God will continue to chastise Christians who venerate icons...Douglas Wilson WOW!

[TianXiaXueXiao]

Nope. Not getting into the councils, as I already said. Nice try though :)

 

It sounds like we are done here, then.

 

(I'll assent to the fifth and sixth in how they modify and compliment the first four, and no further. Those were dealing with specific regional politics and have zero interest for me in this forum. The seventh I am strongly opposed, as this thread has dealt with. I won't go so far as to completely condemn the practice as heretical, as I can see a case for certain individual practitioners not moving into idolatry in the observation, but that's as far as I can go in good conscience.)

To be fair, you did say you would speak to specific doctrines of the councils and now you are back pedaling. You made the invitation so the "nice try" remark is a bit incongruous.

[milovany]

I think Taryl was saying she's willing to talk about doctrine but not the councils.  I think she was juxtaposing the two. 

[JenniferB]

Ah, I can see that, possibly, rereading her post. My apologies Arctic Mama.

 

I had read it as an invite to explain if there was a more specific topic on doctrine mentioned, which is why I queried about what were her particular Scriptural problems with the major topics addressed in councils 5-7.

[mommaduck]

I double checked also and was puzzled about the 5th and 6th also, since they are rehashing issues that has been brought up in prior Councils. The 7th, I expected disagreement on. The reason for that Council is quite interesting, particularly where the influence of inconoclasm was coming from.

[Bluegoat]

I don't want to speak for others, but I believe this is a misrepresentation of the idea that our morals are a product of biology.

 

Biology doesn't tell us what is good - as if there was a Good out there that biology clued us in on.

 

Biology, via evolution, created a brain that was able to create complex ideals such as good and evil. Those brains formed in social beings, so the ideals are shared among cultures. But different cultures, and different people with different brains, can certainly find different rules for morality.

 

All the people I know who don't look to a higher power to help them determine what is right or moral understand that our brains have created the concept of good and moral. It isn't as though evolution was all "Hey, lets let the humans start to see the big good/evil chart" but rather as a byproduct of evolution we have brains that can formulate these ideas. Evolution is an explanation as to how we can create morals, it is not the rule book. It is even entirely possible that the morals we humans have created may be counterproductive to our evolutionary success.

 

At least that is how this secular humanist understands things. I don't see why there can't be different moral truths, as the whole is full of people with different brains and cultures with different values and traditions. (I am not implying that I value all traditions equally, just that obviously the world does include many varieties.)

 

Yes, this is also how In understand the biological or evolutionary aspect.  And I agree with it as far as it goes.

 

But what you are saying here is that morality is a construct which exists to to facilitate survival.  So when we look at  different human societies now or in the past, that have organized or created that construct in different ways, as long as they facilitate survival for the group, they are all equal.  Our particular feelings that racism or sexual exploitation or torture or public hangings are morally bad is a kind of illusion, a construct.  At best, we can argue it is a less useful system to ensure the survival of the species. 

 

To put it another way, if you want to argue with someone from this other culture that practice X seems immoral, he will replay that it doesn't seem immoral to him, but practice Y which you support makes him really disgusted.  And - you will both be absolutely right.  You will have no basis on which to criticize the practice as immoral.  Even within a single culture, if different individuals have disparate feelings about what is moral, there is no rational basis to claim one view is better than the other.  Whatever appeals to the most people and can be enforced on the others will be true for that society.

 

Most people aren't willing to live with that.  A few are, and that is logically consistent. But more often people argue as you have that there are different moral truths, but then they will be talk about things like how intrinsic human rights make FMG immoral, or exploitation of the poor by corporations is immoral, as if that is some kind of universal value. 

 

[albeto.]

But what you are saying here is that morality is a construct which exists to to facilitate survival.  So when we look at  different human societies now or in the past, that have organized or created that construct in different ways, as long as they facilitate survival for the group, they are all equal. 

 

Why would all moral constructs be equal to each other simply because they are inspired by biological drives? 

 

To put it another way, if you want to argue with someone from this other culture that practice X seems immoral, he will replay that it doesn't seem immoral to him, but practice Y which you support makes him really disgusted.  And - you will both be absolutely right.  You will have no basis on which to criticize the practice as immoral.  Even within a single culture, if different individuals have disparate feelings about what is moral, there is no rational basis to claim one view is better than the other.  Whatever appeals to the most people and can be enforced on the others will be true for that society.

 

Why would reason and evidence not be considered a basis upon which to criticize a practice as immoral? 

 

Most people aren't willing to live with that.  

 

Arguably, people live with that already, but don't know it. We know, for example, the concept of "free will" is shaky at best, and can reliably predict another person's spontaneous choice. Further, we know how to manipulate that choice. We also know that conditioning affects one's choices, from habits to addictions. We know it, we can show it, and yet people are living with the illusion they have a will that is free to make decisions without interference from any influence. People may assume we have free will because our perceptions have been explained against a particular backdrop, but that doesn't mean that concept is accurate. In this same way, people may assume we have a universal morality that is not modified and increasingly governed by secular reason and objective evidence because our perceptions have been explained against a particular backdrop, but that doesn't mean that concept is accurate. There's objective reason to support the latter two, and the former argument relies on an appeal to tradition and authority. 

[Laurie4b]

I double checked also and was puzzled about the 5th and 6th also, since they are rehashing issues that has been brought up in prior Councils. The 7th, I expected disagreement on. The reason for that Council is quite interesting, particularly where the influence of inconoclasm was coming from.

 

Because I am time-crunched and so can't google, I wonder if you could elaborate on the last sentence. 

[mommaduck]

Because I am time-crunched and so can't google, I wonder if you could elaborate on the last sentence.

It was mostly due to political and social issues. Byzantium had come up against the Muslims. Some Christians were influenced by the Muslim iconoclast views. Generally, it was the poorer Christians that took on the view because of the Islamic raids and inability to replace such, where those that were wealthier and from wealthier countries or countries less likely to deal with raids did not have these issues. Basically, it became a class division, but was rooted in the political climate of the time. There was one or two rulers that were also iconoclasts and that affected the people as well.

[Alexigail]

I may be in the minority among my fellow Orthodox Christians but to me the veneration of icons comes down to the fact that it feels good to do it and I find it enhances my experience of practicing my faith.  I don't think it serves anyone to argue about whether it's "right" or not, especially when trying to apply reasonable arguments or justifications to it.  It's not a reasonable thing to do, but I do it because it feels good.  I disagree with Douglas Wilson (whoever he is), but he has about as much biblical and historical evidence to support his claim as I do. We read the same stuff, looked at the same history and came down on different sides of an argument that's been going on for a really long time.

 

I also believe that there's evidence in the old testament that God wanted his people to make images and use them in worship, and I believe that people in general enjoy using symbols and visual representations of their believes and the things they value.  However I think that as Christians we have to put our money where our mouth is so to speak and admit that we can't have it both ways.  Either our deeds are as filthy rags before God or they're not.  Arguing about whether something is just in the eyes of God is useless unless we have God right here to give us His opinion.  I believe that I know the truth, and I will defend my right to worship God and include the use of icons in that worship; but I truly don't *know* what God thinks of that practice in the way that humans (or at least our culture) talks about knowing.  Uncertainty (or mystery if that's more comfortable) is a huge part of Orthodoxy (and most likely some other Christian) belief.  It doesn't stand up to logical discourse, but why would it hurt me to admit that?  So to answer the question how do we know DW is wrong - I don't think we do know it, I think we believe it.

 

 Albeto and Sadie are right in that we as Christians have enjoyed a cultural free pass for a very very long time. We don't anymore, and while that's an uncomfortable place to be, I think it's fine to say that this along with other Christian practices don't hold much of a place in they type of discourse Albeto is trying to achieve.  Being asked again and again to be quiet or "agree to disagree" when her beliefs are (I'm assuming) held as strongly and honed with as much research and care as mine is not something I would handle as gracefully as she does.  And she's right. For me at least, this comes down to a feeling and "I believe it because I believe it even despite the evidence or historical record."  I don't think it's dismissing or hurtful to say "this is eventually going to come down to faith because you are making a faith based argument" - it's just true.

 

On a bit of a side note, I also agree that the use of icons and other objects can become idolatry or unhealthy in EO practice just like it can in any other context.  It irks one priest at the cathedral in San Francisco to no end that people come into the church and immediately head towards the relics of St. John the Wonderworker to make bows and pray without even acknowledging the altar or the icon of Christ. None of us practices what we preach very well.  

Thanks to everyone who has gotten my brain going with this thread. 

[Bluegoat]

Why would all moral constructs be equal to each other simply because they are inspired by biological drives? 

 

 

Equal in what way, is the question.

 

They might be unequal in many ways. Some more successful at certain problems, some more annoying, whatever.

 

But we can't say they are not morally equal, if we also say they are telling us what is moral.  But if people want to say that morality is based on our instinctual drives, on what evolution has selected to make us pass on our DNA best, the answer is that all of our instincts exist for that.  Yes, it has given us altruism.  It has also given us aggression.  We may think that one is superior than the other for pragmatic reasons. That does not, however, make altruism good, and aggression evil.  (And we would have to cherry pick our history and our observations of the natural world pretty carefully if we wanted to maintain that aggression can't be a very effective way to ensure your DNA gets spread around.)

 

 

 

 

Why would reason and evidence not be considered a basis upon which to criticize a practice as immoral? 

 

 

The question of whether reason is an instinct is an interesting one, it isn't clear that it is - after all it seems to give us access to objective knowledge like mathematical truths.  The idea that reason gives us moral values is quite different than to say that evolutionary biology does.  However,that seems to be going down another trail.

 

Reason and evidence of what  would show something to be immoral?  If we are trying to establish what morality is, you seem in danger of arguing in a circle.  Let's say that you show a particular practice results in the oppression of women, or even that it means that the society will be less wealthy because women are not able to contribute as much as they otherwise would.  That gives you nothing, because we do not know that those things have any moral value either.  Is oppression, for any reason, evil?  Nature doesn't even think failure to thrive in a population is an evil thing, it just is, those with less useful behaviors will die out.  This seems to be heading in the direction of the naturalistic fallacy.

 

Another problem seems to be that if you are saying that instinct is the source of morality, what the heck does reason or evidence have to do with anythin

 

 

 

Arguably, people live with that already, but don't know it. We know, for example, the concept of "free will" is shaky at best, and can reliably predict another person's spontaneous choice. Further, we know how to manipulate that choice. We also know that conditioning affects one's choices, from habits to addictions. We know it, we can show it, and yet people are living with the illusion they have a will that is free to make decisions without interference from any influence. People may assume we have free will because our perceptions have been explained against a particular backdrop, but that doesn't mean that concept is accurate. In this same way, people may assume we have a universal morality that is not modified and increasingly governed by secular reason and objective evidence because our perceptions have been explained against a particular backdrop, but that doesn't mean that concept is accurate. There's objective reason to support the latter two, and the former argument relies on an appeal to tradition and authority.

 

 

Well, you are quite wrong that those ideas rely on appeals to authority or tradition, and many people have made such arguments without mentioning them at all, if you care to look.  However that is pretty irrelevant here.

Essentially you are arguing here that there is no such thing as morality or good and evil, and those people are living an illusion if they think there is, and seem to be disavowing the idea that a real morality can be rooted in evolution.  That's a consistent position so long as you don't go on to make moral claims abut anything yourself.  But I said as much as that in several different posts and I don't have any particular reason to agrgue with it, although I don't agree. 

 

I think though that what you will find is that there are a great many people who do think they are moral, that there morality is rooted in something like evolution, and that they can make moral arguments on that basis.  Time after time people say, and they are quite sincere, that although they have no spiritual beliefs at all, they are moral and believe in right and wrong and think it is something real. And all the evidence is that in fact they act according to their own moral views and that they have force in their lives.  They do not think they are merely a construct, and one set is as "good" as another. 

 

That is why the whole idea that morality could be rooted in evolutionary biology was brought up in this discussion, to show that it could provide a material way to justify morality.

[Btervet]

I'm not really interested in debating whether one can have morals without applying to a higher authority, but it really bothers me to see the position of secular humanists (and others with similar beliefs) so thoroughly misrepresented. People don't have to agree or even understand, but don't say that we don't believe what we say we believe. I'll try again to express what that position is below.

 

Just because something is a construct of our brains and intellect doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

We (as a species) are able to decide what to value, what we consider morally right and good. History is pretty darn clear on the fact that as a species, our values have changed over time and location. It's important to remember that we are social animals, and as such, societies (moving closer to a singular global society) make choices on what is or is not good.

 

Not believing in a capital G Good (something that exists outside of humans, inherent in the universe) doesn't mean we can't choose to value certain ethical and moral choices.

 

Humans are amazing creatures, we evolved to a point where we can create ideas such as good and evil, beauty, art, truth, love. The fact that we created these ideas doesn't make them valueless or fake, it makes them beautiful and meaningful. 

 

Regardless of whether you find this position to have merit - it isn't authentic to say people can't hold it. Many, many people are okay without a concept capital G Good. It doesn't mean they don't have a sense of ethics. It doesn't mean they value all moral systems equally. If you find these things difficult that is fine, but don't misrepresent others beliefs because you don't understand them.

[JenniferB]

I may be in the minority among my fellow Orthodox Christians but to me the veneration of icons comes down to the fact that it feels good to do it and I find it enhances my experience of practicing my faith. I don't think it serves anyone to argue about whether it's "right" or not, especially when trying to apply reasonable arguments or justifications to it. It's not a reasonable thing to do, but I do it because it feels good. I disagree with Douglas Wilson (whoever he is), but he has about as much biblical and historical evidence to support his claim as I do. We read the same stuff, looked at the same history and came down on different sides of an argument that's been going on for a really long time.

 

I also believe that there's evidence in the old testament that God wanted his people to make images and use them in worship, and I believe that people in general enjoy using symbols and visual representations of their believes and the things they value. However I think that as Christians we have to put our money where our mouth is so to speak and admit that we can't have it both ways. Either our deeds are as filthy rags before God or they're not. Arguing about whether something is just in the eyes of God is useless unless we have God right here to give us His opinion. I believe that I know the truth, and I will defend my right to worship God and include the use of icons in that worship; but I truly don't *know* what God thinks of that practice in the way that humans (or at least our culture) talks about knowing. Uncertainty (or mystery if that's more comfortable) is a huge part of Orthodoxy (and most likely some other Christian) belief. It doesn't stand up to logical discourse, but why would it hurt me to admit that? So to answer the question how do we know DW is wrong - I don't think we do know it, I think we believe it.

 

Albeto and Sadie are right in that we as Christians have enjoyed a cultural free pass for a very very long time. We don't anymore, and while that's an uncomfortable place to be, I think it's fine to say that this along with other Christian practices don't hold much of a place in they type of discourse Albeto is trying to achieve. Being asked again and again to be quiet or "agree to disagree" when her beliefs are (I'm assuming) held as strongly and honed with as much research and care as mine is not something I would handle as gracefully as she does. And she's right. For me at least, this comes down to a feeling and "I believe it because I believe it even despite the evidence or historical record." I don't think it's dismissing or hurtful to say "this is eventually going to come down to faith because you are making a faith based argument" - it's just true.

 

On a bit of a side note, I also agree that the use of icons and other objects can become idolatry or unhealthy in EO practice just like it can in any other context. It irks one priest at the cathedral in San Francisco to no end that people come into the church and immediately head towards the relics of St. John the Wonderworker to make bows and pray without even acknowledging the altar or the icon of Christ. None of us practices what we preach very well.

Thanks to everyone who has gotten my brain going with this thread.

Lots of good points ^^.

 

As far as the "we know" he's wrong comments that I made, I was never presuming to know God's mind, but that "we know" Christian doctrine and teaching based on the councils and practices over time. I would never presume to know God's mind. Is that the same thing? I don't think so because we have doctrine, which includes a human element which can always include some obscurity to perfect light and knowing and we have God's mind, which is unknowable.

[EmseB]

I'm not really interested in debating whether one can have morals without applying to a higher authority, but it really bothers me to see the position of secular humanists (and others with similar beliefs) so thoroughly misrepresented. People don't have to agree or even understand, but don't say that we don't believe what we say we believe. I'll try again to express what that position is below.

 

Just because something is a construct of our brains and intellect doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

We (as a species) are able to decide what to value, what we consider morally right and good. History is pretty darn clear on the fact that as a species, our values have changed over time and location. It's important to remember that we are social animals, and as such, societies (moving closer to a singular global society) make choices on what is or is not good.

 

Not believing in a capital G Good (something that exists outside of humans, inherent in the universe) doesn't mean we can't choose to value certain ethical and moral choices.

 

Humans are amazing creatures, we evolved to a point where we can create ideas such as good and evil, beauty, art, truth, love. The fact that we created these ideas doesn't make them valueless or fake, it makes them beautiful and meaningful. 

 

Regardless of whether you find this position to have merit - it isn't authentic to say people can't hold it. Many, many people are okay without a concept capital G Good. It doesn't mean they don't have a sense of ethics. It doesn't mean they value all moral systems equally. If you find these things difficult that is fine, but don't misrepresent others beliefs because you don't understand them.

 

I think there may be a difference between materialism and secular humanism in what you're finding in the discussion. Maybe?  Also, what bluegoat is getting at is the very meaning of "a sense of ethics".  You have to apply a standard, an abstract standard, to even get to a sense of ethics, right?  In a purely physical universe that has to be made up by the person in question, and whole massive societies have disagreed wildely about what is ethically good and ethically bad.  You have to say that rearranging the matter in the universe this way is "good" and rearranging it this other way is "bad".  You have to apply morality to chemistry and physics and matter, which are amoral.  They just exist and do what they do, materially speaking.

 

But, no one is saying that any one lacks a sense of ethics.  That's exactly the point being made -- everyone operates applying their own moral sense to any given situation.  The discussion is about what that sense of ethics is rooted in and logically and rhetorically where it leads us (as people, as societies).  Of course no one values all moral systems equally.  That is the point!  No one does, so when you don't, what do you appeal to in order to say that System A is better than System B?  And is that appeal rooted in something that isn't simply wiped away by another moral system blazing through the world that now says System B is better than System A.

 

If we as a society can decide what is well and good, what about other societies around the globe which would run directly contrary with what our society decides is well and good?  And if we move to a singular global society where, as an example, something like women being oppressed is considered "good" (I use this example because it's considered morally 'okay' in many cultures), or some other such thing that the West finds horrible...what then?  It seems like most people who talk like this end up saying progressive western values are going to be the arbiter of what's good going forward.  So all those cultures out there that don't adhere to those values and do things differently are not as good (at best).  But why?  And if those other cultures end up being a majority voice in the singular global culture, they will tell you that your moral system is bad.  Without some kind of absolute standard, neither of you are wrong, both of you are right...so then what?  Do we say those societies where stealing is okay, where wife-beating is okay (expected!), where whatever you deem reprehensible is okay, do we say they are less evolved than ourselves because we view them as morally wrong?  That seems like very dangerous ground to tread on.

 

And I really can't figure out why, in a completely physical universe, any of it really matters in the end anyway.  Even if I was the best person in the world, morally (by your definition, let's say), I still end up the same dust as someone who is the worst person, morally speaking, in the world.  And the kicker is, neither of us can do anything about it.  I'm simply matter being acted upon by the chemistry and physics of the universe.  What I do with my right hand, maybe throwing a baseball to my kids, is morally the same as a tiny particle floating through space a billion light years away.  Matter cannot be moral in and of itself.  There must be an outside standard applied.  And we all have a moral standard which we apply that we get from somewhere.

[albeto.]

Equal in what way, is the question.

 

They might be unequal in many ways. Some more successful at certain problems, some more annoying, whatever.

 

But we can't say they are not morally equal, if we also say they are telling us what is moral.  But if people want to say that morality is based on our instinctual drives, on what evolution has selected to make us pass on our DNA best, the answer is that all of our instincts exist for that.  Yes, it has given us altruism.  It has also given us aggression.  We may think that one is superior than the other for pragmatic reasons. That does not, however, make altruism good, and aggression evil.  (And we would have to cherry pick our history and our observations of the natural world pretty carefully if we wanted to maintain that aggression can't be a very effective way to ensure your DNA gets spread around.)

 

 

Do I understand correctly you're suggesting all moral codes are "equal" as in "equally functional in protection of the species," but not "equal" as in "equally justifiable"? Earlier you said, "To put it another way, if you want to argue with someone from this other culture that practice X seems immoral, he will replay that it doesn't seem immoral to him, but practice Y which you support makes him really disgusted.  And - you will both be absolutely right." But you seem to be arguing against that in this post. 

 

The question of whether reason is an instinct is an interesting one, it isn't clear that it is - after all it seems to give us access to objective knowledge like mathematical truths.  

 

I didn't say anything about reason being an instinct. I asked why reason and evidence isn't considered a basis upon which to criticize a practice as moral or immoral. 

 

Reason and evidence of what  would show something to be immoral?  If we are trying to establish what morality is, you seem in danger of arguing in a circle.  Let's say that you show a particular practice results in the oppression of women, or even that it means that the society will be less wealthy because women are not able to contribute as much as they otherwise would.  That gives you nothing, because we do not know that those things have any moral value either.  Is oppression, for any reason, evil?  Nature doesn't even think failure to thrive in a population is an evil thing, it just is, those with less useful behaviors will die out.  This seems to be heading in the direction of the naturalistic fallacy.

 

Another problem seems to be that if you are saying that instinct is the source of morality, what the heck does reason or evidence have to do with anythin

 

Any circular argument would be the result of arguing against a premise I do not make. Deciding which behaviors, such as oppressing women, can be judged reasonably, why not? It would require such information as how "oppression" is being defined, which behaviors are being critiqued, the objective and subjective effect on any individual, and the effects on a community. We do this informally all the time, even if we don't pay attention to the steps we take.

 

Well, you are quite wrong that those ideas rely on appeals to authority or tradition, and many people have made such arguments without mentioning them at all, if you care to look.  However that is pretty irrelevant here.

Essentially you are arguing here that there is no such thing as morality or good and evil, and those people are living an illusion if they think there is, and seem to be disavowing the idea that a real morality can be rooted in evolution.  That's a consistent position so long as you don't go on to make moral claims abut anything yourself.  But I said as much as that in several different posts and I don't have any particular reason to agrgue with it, although I don't agree. 

 

No, I'm not arguing that at all. I'm arguing that morality is a kind of judgement value placed on behaviors. This value is determined by any given community, driven by biological impulse (such as inter-dependency, compassion, fairness, need for food, shelter, sex, etc). As such, I argue the idea of an objective / universal / supernatural source of morality is functionally unnecessary, practically implausible, and logically messy. 

 

Essentially you are arguing here that there is no such thing as morality or good and evil, and those people are living an illusion if they think there is, and seem to be disavowing the idea that a real morality can be rooted in evolution.  That's a consistent position so long as you don't go on to make moral claims abut anything yourself.  But I said as much as that in several different posts and I don't have any particular reason to agrgue with it, although I don't agree. 

 

This is not my argument, but if you can find the comment I made that you interpreted as such, I'd like to see it. I want to avoid in the future whatever mistake I made that presented such confusion. 

 

I think though that what you will find is that there are a great many people who do think they are moral, that there morality is rooted in something like evolution, and that they can make moral arguments on that basis.  Time after time people say, and they are quite sincere, that although they have no spiritual beliefs at all, they are moral and believe in right and wrong and think it is something real. And all the evidence is that in fact they act according to their own moral views and that they have force in their lives.  They do not think they are merely a construct, and one set is as "good" as another. 

 

This confuses me, because I interpreted your first comments to be in opposition to this, but now it appears you support this idea.