From: ingles@cclittle.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles)
Subject: Re: Achilles heels for religion?
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 92 17:04:39 EDT
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor


In article <1992Apr06.180107.25461@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> In article <qwg+kVB@engin.umich.edu>, ingles@flea.engin.umich.edu (Ray Ingles) writes:
> |> 
> |> In article <1992Mar31.210234.14722@watson.ibm.com>, strom@watson.ibm.com (Rob Strom) writes:
> |> > In article <1992Mar29.205854.293@cs.yale.edu>, rescorla@rtnmr.chem.yale.edu (Eric Rescorla) writes:
> |> > 
> 
> ...   [first paragraph deleted]
> 
> |> > |> I'm not interested in generating examples of "good morals." I'm
> |> > |> interested in whether children are taught to act in a manner which
> |> > |> will be generally likely to make them happy.
> |> > |> 
> |> > 
> |> > These two paragraphs imply a difference of value systems between
> |> > Eric and me.
> |> > 
> |> > The second paragraph sounds like hedonistic ethics:  maximize
> |> > your own happiness --- don't think about others, including
> |> > future generations.  My value system is very much concerned
> |> > with being fair to others, being helpful towards the disadvantaged,
> |> > and replenishing and improving the earth for the sake of
> |> > future generations.
> |> 
> |>  Hmmmm. I suggest that, while this is a common misunderstanding of
> |> what many (*not* all) atheists believe, it is a distorion and not
> |> terribly accurate. (See the FAQ file, question #3.)
> 
> Well it was because of the FAQ file, question #3 that I found
> Eric's comment surprising.  In my response, I restricted myself
> to calling it a difference between me and Eric, not a difference
> between me and "many atheists".

 Ah, I see. I should have read more carefully. My apologies. I
hope you didn't regard what I wrote as an attack; I was honestly
trying to correct what I thought was a false impression.

> [why helping others and providing for the future is a good thing]
> 
> |>  Hopefully, this should make it clear that I am for being fair to
> |> others, helping the disadvantaged, and improving the Earth as much
> |> as you, Rob, but I arrive at this from a greatly different direction.
> |> (Actually, I want to keep the Earth in good shape because my
> |> children and loved ones will have to live in it... and I'm planning
> |> on living a *long* time, so I want to keep things nice for me, too.
> |> :-> )
> |> 
> Actually, it's not clear that the authors of the Bible
> and commentaries arrived at similar conclusions from
> a "greatly different direction".  We may be just
> using different words to describe it.

 Hmmmm. But they justified fairly typical moral commandments by
saying, 'The Lord said: Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt...."
 I.e. I still think that the authors had a different route to
the same morals, though what nowaday readers do with this may be
different.

> |> > Your first paragraph implies that the purpose of literature
> |> > is the pleasure of reading only, not also the personal
> |> > growth which comes from the reading.  I disagree.
> |> 
> |>  I, personally, agree that literature can be and often is a source
> |> of personal growth. However, I doubt it can generally serve as a
> |> *primary* means. I think living and working and learning among
> |> good people is far more important, and, indeed, more than
> |> sufficient to bring up 'good' people.
> 
> It's not clear that we disagree here.  Certainly setting
> an example is a paramount concern of Jewish ethics.
> Remember we are commanded to be "a holy people
> and a light unto the nations".  The emphasis
> on literature comes from the traditional view that
> part of being a good person includes reading and
> studying.

 I agree, too. I think much can be learned from literature; perhaps
even moral lessons. But not always or even most often.
 I guess I think literature is a good thing, but that it's not
all that important in teaching morals. Far more important is
example.

> |> 
> |> > You also use the phrase "sneak it by".  This seems to
> |> > (ironically) contain a moral judgment, implying that
> |> > it is somehow underhanded to teach something indirectly
> |> > rather than directly.
> |> 
> |>  Actually, I tend to agree with this. If I were to read, say,
> |> "The Grasshopper and the Ant" to a child, I'd talk with them
> |> afterward about what the story meant, rather than leave it
> |> entirely up to them. (Mind you, I think the socratic method
> |> works best in such things, so don't think of it, at Matt Wiener
> |> apparently does, as a 'lecture.' By the time a kid is capable
> |> of understanding a moral thought, they are capable of some
> |> level of discussion and interaction.)
> |>  But I still think that *seeing* a hardworking parent will
> |> teach a 'lesson' far more effectively than any fable.
> |> 
> 
> Again, not clear that we disagree.  In fact, I might
> go further and say that it may be more important to
> talk to a child after he reads the story of the
> 7 lean years and 7 fat years than after he reads
> "The Grasshopper and the Ant".  The Bible's messages
> are usually more subtle.  There may be multiple
> messages, and the connections to what the same
> characters did in other stories may be important.

 Okay. But I think by the time a child is old enough to read,
understand, and get something out of the Bible, they have already
had the bulk of their moral education...

> Rob Strom

Sincerely,

Ray Ingles                  || The above opinions are probably
                            || not those of the University of
ingles@caen.engin.umich.edu || Michigan. Yet.