From: graham@maths.su.oz.au (Graham Matthews)
Subject: Re: Moral Relativism, again!
Organization: School of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Sydney
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 05:02:36 GMT

[Jim there are a series of questions in this article which present
the essence of my argument. Can we please stick to these as the
rest of this thread would seem to rely on your answers to these
questions]

graham:
>>    No, I don't think I'm guilty of "intellectual dishonesty".  Yes, I'm
>>    a moral absolutist, but that doesn't mean that I think *my* morals
>>    are the absolute standard; the Bible is the absolute standard, or
>>    actually, the teachings of God contained in the Bible.
>>
>>    My *interpretation* of that moral standard (which I happen to believe
>>    is correct else I'd change it) is a close *parallel* to the absolute
>                                         ________________ 
>>    moral standard contained in the Bible.
> 
>I deleted the rest of the post because my point is perfectly illustrated 
>by this quote of yours Jim. How do you know that your interpretation 
>of the bible is "close" to God's intent?
>What yardstick do you use to
>measure closeness? I asked this same question of a Muslim reader and 
>the Quran recently and did not get much mileage so perhaps you Jim 
>may be able to answer this question satisfactorily. 

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    If the Bible were obscure on major moral points, I admit I'd have
>    a serious problem trying to base a system of ethics on it.	But
>    luckily (you'd say), or by Divine Providence (I'd say), the Bible
>    is crystal clear on major moral values that it says that God considers
>    important.

Then why the disagreement among the various christian groups. eg: over
the role of women in society - something I consider a "major moral
point". I think you are dreaming if you think the bible is not obscure
on "major moral points". The evidence is right before your eyes in
the different interpretations christian groups have of the bible.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Teachings on murder, adultery/fornication, theft, gossip, false
>    witness/lying, jealousy/envy/covetousness, cheating/extortion,
>    love, and hate, to name a few, are quite clear.  On these matters
>    a straight forward reading of the text will tie your boat right
>    next to the dock.  [Remember the Boat at the Dock analogy?	I
>    hope so; it's relevant to this discussion.]

You are missing the point entirely. Because a lot of people agree that
the words of the bible mean X, it does not mean that they do mean X.
(your argument sounds like the old "million drunks can't be wrong line).
Only God knows what they actually mean. You seem to be using the
agreement of many as a yardstick to measure how close your thinking it
to God's. Ever considered that you might all be wrong? Can you demonstrate
that you are not? If not, what does this say for your morality and its
supposed absoluteness?

>    On minor moral issues, not surprisingly, the Bible is less clear.
>    Presumably because God wishes us to have a certain amount of
>    discretion in what we choose to do.

Why does this sound like post-rationalisation?

>    Some of these minor issues are:  drinking alchohol, "soft" drug
>    use, dancing, smoking, going to bars, having a lot of money,
>    giving to (which) charities, getting married or staying single,
>    etc.

Oh yeah and homosexuality, the subordination of women, the colour of
one's skin, the use of contraceptives - all minor issues.

>    On these issues the prudent Christian uses a general understanding
                         ______
>    of the "moral sense" taught in the Bible on other similar subjects
>    to decide what is right for him/her.  The "general moral sense"
>    of the Bible is a fairly short rope that ties one's boat to the
>    dock, but there is room to float around a bit.

I assume "prudent" here means "agreeing with jbrown".

>    I know that my interpretation of morality as taught in the Bible
>    is *close* to God's intent because I'm led by the Holy Spirit.  I
>    don't apologize for this, because even though one can get a pretty
>    good straightforward sense of the text, the Holy Spirit is essential
>    to clearly understanding what God want for *you* in your life.

This sounds oh so circular. In fact it is oh so circular.

>    The fact that you deleted the rest of my post as you said, indicates
>    that you *a priori* decided that I could not give you a valid answer
>    to your question and thus the rest of my post was invalid.

Rubbish! I deleted the rest of the post because it was all just
illustration of the central point at the top of the post.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>    Does this mean I have "moral relativism"?  Certainly not.  For moral
>>    relativism recognizes no standard at all apart from that determined
>>    by each individual.  The adherent of moral relativism is adrift in
>>    a sea of moral possibilities.
graham
>My contention Jim is that you are in fact a moral relativist.
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    And my contention is that I am not.

Ok try the following test. How far out is your interpretation of the
bible compared to God's intent? 5%? 10%? 15%? ...

graham
>That
>when you chose your particular interpretation of the bible you become 
>a moral relativist so to speak.
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    Yes, "so to speak".  In other words, in one restricted sense of
>    the term.  Surely you see the difference between the "relativism"
>    of a boat tied to a dock versus one floating free in the ocean?

Nope my contention is that you cannot distinguish the two cases.
To prove me wronfg you will need to tell me how far you are far from
the true intent of God's word. Until you do I cannot tell whether
someone floating freely on the ocean is further from the dock than
someone tied to the dock but floating on a line.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    True moral relativism has no dock to tie up to.  We have a dock,
>    and although our boats may bob around the dock, they don't drift
>    out to sea.

We will get to this when you answer my question. To give you a hint,
unless you can answer the question of how far you are from the dock
I am going to suggest that there is no dock.

graham
>Your individual standard is your
>interpretation of the bible (you judge things *relative* to your
>*interpretation* of the bible). In fact I will go further and say that
>there is no way that a "follower of the bible" can avoid being a moral 
>relativist.
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    You can "go" as far as you want, but it doesn't mean that you've
>    (logically) gotten anywhere.
>    I will say simply that you're wrong, as I've demonstrated above,
>    and that you simply refuse to admit it.
graham
>All followers must chose what they think the bible means
>and at this point they become a moral relativist. 
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    The point you miss is that there is a very limited number of
>    possible *logical* interpretations to a certain text.  Take
>    the proscriptions against adultery, for example.  It seems
>    pretty clear cut.  If you have sex or desire to have sex with
>    another person's spouse, or if you break your vow of fidelity
>    to your own spouse by thought or action, you have committed
>    adultery.  There aren't any other valid ways to interpret the
>    relevant passages of the Bible concerning this issue.

And you miss the point. Given that one person is off in his interpretation
by say 5%, and that he then hands this knowledge on to the next
generation with an error rate of say 1%, there is no way of knowing
over time whether you are drifting toward or away from the dock.
Hence you may say that there is only logical explanation of something
in the bible, but that is a view conditioned by your whole lifetime
and your readings of analysis of the bible which unfortunaely has a
time based error built into it.

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    It is the same way for every other *major* moral issue.  Where
>    God wanted us to be absolutely clear on a moral issue, He was.
>    Where an issue is not that critical overall, He leaves us a
>    certain amount of discretion.

Be honest, "Where God wanted us to be absolutely clear on a moral issue..."
is an outright assumption.

To prove this please answer the following questions. 

a) How do you know that God is good? 
b) How do you know that God is not a liar?
c) How do you know that God is not completely evil and merely pretending
to be both good and honest?

jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>>    Having an absolute moral standard, even if imperfectly interpreted,
>>    is better than having no absolute standard at all, and being adrift in
>>    a sea of humanistic moral choices.
graham
>But what is an imperfect interpretation of a moral standard? An
>interpretation is quite simply a "humanistic moral choice" (to use your 
>words).
jbrown@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:
>    No, not at all.  Imperfect in this sense means "not complete" and
>    not "lacking moral direction".  I can say with 100% certainty that
>    God never condones lusting after another person's spouse, for
>    example.

See my three questions above!

graham
--
Graham Matthews                 And it's true we are immune
Pure Math, Uni.Sydney, Oz       When fact is fiction and T.V. is reality
graham@maths.su.oz.au
Newsgroups: alt.atheism