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Neither am I. The natural characteristics of sheep and goats have nothing to do with the principles for separation of the people.
But the idea seems to die hard.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
Neither am I. The natural characteristics of sheep and goats have nothing to do with the principles for separation of the people.
But the idea seems to die hard.
Because people will take the simplest route to bolster their conclusions, rather than do the actual maths.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Because people will take the simplest route to bolster their conclusions, rather than do the actual maths.
Ain't that the truth.
One of my favourite Edward de Bono bits of lateral thinking goes like this.
Q. Why do people think?
A. In order to stop thinking.
de Bono explained that by pointing out the attraction of ready-made solutions (already in the mind) compared with working things through from first principles. Thinking kicks in when you're looking for an asnwer to something of immediate impact, or something that bothers you. Finding an "off the peg" solution (a platitude, a well worn thought path) restores short term peace of mind quicker than working things out.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0