Religion, moral relativism, etc.
I've been reminded that I don't post a great deal, so let me tell you that I still have a 71 kilobyte file with various quotes from the library books I catalog. Maybe I should post them more often. Since they're usually stuff I agree with or at least find interesting or funny, I hope they will tell you more about me.
From Convergence culture : where old and new media collide, by Henry Jenkins:
"Marketers have turned our children into walking, talking billboards who wear logos on their T-shirts, sew patches on their backpacks, plaster stickers on their lockers, hang posters on their walls, but they must not, under penalty of law, post them on their home pages. Somehow, once consumers choose when and where to display those images, their active participation in the circulation of brands suddenly becomes a moral outrage and a threat to the industry's economic well-being."
I've heard many people, too many, say that religion itself is an evil thing because it has caused people to commit many horrible things in the name of their religion. This addresses that subject.
From The language of God : a scientist presents evidence for belief, by Francis S. Collins:
"So, while the long history of religious oppression and hypocrisy is profoundly sobering, the earnest seeker must look beyond the behavior of flawed humans in order to find the truth. Would you condemn an oak tree because its timbers had been used to build battering rams? Would you blame the air for allowing lies to be transmitted through it? Would you judge Mozart's The Magic Flute on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth-graders? If you had never seen a real sunset over the Pacific, would you allow a tourist brochure as a substitute? Would you evaluate the power of romantic love solely in light of an abusive marriage next door? No. A real evaluation of the truth of faith depends upon looking at the clean, pure water, not the rusty containers."
Science can explain anything, so does that mean that no divinity exists?
"Dawkins's arguments come in three main flavors. First, he argues that evolution fully accounts for biological complexity and the origins of humankind, so there is no more need for God. While this argument rightly relieves God of the responsibility for multiple acts of special creation for each species on the planet, it certainly does not disprove the idea that God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. Dawkins's first argument is thus irrelevant to the God that Saint Augustine worshiped, or that I worship. But Dawkins is a master of setting up a straw man, and then dismantling it with great relish. In fact, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such repeated mischaracterizations of faith betray a vitriolic personal agenda, rather than a reliance on the rational arguments that Dawkins so cherishes in the scientific realm."
This was a difficult read on relativism, but I liked it.
From The war for children's minds, by Stephen Law:
"First of all, we can acknowledge that we're fallible about what's right and wrong, and that there can be so much to learn from others, without accepting relativism. In fact, ironically, to acknowledge the possibility of our being mistaken requires that we reject relativism. For, if relativism is true, the truth about what's right and wrong depends on what we believe. If we believe so-and-so is wrong, then, for us, it is wrong. It's relativism that makes us morally infallible. In order to acknowledge our own fallibility, we have to reject relativism.
Secondly, relativists can be notoriously hypocritical. The relativist who points a finger at the Westerner who judges female circumcision to be wrong and says, "It's wrong of you to judge!" ends up condemning themselves. For of course they are doing exactly what they are saying you shouldn't be doing. They are judging you, and saying that you're doing something morally wrong. Their politically-correct finger wagging is downright hypocritical.
Thirdly, politically-motivated moral relativists tend to apply their relativism pretty inconsistently. Take some remote and exotic rainforest tribe that engages in a practice most Westerners would think barbaric and wrong. 'You shouldn't judge,' says the relativist. 'In their culture, this sort of behaviour is perfectly morally proper. And their morality is just as "valid" as yours.' But of course, if a large multinational kicks out that tribe and hacks down that rainforest, the same relativist will no doubt be most judgemental. 'Stop. That's wrong,' they'll say. But of course they can't say that, can they? If they are going to be true to their relativism, then they must say that if the corporate culture deems it acceptable to destroy the rainforest and barbeque its inhabitants, then for them it is acceptable. Who are they to judge?
Finally, notice that it's only if we reject moral relativism that we are free to promote tolerance and open-mindedness as universal virtues. Take some religious culture that thinks it okay to be deeply intolerant. The relativist is going to have to say that, hey, if these religious zealots think it right to hack to death those with whom they disagree, then for them it is right: who are we to judge? Relativists can't consistently condemn the intolerance of others. It's only those who reject relativism that are free to do that."
From Convergence culture : where old and new media collide, by Henry Jenkins:
"Marketers have turned our children into walking, talking billboards who wear logos on their T-shirts, sew patches on their backpacks, plaster stickers on their lockers, hang posters on their walls, but they must not, under penalty of law, post them on their home pages. Somehow, once consumers choose when and where to display those images, their active participation in the circulation of brands suddenly becomes a moral outrage and a threat to the industry's economic well-being."
I've heard many people, too many, say that religion itself is an evil thing because it has caused people to commit many horrible things in the name of their religion. This addresses that subject.
From The language of God : a scientist presents evidence for belief, by Francis S. Collins:
"So, while the long history of religious oppression and hypocrisy is profoundly sobering, the earnest seeker must look beyond the behavior of flawed humans in order to find the truth. Would you condemn an oak tree because its timbers had been used to build battering rams? Would you blame the air for allowing lies to be transmitted through it? Would you judge Mozart's The Magic Flute on the basis of a poorly rehearsed performance by fifth-graders? If you had never seen a real sunset over the Pacific, would you allow a tourist brochure as a substitute? Would you evaluate the power of romantic love solely in light of an abusive marriage next door? No. A real evaluation of the truth of faith depends upon looking at the clean, pure water, not the rusty containers."
Science can explain anything, so does that mean that no divinity exists?
"Dawkins's arguments come in three main flavors. First, he argues that evolution fully accounts for biological complexity and the origins of humankind, so there is no more need for God. While this argument rightly relieves God of the responsibility for multiple acts of special creation for each species on the planet, it certainly does not disprove the idea that God worked out His creative plan by means of evolution. Dawkins's first argument is thus irrelevant to the God that Saint Augustine worshiped, or that I worship. But Dawkins is a master of setting up a straw man, and then dismantling it with great relish. In fact, it is hard to escape the conclusion that such repeated mischaracterizations of faith betray a vitriolic personal agenda, rather than a reliance on the rational arguments that Dawkins so cherishes in the scientific realm."
This was a difficult read on relativism, but I liked it.
From The war for children's minds, by Stephen Law:
"First of all, we can acknowledge that we're fallible about what's right and wrong, and that there can be so much to learn from others, without accepting relativism. In fact, ironically, to acknowledge the possibility of our being mistaken requires that we reject relativism. For, if relativism is true, the truth about what's right and wrong depends on what we believe. If we believe so-and-so is wrong, then, for us, it is wrong. It's relativism that makes us morally infallible. In order to acknowledge our own fallibility, we have to reject relativism.
Secondly, relativists can be notoriously hypocritical. The relativist who points a finger at the Westerner who judges female circumcision to be wrong and says, "It's wrong of you to judge!" ends up condemning themselves. For of course they are doing exactly what they are saying you shouldn't be doing. They are judging you, and saying that you're doing something morally wrong. Their politically-correct finger wagging is downright hypocritical.
Thirdly, politically-motivated moral relativists tend to apply their relativism pretty inconsistently. Take some remote and exotic rainforest tribe that engages in a practice most Westerners would think barbaric and wrong. 'You shouldn't judge,' says the relativist. 'In their culture, this sort of behaviour is perfectly morally proper. And their morality is just as "valid" as yours.' But of course, if a large multinational kicks out that tribe and hacks down that rainforest, the same relativist will no doubt be most judgemental. 'Stop. That's wrong,' they'll say. But of course they can't say that, can they? If they are going to be true to their relativism, then they must say that if the corporate culture deems it acceptable to destroy the rainforest and barbeque its inhabitants, then for them it is acceptable. Who are they to judge?
Finally, notice that it's only if we reject moral relativism that we are free to promote tolerance and open-mindedness as universal virtues. Take some religious culture that thinks it okay to be deeply intolerant. The relativist is going to have to say that, hey, if these religious zealots think it right to hack to death those with whom they disagree, then for them it is right: who are we to judge? Relativists can't consistently condemn the intolerance of others. It's only those who reject relativism that are free to do that."