For sonship: On Childishness

In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific to theistic views that hold that God is simply definitive of the good (as sonship has asserted), or to some versions of theological voluntarism, such as divine command theory. As such, much of it will not be transferrable to other moral views. An example of an influential background reference for this would be Morality: Religious and Secular by Patrick Nowell-Smith.

(1) The idea of moral error as disobedience to God. This is fundamental to the notion of sin as transgression, or as missing the mark in terms of living up to God's will. The childish aspect is taking the fundamental error to be disobedience to an authority, per se, as opposed to a more explanatively reasonable basis. This plays into guilt-based childish motivators, such as the motivation to be moral in order to appease some authority. For a child, it is understandable that to the question of why something is wrong you may get the response "Because daddy says so." For an adult, this type of answer should indicate an alarming lack of moral development.

(2) Surrendering of the will and reason in deference to an authority. This is a heteronomous act where one just reads off his reasons for actions from a supposed authority. Done blindly, this is pretty much exactly the opposite of moral autonomy, since 'autonomy' is literally about self-governance. This is what children do when they do not know any better.

(3) The taking of moral commands as utterly inviolable. This is precisely the stance children of a certain age (roughly ~5-9) take when they are provided rules to a game. The mere idea that a rule could be questioned is alien and stupefying to them. The childish aspect here is the blind reluctance, or inability, to critically inspect rules or moral norms. As an adult, one is supposed to understand that moral norms codified into rules are best viewed as mostly reliable generalizations that stand amenable to refinement or counterexamples where contextually appropriate.

(4) Punishment or reward as a moral motivators. Fixation on retribution and recompense. If you talk to a theist who holds some version of theological voluntarism to be true, he or she will often proffer (avoidance of) punishment or (reaping of) reward as moral motivators. I suspect they have some idea that these are inadequate but what other choices do they really have? Take sonship's view that God is simply definitive of goodness. You can ask him "But why should I be good on your view?" He can say because you would be thereby more Godlike. "But why is it good to be Godlike on your view?" He can only say that this is definitional. He cannot say that it is for this or that God-independent explanative reason, pace the Euthyphro dilemma. This is pretty much a vacuous and meaningless response with respect to any sincere moral inquirer. So what is he left with? He would only be left with prudential reasons to offer, by suggesting this or that will come to you if you do this or fail to do that. This is not so different from a child whose early moralistic behaviors are basically pressed into service by reward and punishment programs of some guardian.

(5) Relationship of utter dependence on some authority figure. These theists will also claim we are utterly dependent on God for goodness. All goodness, they will claim, is sourced from God. (Curiously, they typically will not claim the same for evil, even though the primary explanative vehicle they give for the existence of evil – human free will – is supposed to give rise to moral desert in both ways, for praiseworthiness as well as blameworthiness.) This is something like the child who depends on his parents for even the most basic tasks.

(6) Doctrines of original sin. This is the bizarre doctrine of ancestral sin, where one has a sin nature of sorts and is inevitably disposed to sinfulness. This mirrors the state at which the child is bewildered about what behaviors are right or wrong and assumes a default position that pretty much everything he or she does must be wrong.

(7) Salvific doctrines surrounding grace. One is either saved or damned, and salvation is not something one can achieve through merit. Nowell-Smith points out that this mirrors a state where the child is under sole control of a confusing and seemingly arbitrary, capricious parent:

"Salvation in the form of parental smiles and damnation in the form of parental frowns will come to him, like grace, in a manner that both seems and is wholly unconnected with any inwardly felt guilt. The mystery of God's ways to man is the mystery of a father's ways to his children."

(8) Heteronomous and restraint-based hallmarks. These religious moral views are marked by heteronomy (morality as something externally imposed by an outside agency) and restraint (priority on codification of proscriptions and emphasis placed on introspection on one's putatively lowborn characteristics). This is essentially how moral modification proceeds initially in children, through an authority figure constantly telling and correcting them what not to do and how not to be. A much more mature approach is to reflect positively on what sort of persons we should strive to be; but this fails in child-behavior correction below a certain age because they are not yet able to assimilate such considerations.

(9) Incompatibility with moral development I would also submit that a view like sonship's has specific core commitments that are in principle incompatible with moral development. Moral development is a process whereby one progressively achieves moral autonomy in the sense that one's evaluative commitments become a genuine reflection of his or her character traits. The only real way this is achieved is through reflection on what underlying considerations justify (or not) one's moral actions. A child, for example, may have moral behaviors that are simply pressed into service through the external agency of his parents. However, as he or she matures, he or she will come to understand through reflection why the moral guidance he or she received is good guidance and why the stances impressed on him or her are good ones to hold; or else come to abandon what he or she was taught for something else that has stronger support of his or her reason. This reflection on underlying justification is the only way to obtain genuine traction between one's moral behavior and one's actual value set, thereby achieving autonomous moral agency. However, the type of justifying reasons at issue here are incompatible with the commitment that God is simply definitive of goodness. Again, this is something the Euthyphro dilemma shows: the existence of such reasons would contradict the claim that God is explanatorily prior to goodness. This is not to suggest that supporters of a view like sonship's do not in fact undergo some manner of moral development. But it seems to me that such development would come at the cost of some internal dissonance in their moral view. This is similar to Nowell-Smith's thesis, which is that in such cases "these childish attitudes survive…as an alien element, like an outcrop of igneous rock on an alluvial plain."

Thinking preemptively, one of the rebuttals I have seen a lot is that the child analogy is not an apt one, since although it is a failing for an adult to think like a child it is not a failing for an adult not to think like God. That is, the child to adult maturation process is one where the child starts out subordinately but eventually is expected to reach equality; whereas the human to God dynamic is never one where the human is eventually reaching a state of equality to God. Okay, but if you say that this is a relevant consideration in regards to moral knowledge, then what does that say about morality? The implication here is that God is fundamentally different in terms of amassing knowledge regarding moral matters, such that humans can never expect to reasonably say they are on equal footing. But this basically means that morality becomes a thing of mystery. This is similar to the case where one responds to the problem of evil by saying, well, it's possible there are justifying reasons beyond our capacity to understand; or similar to saying, well, it's possible that there are justifying reasons beyond our capacity to understand that explain God's sanctioning genocide at various places in the OT. Uhm, okay, but running further with this basically commits one to some mysterious doctrine of the good; and so much for God being a reliable moral exemplar. Secondly, and more importantly, this type of objection just completely misses point (9) above. The point is that on a view like sonship's (where God is simply definitive of good), there can be no such reasons (mysterious or otherwise) in the first place: again, that would be at pain of contradicting that God is explanatorily prior to goodness, indeed definitional of goodness. A much more mature, adult view would hold that some (presumably non-mysterious) account of goodness is conceptually prior to any account of what makes for a moral exemplar.

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific ...[text shortened]... us) account of goodness is conceptually prior to any account of what makes for a moral exemplar.

This thread seems purpose-built to invite an example of a secular analysis of moral development. This example, like all secular things, is subject to refinement.

http://moodle.unitec.ac.nz/file.php/950/Day_9_childhood/Stages_of_Moral_Development_According_to_Kohlberg.pdf

Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation.
Stage 2: The instrumental relativist orientation.
Stage 3: The interpersonal concordance or "good boy - nice girl" orientation.
Stage 4: The "law and order" orientation.
Stage 5: The social-contract legalistic orientation (generally with utilitarian overtones).
Stage 6: The universal ethical-principle orientation.

"Summary
At stage 1 children think of what is right as that which authority says is right. Doing the right thing is obeying authority and avoiding punishment. At stage 2, children are no longer so impressed by any single authority; they see that there are different sides to any issue. Since everything is relative, one is free to pursue one's own interests, although it is often useful to make deals and exchange favors with others. At stages 3 and 4, young people think as members of the conventional society with its values, norms, and expectations. At stage 3, they emphasize being a good person, which basically means having helpful motives toward people close to one. At stage 4, the concern shifts toward obeying laws to maintain society as a whole. At stages 5 and 6 people are less concerned with maintaining society for it own sake, and more concerned with the principles and values that make for a good society. At stage 5 they emphasize basic rights and the democratic processes that give everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just."

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific ...[text shortened]... us) account of goodness is conceptually prior to any account of what makes for a moral exemplar.

Good post LJ
I think all your points deserve their own thread otherwise the
discussion will get lost in a quagmire of confusion.

In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific to theistic views that hold that God is simply definitive of the good (as sonship has asserted), or to some versions of theological voluntarism, such as divine command theory. As such, much of it will not be transferrable to other moral views. An example of an influential background reference for this would be Morality: Religious and Secular by Patrick Nowell-Smith.

Please go back to Patrick Nowell-Smith's book and look through the glossary in the back. Tell me what he has to say about any of these concepts:

Regeneration,
Indwelling of God in man,
Christ living in me,
The Holy Spirit being imparted into man,
Living in union with Jesus Christ,
Christ being risen and available,
Receiving Christ,
Living in union with Christ

What does he say about any of these matters ?

Originally posted by JS357
This thread seems purpose-built to invite an example of a secular analysis of moral development. This example, like all secular things, is subject to refinement.

http://moodle.unitec.ac.nz/file.php/950/Day_9_childhood/Stages_of_Moral_Development_According_to_Kohlberg.pdf

Stage 1: The punishment and obedience orientation.
Stage 2: The instrumental relati ...[text shortened]... everyone a say, and at stage 6 they define the principles by which agreement will be most just."

Kohlberg's work has been very influential, but it gets criticized for several issues. For example, that his work focuses too much on moral thinking and not enough on actual moral behavior; that he underestimates and does not adequately factor environmental effects including family and community; that he focuses too much on justice (largely with Rawlsian influence) to the exclusion of other important virtues; that his tests are culturally biased; that his stages are mixed and not discretely manifested; etc. Some groups have tried to pick up where he left off but accounting for some of these perceived flaws. For example:

http://www.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewaters/552-04/slide%20sets/steph_sohl/rest_neokohlbergian_approach.pdf

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Good post LJ
I think all your points deserve their own thread otherwise the
discussion will get lost in a quagmire of confusion.

Thank you. I think you are right, and I fear I probably stuffed too many points into the opening post.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific to theistic ...[text shortened]... eceiving Christ,
Living in union with Christ

What does he say about any of these matters ?

In the essay I reference, PNS does not directly address the matters you list. But you already knew that, right? Do you have any substantive responses to the points I tried to raise?

Originally posted by LemonJello
In the essay I reference, PNS does not directly address the matters you list. But you already knew that, right? Do you have any substantive responses to the points I tried to raise?

In the essay I reference, PNS does not directly address the matters you list.

But you want me to regard him as some kind of expert on New Testament Christian living ?

Look real good in that book. Are you sure he never mentions

Christ's resurrection and availability (even as a item of faith)?
No mention of being joined to Jesus Christ (even as an item of faith) ?

Does he mention being reborn ?
I didn't ask if he agrees. I only asks if he mentions it as he expounds on the nature of Christian morality ?

Does he at all refer to Paul's experience ?
I don't ask you if he agrees or believes it. I simply ask if there is any reference to Paul's Second letter to the Corinthians where the apostle virtually gives us something of an autobiography of an apostle ?

Maybe your man is expounding on something he doesn't even understand.

But you already knew that, right? Do you have any substantive responses to the points I tried to raise?

No. I would say that if he mentioned some of the nitty gritty details of what it means to be a Christian, I might be curious.

He and you reason without the possibility of Christ being alive and available it seems.

You start your reasoning without Christ.
You proceed your reasoning without Christ.
You develop your reasoning without Christ.
And you arrive at your conclusions without Christ.

At every stage of your reasoning the possibility of Christ is absent. That is even the possibility of a living Christ. At every stage the personality, the character, the intention, the will, the operation of God is totally missing.

I would ask your intellectual -

What did Jesus really mean by this:

"I am the vine; you are the branches, He who abides in Me and I in him ..."

What does that mean to Christian living? That is to "abide" in Christ and for Christ to abide in Him? Is that a significant aspect of Christian morality, of Christian living ?

And what could be meant by " .. for apart from Me you can do nothing" ?

Your author is going on and on about something he has not experienced and does not understand. He has selected some examples of religious people to observe and offered his opinion on what he thinks is going on with them.

Dine a dozen are folks offering their opinion on what Christians are all about.

Does the author refer to any biographies of notable disciples of Christ ?
Does he mention testimonials given by say Hudson Taylor, George Muller, Fanny Crosby, Margaret Barber, Watchman Nee ?

Does he critique any biographies of people who were alledged effective prayer warriors like Hudson Taylor, Evan Roberts of the Welsh Revival, or John Hyde ("Praying Hyde" ) ?

He has the right to sit back and give us his take on what he thinks the Christian life is all about. But he sounds like he doesn't know what is going on in the hearts of many believers in living and enterable Christ.

Look in the glossary to tell me if the man ever discusses anything about the Holy Spirit.

If there is a particular paragraph in that lengthy paste that you think I really need to comment about, which is it ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Kohlberg's work has been very influential, but it gets criticized for several issues. For example, that his work focuses too much on moral thinking and not enough on actual moral behavior; that he underestimates and does not adequately factor environmental effects including family and community; that he focuses too much on justice (largely with Rawlsian ...[text shortened]... ww.psychology.sunysb.edu/ewaters/552-04/slide%20sets/steph_sohl/rest_neokohlbergian_approach.pdf

Given that his work was published in 1958, I'd expect the theories to have moved on. However, the general idea of moral development itself being analyzable, as opposed to a morality that we are given as a bundle from on high, is more the point. The link's reference to its content as a kohlbergian approach, speaks for itself. Thanks for the link.

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thread, Thread 157510, sonship and I were debating whether or not his theistic moral view conduces to moral development. He maintains that it does, whereas I disagree. Here are some elements of his and related moral views that I think are essentially childish. From the outset, it should be noted that this commentary is specific ...[text shortened]... us) account of goodness is conceptually prior to any account of what makes for a moral exemplar.

Whew.

Way, way, waaaaaay too much to sort through in one thread.
It's a wall of text that offends more by its existence than even its content.

But let's give it a shot anyway.

(1) The idea of moral error as disobedience to God.
I think it's cute when the academic world tries to grapple with non-scientific realities by applying awkward fitting terms to every day items.
What, in God's green earth, is a "more explanatively reasonable basis" for moral shortcomings?

I'm jumping way ahead with you on this one, because God hasn't called for us to be moral.
He's given us a code of conduct which is so far superior to morality that morality looks crass in comparison.

That notwithstanding, you've still got it wrong.
When a parent invokes "Because daddy says so," it is hoped the father only uses this in cases where the underpinning reasons are beyond the grasp of the child.
The child transfers the onus of their decision by deferring to the known attribute of the love their parent has for them... at least until that answer is no longer satisfactory for them.

God neither encourages nor endorses the emotion of guilt.

Since God is the ultimate standard of good, of perfection, He would be remiss to condone any behavior which deviates from Him.

(2) Surrendering of the will and reason in deference to an authority.
You're kinda repeating yourself, but there is a small distinction.
Nonetheless, you are wrong again.
God continually requests man to reason with Him, implores him to think things through.

We are constantly deferring our positions to authority on a daily basis.
None of us are expert at anything, although some of us may be quite qualified on our areas of consideration.
No one here (as far as I can recall, except for the occasional wing-nut) has pointed others to themselves as the final authority on any matter.
We have all used references and cited sources to justify our positions.
Is it really so surprising to have the final authority on all matters be able to point to Himself?

(3) The taking of moral commands as utterly inviolable.
See my rejoinder to the first point, namely, God has not called us to be moral.
His standard for us far surpasses such trivial pursuits.

(4) Punishment or reward as a moral motivators. Fixation on retribution and recompense.
This concept has literally zero to do with orthodox Christianity, or with a stable-minded Christian.
You're confusing the simplistic bone-headed emotionalism that has been traipsed about for the last century ('God loves you sooooo much, He just couldn't live without you,' is one example of this crap thinking) with actual doctrine.

The sloganeering found in the pages of Christianity for Idiots is decidedly far removed from the actual truth of the matter.

(5) Relationship of utter dependence on some authority figure.
Some utter is good.
As in, our very existence is utterly in His hands.
As in, the universe is utterly held together by Him.
So when you think in terms like that, it makes sense.

Since God created EVERYTHING, you can't have the apple without the core.
However, human free will is not the orthodox explanation for the existence of evil.
Not even sure how you get that out of anything within the bounds of Christianity, as it literally makes no sense whatsoever.

That being said, God created us to be like Him, for His good pleasure.
Who would want a bunch of idiots?

(6) Doctrines of original sin.
This "bizarre doctrine of ancestral sin" speaks more realistically about the chronic human condition than any jack ass with a PhD behind their name has conjured up.
In fact, a string of letter horny morons have even gone so far as to imagine a world in which evil doesn't exist, insisting, for instance, that the rape and mutilation of a helpless infant at the hands of an otherwise functioning sentient being is an unfortunate misstep.
Or maybe it was a fundamental error.
Yeah.
Something like that.

(7) Salvific doctrines surrounding grace.
Because this newest incompetent, Nowell-Smith, is so hung up on guilt, he cannot fathom love as anything but emotion and therefore has no concept of what the grace of God consists of.
His ignorance is only exceeded by his vocabulary in describing the same.

(8) Heteronomous and restraint-based hallmarks.
Let's see if we can sort this crap out.
Morality is the acceptable conduct of people living within a group.
Man must act in accordance with this morality in order to remain living in the group.
Man does not always want to act in accordance with this morality, but is compelled to do so or suffer the consequences associated with the behavior.
Here, we see the outside agency is the morality, restraining the behavior of the individual.
According to Nowell-Smith, a much more mature approach would be for the individual to merely reflect positively on what sort of person he should strive to be... in order to remain in the group.
The mind reels.

(9) Incompatibility with moral development
You have taken many words in order to convey absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by sonship

In the essay I reference, PNS does not directly address the matters you list.

But you want me to regard him as some kind of expert on New Testament Christian living ?

Look real good in that book. Are you sure he never mentions

Christ's resurrection and availability (even as a item of faith)?
No mention of being [b]joined ...[text shortened]... lar paragraph in that lengthy paste that you think I really need to comment about, which is it ?[/b]

But you want me to regard him as some kind of expert on New Testament Christian living ?

No, you can regard him as a dead philosophy professor who specialized in ethics and whatnot. How provincial and vain of you to think his writing here only purports to speak to your particular brand of theological voluntarism! The essay is more general to the subject of theological voluntarism. And some of the more specific points I expounded upon may be applicable to your particular brand; others maybe not (perhaps this should have been stated in the prefacing). Why not try actually addressing the content of the points instead of raising irrelevant objections?

Maybe your man is expounding on something he doesn't even understand.

Perhaps. Do you care to explain what you think are the points of misunderstanding? Consider this an invitation to make a case.

He and you reason without the possibility of Christ being alive and available it seems.

I do not wish to speak for a dead philosopher, but everything I am arguing here is still fully consistent with the possibility of "Christ being alive and available". I will state this explicitly for you since you seem to be have some hang-up on this: I take the epistemic possibility of "Christ being alive and available" to be non-zero. I think the possibility is something very small, but I take it to be non-zero. Hence I take it to be possible. None of the argumentative points I have put forth even remotely imply otherwise, so I don't know why you are so hung up on this.

If you think there are substantive rebuttal points dealing materially with the subject of "Christ being alive and available", then go ahead and make them already!

If there is a particular paragraph in that lengthy paste that you think I really need to comment about, which is it ?

Whichever paragraph(s) strike you as most forceful.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Whew.

Way, way, waaaaaay too much to sort through in one thread.
It's a wall of text that offends more by its existence than even its content.

But let's give it a shot anyway.

[b](1) The idea of moral error as disobedience to God.
I think it's cute when the academic world tries to grapple with non-scientific realities by applying awkw ...[text shortened]... with moral development[/i][/b]
You have taken many words in order to convey absolutely nothing.[/b]

Well, it would appear I have struck a nerve. Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, you sound like a petulant child. Maybe revisit this when you can entertain the topic in a more mature, objective manner?

I'll not waste more time than needed. I will reply only to the substantive, intelligible points you raise. That throws out the bulk of your post.

When a parent invokes "Because daddy says so," it is hoped the father only uses this in cases where the underpinning reasons are beyond the grasp of the child.

You're missing the point. The childish aspect is the thinking that what actually makes this or that morally right/wrong is the fact that daddy says so. The childish mind does not look further to any external, Daddy-independent reasons that would explain the rightness/wrongness at issue. And this very nicely mirrors a view such as yours or that of sonship, in that you have no recourse to any God-independent reasons that ultimately explain moral status. As we have already discussed many times on these boards, this is what the Euthyphro dilemma shows when applied to your view.

We have all used references and cited sources to justify our positions.

Right, and one does so justifiably under certain conditions. Those conditions would suffice to show that the trust you place in another source is reasoned and based on good grounds. That's why, you'll notice, I focused this point to discussion of the opposite end of the spectrum, when this is "done blindly" instead. The challenge here would be against 'faith' and what grounds it, if anything.

Morality is the acceptable conduct of people living within a group.
Man must act in accordance with this morality in order to remain living in the group.
Man does not always want to act in accordance with this morality, but is compelled to do so or suffer the consequences associated with the behavior.
Here, we see the outside agency is the morality, restraining the behavior of the individual.

Sorry, but you're just notionally confused. 'Morality' is not an agent.

Well, that's about all I could find by way of substance in your post.

Originally posted by LemonJello

But you want me to regard him as some kind of expert on New Testament Christian living ?

No, you can regard him as a dead philosophy professor who specialized in ethics and whatnot. How provincial and vain of you to think his writing here only purports to speak to your particular brand of theological voluntarism! The essay is more gene ...[text shortened]... d to comment about, which is it ?[/quote]

Whichever paragraph(s) strike you as most forceful.

LemonJello, if I may interject a brief question: what is your personal endgame objective... in online debate and in life?

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
LemonJello, if I may interject a brief question: what is your personal endgame objective... in online debate and in life?

Sorry, I don't understand your question, Bobby.

Originally posted by LemonJello
Sorry, I don't understand your question, Bobby.

Let's try again, LJ: The Olympian width and length of this thread's Original Post exceeds my own personal 'best'. lol From which it would appear that you also attempt to present comprehensive information within a functional structure, presumably, because you care intensely about your objective. Few invest this level of effort; to what ultimate purpose do you do so?