Fundie Confuses Belief Relativism with Moral Relativism

It appears that yesterday's blog on religious absolutism confused a fundagelical blogger to no end, since he ended up writing a veritable mini-dissertation on "moral relativism" when the issue was generic belief and whether an absolutist stance was justifiable. In other words, that a given human could cordon off his beliefs as being invested in absolute truth to the exclusion of all other contesting claims.

As I showed in the blog, this isn't possible since a specific brain region, the OAA (orientation association area) determines the belief system in each of us, to the extent that the brain ultimately plays the major role. Since each human brain is different, and the OAA will vary in cognitive function from brain to brain (Neuro-scientist Andrew Newberg distinguishes causality cognitive functions, from reductive and holistic cognitive functions, for example) then the beliefs we choose will reflect that biological brain disposition. Thus, an atheist, for example, will manifest a very high reductive cognitive function, in addition to very low dopamine levels, according to Newberg. A Fundie will typically display a very high causality cognitive function, overlaid by primitive fears issuing from the amygdala. Hence, he will make a causal link between that fear and the "God" he believes in.

Because many of these propensities are also experience-based, it means that beliefs are themselves relative. They can't be absolutely determined because the brain is not an absolute entity, or organ, say with infinite neural capacity. Indeed, even it's basic neural processing is defective.  To be specific, the brain forms some construct [C] which is derived from an original event [E] : {a, b, c, d, e} where the bracketed set denotes component subsets with likely differing time intervals t1, t2, t3, t4, and t5. Thus, the brain processing for outer events is always via the template:


[E] -> [C]


And [C] => {a(t1 +t), b(t2 + t), c(t3 + t), d(t4 + t), e(t5 + t)}

Where, say t = 1 sec, the consciousness ‘delay’ interval. This means that all our experiences, apperceptions are second hand only, not direct. There is inevitably a tiny time delay wherein we fabricate our subjective realities, including our beliefs. The particular bias of the OAA determines what these beliefs will ultimately be. They do not emerge already formed, constant or absolute, and hence must be relative only. However, this is not the same as MORAL relativism. Nor is the claim for belief relativism to be conflated with arguing for moral relativism.

To make this clearer still, the previous blog focused on religious systems. What is the central object for belief in all religious systems? It is none other than "God". But writing or saying the word is easier than defining it, hence the implicit relativism of belief. Because no two humans of different belief systems can concur on what the word means, then the quest is open ended. Citing Bible quotes to locate the identity or nature of "God" is also no use, since those ancient scripture writers were merely providing their own interpretations. Thus, it amounts to simply parroting of ancient constructs.

This is what led author James Byrne in his book, ‘GOD’, to write: 

"The idea of God as Being is the creation of the philosophical gaze, a result of the drive to objectification which is the hallmark of the history of metaphysics. It is the `God' which is argued about in theism and atheism, and which can only be a projection of humans"


In other words, a relative construct. Byrne thus endorses French philosopher Jean-Luc Marion’s ploy of only writing ‘God’ with a strikethrough, e.g. GOD. Thereby to indicate no one has the capacity to describe, grasp, conceptualize or manipulate the underlying entity. In effect, as Byrne observes “to think GOD as unthinkable is to reject the idolatry of the God of onto-theology.”


If then the entity is so de-conceptualized, it can’t be debated. (Or perhaps more accurately, such a debate will always prove fruitless or futile since incomplete definitions and contradictions will always emerge – one reason why giving necessary and sufficient conditions for existence may be preferable).   But this simply brings us back full circle to the arguments made in the previous blog: that it is the OAA that directs specific belief toward the imaged object of belief ("God"), hence rendering all such brain-engendered objects RELATIVE. This was clearly too subtle a point for the Inquisition's torturers to grasp, nor would they have been the least bit interested.  No, they'd have just set to work ripping out intestines, genitals or tongues....only concerned that THEIR "God" had been rejected by witch, unbeliever or heretic!  Recall the quote I provided in highlighted ink at the end of the last blog. Referencing it,  the authors (Newberg and D’Aquili) go on to say (p. 163):

“The God Armstrong describes is the God of witch hunts, Inquisitions, Holy Wars, fundamentalist intolerances, and countless other forms of religious persecution- all carried out with the confident presumption of divine endorsement. The authority to commit such atrocities is rooted in the assumption, made by believers – that their God is the only God and their religion is the single, exclusive path to truth. As God’s chosen people they believe they have the right to oppose the ‘enemies’ of God….”

The error is made because these ardent believers fail to see the "God" they are so diligently worshipping is a product of their OAA brain propensities!

  In the same way, the point seems too subtle for our fundie blogger to grasp, since he launches into a long jeremiad against moral relativism and for moral absolutism.  But let's pursue that line of argument, noting first that the issue of moral philosophy and dialectic is subsidiary one to the central object of belief, for the analogous reason that one's moral position is subsidary to one's version of "God". In other words, it is generally one's adopted "God"  which determines one's moral position, level of moral authority, etc.  If one's "God" construct issuing from one's OAA is punitive, then so also will be one's morality.


So what about moral absolutism? Can it be defended as the fundie claims it can?  There is perhaps no better place to start than from the Fundie's own "good Book" which he literally believes, and obviously - if he does so- it is logical to expect he will adopt its absolutist morality literally as well. If he doesn't, then we can argue he doesn't know what he really believes, and we can call his central object of belief ("God") into question as well!

Consider these examples:

2 Kings 2, 23:24  (Concerning Elisha siccing "God's She Bears'" on little children) "And he went up from then unto Beth-el: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him and said unto him: 'Go up, thou bald head, go up , thou bald head'. And he turned back and looked at them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she-bears out of the wood, and teared up forty and two children of them"

You can find a satirical re-enactment of the Kings reference here:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/12/bible_story_reenactments.php


Also, consider:

Deut. 21: 18-21: "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and - though they chastise him he will not give heed to them, then his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the  place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of the city,'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones, so you shall purge the evil from your midst"

So, by the fundie's own absolutist morality, the first example would mean that any kid or kids that diss a religious elder, disrespects him, ought to be taken to the nearest wild animal lair (zoo?) and thrown to the grizzlies or whatever. The Fundie can argue all he wants that we "can't do that today", but if he does he contradicts his own edicts of biblical moral absolutism! Is the Bible then correct to present this, or was it wrong? Well, for sure any modern day religious moral absolutist emulators would be locked up with the key tossed away today, or maybe given a lethal injection! (Say for getting a pet grizzly and sending him after some kids who were calling him “baldy”.)

The next biblical , moral absolutist example from Deuteronomy, gives moral license for parents who get sass - say from a teen - to drag him to the edge of town and let the "elders" stone him to death. Say what? Can't do that in modern times, 'cause the cops will get you? Sorry, Bubba, then you punted! You have no absolutist morality if you're not willing to faithfully follow your own good Book!

Of course, this shows that the whole principle of moral absolutism is poppycock, because when presented by its most dogmatic form the believers themselves punt. They talk a good talk but refuse to walk the walk!  The danger of moral absolutism is also what led Jacob Bronowski to remark, when he visited the remains of the gas chambers and ovens at Auschwitz during the filming of the BBC's 'Ascent of Man':

"This was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave."

In other words, neither the Nazis dispatching 6 million Jews to the ovens, nor the Inquisitioners who disembowelled 1 million heretics, witches and 'unbelievers', paused for a moment to think they might not possess absolute moral knowledge. Oh no, they were sure they had, so they could exterminate those they believed inferior (because of their differing beliefs) any way they wished.

Nor can we allow cultural moral relativists to have their way. Just because wives who stray are permitted to be severely beaten (and sometimes killed) in Brazil doesn't mean we allow it in the U.S. Hence, neither moral relativism or absolutism is the answer vis-a-vis morality.  On the contrary , if our moral insight has actually evolved, and emanates from biological markers and other (community) links (see e.g.  http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/01/jen-ratio-and-goodness-maybe-we-should.html ) then a truly balanced moral viewpoint is possible, when forged in tandem with the brain's prefrontal cortex.

Author Michael Shermer has coined the term, "moral provisionalism" or what I call "ethical incrementalism". As Shermer notes ('The Science of Good and Evil' p. 168):


"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"


Let's look at a few illustrations:


1) Abortion:

According to ethical incrementalism abortion cannot be ethical in ALL circumstances for all conditions. Thus, since  fetal brain waves appear past 6 months, NO abortions should normally be allowed in the third trimester. The only (provisional) exceptions would be: a) the health of the mother (e.g. if she were to have the child she'd die), or b) case of incest or rape - wherein having the child would create extreme mental trauma for the victim. (By that I mean possible psychosis or severe depression, including attempted suicide).

2) War:

In the judicious application of ethical incrementalism, NO war would be permitted in the U.S.A. unless an actual DECLARATION of WAR by congress is made. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights, and impart moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures...finagled outside the parameters of congressional validation.


3) Teen sexual behavior:
In the domain of ethical incrementalism, teens are warned that actual intercourse outside of a stable permanent relationship is ethically, morally toxic. As a midway position, however, teens are allowed - as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elder suggested- to obtain sexual relief via self-stimulation. This balance would immediately stop the increasing rates of teen pregnancy, though likely not without the benefit of a good sex ed. course, which must also include removing the stigma attached (by teen culture) to masturbation.

These are just a few examples, and many more might be cited or found. The point is that there is a middle way, and ethically conscientious humans ought to seek to pursue it - as opposed to pretensions to either a facile absolutism or equally facile relativism. The problem black and white, binary thinking-believing fundies have is they are hoist on their own absolutist petards. If they disavow the applications of the moral dictates in 2 Kings 2, 23:24 or Deut. 21: 18-21 then they are hypocrites, pure and simple - preaching one thing on their blogs, and practicing another in real life!

In any case, in the future - if they are truly serious - they need to address the matter of BELIEF relativism as a function of the human brain and the OAA region. If that's too much for them to handle.....well, then it's best they just admit the "God" they worship is more a cartoon than a reality!

 

Pope Benedict On the Moral Warpath again

Pope Benedict XV appears to be on the moral warpath once more, which is surprising given that his handling of the priest pedophile crisis essentially provided cover for some of the worst reprobates since the Borgias. Anyway, in a message for World Peace Day on January 1, Pope Benedict said that "neither peace nor justice was obtainable if the objective norms of morality expressed in the Ten Commandments continue to be rejected."

He words represented yet another severe criticism of moral relativism, "the humanistic creed that holds there can be no objective standard on which to base morality". In his New Year's Day message, the Pontiff warned all societies on the planet that justice and peace will remain "words without content" unless they are informed instead by the natural moral law, the key precepts of which are expressed in the Ten Commandments.

All of this bears close scrutiny. Let's leave out for the time being the fact that Benedict assisted- via the 'hide 'em in the paperwork' gambit - assorted parishes in the U.S. as they ferried pedophile priests from place to place (parish to parish, Diocese to Diocese) and essentially sheltering them from formal legal sanctions. Which obviously interjects the question of whether he is qualified to even pronounce on moral laws, far less "moral relativism". He was also responsible for instigating aggressive legal tactics against many of the accusers, causing many to back down- and saving the Church face. He also has instigated the rush to "sainthood" for another coverup artist, the late Pope John Paul II - who, like his successor- often railed against "relativism" and extolled natural law philosophy.

Let's dispense with the Pope's appeals to "natural moral law" or "natural law" first. This is basically an antiquated relic of Catholic teaching that never seems to go away. The central problem is that it's inherently contradictory and inchoate. For example, 200 years ago invocations of "natural law" enabled the Church's moral architects to justify slavery since: "some men needed others to guide and direct them" (see e.g., Julian Pleasants in Contraception & Holiness: The Catholic Predicament, 1964, p. 88).

Later, the Church - eyeing assorted sexual acts- used natural law to declare artificial contraception equivalent to "mutual masturbation" and hence meriting eternal "hellfire." Never mind that they basicially placed one such act (engaged in by two loving people) — in terms of its ultimate sanction — on the same level as the vile acts of a mass murdering cannibal-rapist like Jeffrey Dahmer. Of course, this renders the whole moral foundation inchoate and absurd. You simply can't weigh the vicious acts of a Jeffrey Dahmer and a loving couple using contraception on the same scales of eternal justice, no matter how brainwashed or stupid you are.

Let's also bear in mind that even as the late Pope John Paul II condemned artificial birth control, he also insisted that artificial heart transplants were "natural and acceptable". Of course, this then blows all uniform concepts of natural law into a cocked hat. Surely then, if death is the natural end for someone with severe heart disease, then replacing his natural heart with an artificial one is "frustrating the natural outcome" - which is the same argument he used to condemn artificial contraception (i.e. it "frustrates the natural outcome of the sexual act which is reproduction").

Except that in nearly 22 of 1000 cases nature herself spontaneously aborts fetuses. Did he then hold Mother Nature herself responsible for "unnatural acts" and "crimes against humanity" ? Of course not.

Thus, natural law is an archaic artifact governed by a rigid Aristotelian logic, which tends to fix human behaviors within limited definitions and categories. Indeed at one time the Church issued several "magisteria" (later withdrawn) that the "natural place for women" was in the home, and having babies, tending to them and housework etc. (Ibid.)

Now, let's look at the Pope's "Ten Commandments" as the putative basis for any binding moral law. For example, the biblical literalist may insist the 5th commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill" is absolute. But clearly in practice this is impossible.

Accepted violation (1): An intruder enters a home with a weapon and is about to threaten or kill one's wife and children. The home owner, however, has his .44 Magnum nearby the bedstand. Under any absolutist dictum there is no way any killing can be permitted. The most the homeowner is allowed is maybe to shoot the intruder in the knee and phone the cops. But how many will actually do this? I warrant not one in a million. If they have a weapon they will shoot to kill. (Here in Colo. we have the 'Make my day' law, so you can shoot anyone entering your premises and ask questions later. It's already resulted in a number of pardons, jury acquittals)

Further, the LAW in most states allows lethal force in such circumstances and few religions would protest.

Accepted violation (2): An invading country crosses its neighbor's border and begins raping, plundering and klling its neighbor’s citizens. The invaded nation has every right to fight back and kill in turn. Or, as in the case of World War (II), multiple nations in one alliance are entitled to stop the Hitlerian-Nazi threat of world domination, by invading and bombing (killing) in the German homeland.

No Christians I know - even hardcore bible punchers- dispute these exceptions (though some try to resort to disjunctive euphemisms and speciously discriminating 'thou shalt not kill' from 'thou shalt not murder' - but I refuse to engage in such word games). The point is that once one acknowledges the existence of exceptions, then there is no absolute moral law. Interpetation or exception, or exceptions derivative of interpretation are mutually exclusive with absolutism. Absolutism by definition locks onto an act or potential act in one way only, and that is exactly why it is absolute!

In other words, the commandment contains within itself the basis for moral relativism because people are enabled to interpret what constitutes disobedience or not! If this were not the case, there could never be such an entity as a "just war" nor would the state be permitted to execute criminals, nor would people ever be allowed to respond in self-defense.

If such exceptions can occur in one moral realm (for one "commandment") they can occur for all the others.

What this implies is that the Ten Commandments can't be adopted as an absolute moral standard. Indeed, they aren't even a good relative standard. (For example, virtually no sins of omission are covered. Thus, a kid who is aware a classmate plans to carry out another Columbine massacre but doesn't tell anyone, isn't held to account.)

Nor can any other absolute moral standard be embraced, and here we'd do well to remind oururselves of the words of Jacob Bronowski when he visited Auschwitz and pointed to the gas chambers, (in the BBC documentary The Ascent of Man and the book by the same name). As he put it (p.235):

"This was not done by gas. It was done by arrogance. It was done by dogma. It was done by ignorance. When people believe they have absolute knowledge with no test in reality, this is how they behave."

And of course, the Christian Inquisition as he notes, was no different. Heretics, atheists ...anyone not kowtowing to the then Church's dogmas could be burnt at the stake or tortured...because the Church held supreme absolute authority- and no one was permitted to question it.

At the same time, the Pope is correct in that pure moral relativism can't be the answer. Just because wives who stray are permitted to be severely beaten (and sometimes killed) in Brazil doesn't mean we allow it in the U.S. Merely because young girls are subjected to clitorodectomy in parts of sub-Sahara Africa doesn't mean we permit it here. And merely because "common law" marriage is the norm or standard in much of the West Indies, doesn't mean it can become the moral norm in the U.S.

So, if neither moral absolutism or moral relativism is the answer, then what is? Author Michael Shermer gives what is perhaps the best solution to the conundrum of ethics:

"moral provisionalism" or what I would call: "ethical incrementalism"

As Shermer describes it ('The Science of Good and Evil', p. 168):

"Provisional ethics provides a reasonable middle ground between absolute and moral relative systems. Provisional moral principles are applicable to most people, for most circumstances, for most of the time - yet flexible enough to account for the wide diversity of human behavior"

Let's look at illustrations:

1) Abortion: According to ethical incrementalism, abortion cannot be ethical in ALL circumstances for all conditions. Thus, since Sagan and Druyan (PARADE, April, 1990) have noted that fetal brain waves appear past 6 months, NO abortions should normally be allowed in the third trimester. The only (provisional) exceptions would be: a) the health of the mother (e.g. if she were to have the child she'd die), or b) case of incest or rape - wherein having the child would create extreme mental trauma for the victim. (By that I mean possible psychosis or severe depression, including attempted suicide).

2) War:

In the judicious application of ethical incrementalism, NO war would be permitted in the U.S.A. unless an actual DECLARATION of WAR by congress is made. This would give congress the opportunity to exercise its constitutional rights, and impart moral and ethical authority in rendering a war truly just. It would also eliminate the odious recent examples of "wars of choice" - which destroy lives and treasure as they impoverish the nation.

In this light, we'd have no more Vietnams, Iraqs, Afghanistans or other adventures...finagled by the executive branch outside the parameters of congressional validation. For too long wars have been waged “through the back door” at great financial and moral cost to the U.S. The Iraq invasion, for example, never would have been allowed had an actual declaration of war been demanded by congress....as opposed to just meekly rolling over for Dubya, Cheney and their military-fascist oil clique.

3) Teen sexual behavior:

In the domain of ethical incrementalism, teens are constantly warned that actual intercourse outside of a stable permanent relationship is morally toxic. As a midway position, however, teens are allowed (as former Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders suggested) to obtain sexual relief via self-stimulation. This balance would immediately halt the increasing rates of sexual diseases such as chlamydia and Herpes virus, genital warts, as well as stopping teen pregnancy, though likely not without the benefit of a good sex ed. course, which must also include removing the stigma attached (by the teen and larger societal culture) to masturbation.

These are just a few examples, and many more might be cited or found. The point is that there is a middle way, and ethically conscientious humans ought to seek to pursue it as opposed to pretensions to either a facile absolutism or equally facile relativism. Moreover, the provisionalist morality route is more in synch with the actual brain capacities (as well as defects) of real life humans. In essence, it makes little sense to posit utopian standards if the species' brain limits won't be able to manifest it. Much of this work was done by neuro-scientists like Robert Ornstein (The Evolution of Consciousness) who showed that the emotional circuits are largely isolated from key brain regions, including in the neocortex. This leads to immense disconnects, say between moral-ethical behavior and intelligence.

In addition, the presence of atavistic reptilian and other carryovers in our ancient brain (the reticular formation) always miltiates against any perfective actions, or attainment of moral ideals which are beyond the limits of that brain region to acknowledge or accept.

In other words, Pope, the "Ten Commandments" only goes so far. Humans also need to deal in reality, in a purposeless cosmos, and moral provisionalism provides that basis.