What follows is a conversation that took place on Facebook. Someone I am connected with posted the following meme. As I considered it not true and a slam at my Christian worldview perspective, I commented and a conversation ensued. The initial commentors didn’t have much to say, but very quickly MS joined the discussion. It might also be helpful to know that MS is a college Sociology professor.
Freddy Davis
This is disgustingly bigoted and does not reflect the beliefs of those pictured.
DTN
Unfortunately, I do believe that it reflects what a lot of those guys (notice all men) are thinking!
Freddy Davis
Another part of the bigotry.
AF
Pastor Neimoller’s poem was on the wall in my office for years. It has informed my work for a long time. Change the faces and the objects in each line. The outcome remains. We all matter.
Freddy Davis
The poem itself is fantastic!!! I just don’t like it used in a bigoted way.
MS
Calling out bigotry is not the same thing as bigotry itself.
Freddy Davis
The poem is not bigoted. In fact, I agree with it 100%. It is a profound truth. However, when you cheapen it by using it to accuse people of bad motives and evil intent because you don’t like their political position, that is another thing altogether. This is a cheap shot not worthy of the truth and profundity of the poem.
MS
It isn’t directly about their political positions. It has more to do with their documented statements and actions (policy proposals). Most notably, Trump, Pence, Bannon, and Sessions. I’m not sure about the last person.
I don’t know if it reflects their beliefs, but from all the evidence I have seen, it reflects their statements and actions (especially Trump).
Freddy Davis
No, it has to do with interpretations of their statements that are filtered through worldview beliefs that are different from the person who created the meme. In fact, this is not just about those individuals, but is a case of demonizing all people who hold worldview beliefs that don’t agree with the meme’s creator. If you are going to have these kinds of discussions, then have the discussions on the issues and quit the drive by shooting.
MS
Ok, let’s have a discussion about historical and ongoing racism, rooted in white supremacy.
Freddy Davis
Okay, make your case. You do realize that we have already been down this road before and I do not agree with the premise of your argument. I don’t just want to hear your point of view (since I know what that is), I want you to justify the worldview presuppositions that allow your point of view to be considered valid.
MS
Yes, we have been down this road before. So you want me to justify my “worldview presuppositions” that allow my point of view to be considered valid. In other words, you want me to allow you to frame the discussion around your understanding of worldviews, which then validates or invalidates the premise of an argument. That certainly seems like a way to dismiss a claim based on a presupposed framing of worldview presuppositions.
First, I’m not sure what my “worldview presupposition” actually is. I think you think you know what it is, but, as I’ve noted before, I don’t thinks it’s that simple.
Question: does a person’s worldview affect their ability to see the effects of wind? I know that the social world is more complicated than a simple cause-and-effect relationship in the physical/natural world (e.g., wind causing leaves to blow off of a tree), but there is still an objective social world that we (and) do learn about. And I know that you have concerns with social science…but my concern is that you throw the baby out with the bath-water.
In short, I could (if I had the time) offer you mountains of evidence documenting the historical and ongoing forms of racism (here and elsewhere), but I fear that you would dismiss all of it due to your assumption of my worldview.
Why do you not agree with the premise of my argument? In your view, what is the premise?
Freddy Davis
That is an interesting response … you object to me framing the argument because you want to frame it. So, what is it that makes your point of view valid and mine not?
So, you don’t know what your worldview presuppositions are? Then how can you ever make a valid argument in the first place, and how can you challenge someone else’s? I don’t know if you ever read it or not, but I did send you one of my books that provides a basic understanding of worldview concepts.
I know you say you are not an Atheist, but all of your arguments are built on a naturalistic worldview foundation – which is, at its core, atheistic. In the past you have given a little bit of lip service to the possibility that there could be causes that operate outside of natural laws, but everything you have actually argued is based on the premise that everything must somehow be justified by natural laws. So to respond to your question: Does a person’s worldview affect their ability to see the effects of the wind? Probably not. What it does effect, however, is how they interpret those effects. Some people seeing the wind blowing leaves off a tree might interpret that action as the spirits using the leaves to send a message. You, on the other hand would likely only see the leaves falling because of the blowing of the wind. Their belief does not make them right any more than your belief makes yours right. Reality is structured as reality is structured, and it operates as reality regardless of how anyone interprets it. People live by their worldview beliefs regardless of whether or not those beliefs reflect reality, but reality is constant anyway.
You probably could offer me mountains of evidence documenting the historical and ongoing forms of what you deem to be racism. The problem is, much of what is called racism these days is not racism at all (see the meme above). And that is the reason for my challenge. You are going to interpret your data the way you are going to interpret your data, but I want to know “why” your interpretation is true and right as opposed to someone who would interpret the data in a different way. Until you can do that, your opinion is nothing more than your opinion. There is always a standard by which data is interpreted, and conclusions seem logical to people who agree with that standard. In past discussions I have shared clearly with you what I believe about the structure of reality and why I believe it. [In that discussion I shared with him the basis of a biblical worldview.] I want to hear you articulate your standard and to know why you think it is worthy.
MS
Isn’t framing what all of this is about? Because framing the argument you are more likely to “win” the argument.
I can make a valid argument about the social or natural world (reality) based on evidence, logic, and reason. I did read some of the book you sent me (I read the parts about the different worldviews), but I don’t fully agree with the worldview categories or that they are mutually exclusive. For example, I can rely on the best empirical evidence (it’s not perfect) we have for things found in the social and natural world and the way that reality is organized and structured. AND I am open to the possibility that there are causal forces (spirit, God, etc.) that we cannot see or measure using scientific methods. But I think it’s dangerous to simply ignore the evidence we do have and say, “well, that’s just the way it is.” Because there is also the possibility that we have created these systems that shape our lives.
Yes, I’m fully aware that interpretation is important. How we interpret a fact (wind blowing through a tree or racial inequality) can be interpreted differently depending on a person’s background, education, knowledge, experiences, worldview, etc.
Yes, there are standards by which to interpret data and facts. And some are better than others. I argue that my interpretation is better if we understand that human society had a role in creating different systems, policies, laws, etc. that affect us differently.
So, sticking with race and racism. Here is a fact: blacks and Hispanics in America earn less and have much less wealth compared to whites and some Asian groups. These are group averages with some variations. How do you interpret or explain that fact?
Freddy Davis
No, framing the argument is not what it is all about. Aligning with the truth is what it is about. You certainly can make a logical argument to support your point of view. The problem is, even logic is based on particular worldview presuppositions. What is logical based on one set of presuppositions is not logical based on another. So, as long as the person listening to your logic agrees with your point of view, your argument will be logical to them. However, if you are giving arguments to a person who bases their logic on a different set of presuppositions, they will not see your argument as logical. That is why drilling down and understanding actual reality is so critical. This whole postmodern idea of everyone having their own reality simply does not correspond with reality. Reality actually does exist in some objectively real way.
Who ever said anything about ignoring any evidence? It certainly was not me. I fully believe in science and the scientific method. However, there are places where it cannot be applied. That is the problem that exists with the social sciences – it tries to apply the scientific method to things that simply don’t fit. It begins with the assumption that everything can be scientifically measured, and runs experiments “as if” what it is measuring can be scientifically measured, but it simply doesn’t give you any kind of complete data upon which to draw final conclusions. As you yourself pointed out, you can get group averages, but you can never come to any objective conclusions about what it means in individuals. In other words, it has to ignore all of the evidence that fits into non-science categories. Recognizing that fact is not ignoring evidence, it is acknowledging that some types of evidence are not based on science.
You say you are open to the possibility that there are causal forces that are outside of science, but how do you recognize them? How do you interject them into your conclusions as you conduct social science experiments? Unless you know the actual structure of reality and what those outside forces are and how they work, you can’t. And I would be very surprised if you even considered trying to do that with your social science research. Naturalistic social science simply doesn’t allow for it.
The fact that blacks and Hispanics, as a class, have less wealth than some whites and Asians is only data. Data is not morally loaded. It has to be interpreted to come to any kind of moral conclusions. So, the fact that there is income disparity based on averages between differing groups can only become racism if you use some kind of arbitrary standard to declare it so. So, what is your standard for making that kind of assertion? The fact is, there are MANY blacks and Hispanics who earn way more than I do. So if income disparity is the basis for racism, maybe they are the ones who are racist. If you really think that earning power is the basis of racism, then you really do have a different definition of racism than I do. You see, trying to make a case for racism based on average incomes is not based on any kind of truly scientific measure, it is based on a philosophical point of view that deems it so. So, once again, I come back to my original question for you: What makes your point of view the truth about how reality is structured?
MS
We’ve been around this block many times before; I’ll try to reply briefly as I don’t have much time. But I believe that finding some common ground is crucial in this day and age.
You wrote, “This whole postmodern idea of everyone having their own reality simply does not correspond with reality. Reality actually does exist in some objectively real way.”
Yes, I agree. There is a reality that exists in some objectively real way. AND it’s not that simple, as you have noted: one person’s interpretation of an event, idea, or object can differ from another’s (based on what you have called “worldviews”). Am I wrong? So isn’t it ALSO true that “reality” (in a narrow, individual sense of interpretation and subjectivity) can potentially be different for different people? The everyday, lived reality can be different. I think I know what you will say…that they are living in a “false reality” if it doesn’t coincide with your worldview, correct? Are you familiar with the Thomas Theorem on how we define a situation as “real”?
But then (and we agree here) there is an objective reality. For example, we are both on planet earth, DJT is our POTUS, etc. And similar to you, I also think that some people live in a false reality. For example, some people believe the earth is flat. So I don’t think that it’s as simple as saying that there is an objective reality and that “MY” worldview is the best at uncovering (understanding?) it. Is it possible that your worldview (and its presuppositions) prevents you from understanding the nuances of what you have called “reality”?
And what I find interesting about your criticism of postmodernism is that DJT ran with this through his entire campaign and into his first year as POTUS. He says and (re)tweets whatever is on his mind and seems to think that it is all “true.”
You wrote: “The fact that blacks and Hispanics, as a class, have less wealth than some whites and Asians is only data. Data is not morally loaded. It has to be interpreted to come to any kind of moral conclusions.”
Yes, this was my point. I simply laid out a fact (you agree that’s a fact, correct?) and then asked for your understanding/interpretation of that fact. How do you explain WHY we see income and wealth disparities between members of different racial groups? I am interested in how you define “race” and “racism.”
You wrote: “So, the fact that there is income disparity based on averages between differing groups can only become racism if you use some kind of arbitrary standard to declare it so. So, what is your standard for making that kind of assertion?”
I don’t really have the time (or the space) to adequately answer this question, but I’ll try. In short, the standard is not arbitrary. The standard is based on the fact that “racial” groups do not exist in the biological or genetic realm. This is a fact. They only exist in the social realm and are a result of historical circumstances, power, and ideology. Based on that, the only logical conclusion is that racial inequality exists because we live in a racialized social system rooted in white supremacy.
But because you don’t seem to place any validity on social science (of any kind, evidently … except maybe economics?) then I fear that my argument falls on deaf ears. I have acknowledged before that social science is not perfect. And I don’t think it’s as simple as saying that there isn’t room for the metaphysical or things that we can’t empirically measure. There’s always room for error and needing to know/discover more. But generally, yes. We’re trying to understand the social world as best we can. Do you have a better method? Should we simply ignore the social world and just go with people’s opinions?
Yes, there are MANY blacks and Hispanics with more income and wealth than you, but that doesn’t discount the pattern. Personal experiences don’t discount the social pattern that exists.
To answer your question. I make no claim on “the truth.” On a professional level, I am trained to try and understand the nature of social reality. How it looks, how it is constructed, how it is maintained, and how people can interpret that reality in a different way. And more specifically, I look at social inequality and how to make the world more fair and just to more people. And we use the best methods that we currently have for discovering this (and they are not perfect). You call this a “naturalist” worldview, correct? That’s fine. But to dismiss it all is dangerous. Do we not have God-given senses to better understand the natural world? And you’ll probably argue that with this worldview, we’re only seeing things on the surface and missing the unseen, unknowable “forces” that shape and determine this reality. Ok, maybe so. So what do we do now?
On a personal level, I am open to different possibilities of human existence and spirituality – maybe I’m an agnostic Buddhist? I think there may be an underlying “truth” but I don’t know if we are equipped to discover it. If I were to say that one thing is true is that we’re all in this together and that our egos and attachments to things make us blind to this truth.
I think a fundamental difference here is that I am open to the possibility that I am wrong. That other perspectives, worldviews, framing, etc. may end up being a better way to “discover” this objective reality that exists. Or at least that multiple interpretations of the world can lead us to a more complete understanding of our physical, social, and metaphysical worlds. But I get the impression from you that you firmly believe that your worldview is the only correct view and that all others are viewing a false reality. And that seems to fall in the realm of dualistic thinking, which I think is problematic. Am I wrong? Allow me to ask you the same question: What makes your point of view the truth about how reality is structured?
I have probably left some things out, but I must go now. I look forward to your reply, but I worry that we’ve probably arrived at an impasse and I don’t know if I’ll be able to reply. Be well.
Freddy Davis
* What you are calling individual realities are nothing more than individual life situations. These are neither right or wrong, they just are. A worldview is a belief system, and people live out their life situations based on their worldview beliefs. You are mixing categories that cannot be compared the way you are trying to do. I really don’t think you have grasped the concept of worldview, and much of your argument does not relate to what I have said in my previous posts.
* Interesting that you go into all of this explanation about how race and racial groupings only exist as a social construct, then you go on to say, “Based on that (your understanding about how those grouping exist in the natural world), the only logical conclusion is that racial inequality exists because we live in a racialized social system rooted in white supremacy.” Where do you get that logic? You are making conclusions based on some form of a collectivist worldview, and there is nothing scientific about it. You have made your conclusions based purely on your philosophical presuppositions. So again, why is that true? What can you show scientifically (since that is the standard you must work by in your social science research) that those beliefs are actually true? I can take the same data, filter it through an individualist worldview system and come to a completely different conclusion. Why is yours true?
* You use such words as “fairness” and “justice,” yet those are value words that have to be defined based on some set of principles. Why is your approach to fairness and justice right and my approach wrong? Your assertion is not a scientific statement, but a moral/philosophical one. So, demonstrate the validity of your beliefs.
* Agnostic Buddhist – very interesting. Buddhism has a very specific set of beliefs that literally contradict the naturalistic presuppositions inherent in the social sciences. Buddhism is actually atheistic in that it believes there is a transcendent reality, but that it is absolutely impersonal (there is no God that created or operates it). It also believes that the natural universe is illusory in the sense that the material universe does not represent actual reality. Actual reality is understood to be impersonal and immaterial, while the natural universe is material and contains much that is personal. Do you really believe the presuppositions of Buddhism? If so, how do you reconcile that with the naturalistic beliefs that correspond with the social sciences? You say you are open to different possibilities, yet you live life “as if” Naturalism is true. I don’t think you conduct any social science research “as if” Buddhist beliefs are true.
* And what does it mean for you to be “open the the possibility that you are wrong?” What would be required for you to come to believe something different? Do you require some kind of naturalistic proof?
* Of course I believe my worldview is the only truth – just as you believe yours is (even though you are not yet able to actually articulate your worldview beliefs). You could never live by beliefs that you consider do not reflect reality. Only mentally ill people consciously live in a fantasy world.
* Since you asked again, here is a quick summary of my understanding of reality: God exists and can be known in an objectively real personal relationship. He has revealed himself in numerous ways, and anyone willing to open their life to him can know him too. I know this because I know him. Part of God’s revelation does interact with the natural universe that he created, so I actually do take science quite seriously (as opposed to social science which is not actually based on science). Other parts of God’s revelation were actually expressed in objectively real history in the real world (another reason to take seriously the natural universe). Still other parts of his revelation are personal to the individual. This does not mean that individuals create their own reality about God, but that he reveals himself to us in a way that is consistent with the other revelations (science, history, etc.) that he has given. God is not some abstract principle, but is an objectively real person that we can know in a personal relationship.
MS
I tried to write a long reply, but this is exhausting and I have a lot of work to catch up on. Here is the gist of it: we’re talking past each other. This is the impasse that I thought we would arrive at.
You wrote, “I really don’t think you have grasped the concept of worldview, and much of your argument does not relate to what I have said in my previous posts.”
This is exactly my point: the conversation is being framed around your conceptualization of “worldviews.” And since I’m not talking in your language, you’re not understanding what I’m saying.
What you’ve done is to use (create?) a worldview narrative that allows you to dismiss as false any perspective that does not neatly fit into one of your worldview categories, of which only 1 (one) you believe to be true. So I’m in a lose-lose situation here. Even if I give you what you want and claim to come from what you call a “naturalistic” worldview, you will then simply dismiss my argument as false and a misinterpretation of reality (because it is distinct from your worldview).
I think that any worldview that claims to monopolize the “truth” is dangerous.
In a defense of my worldview, I try to see and understand objective social reality as best I can. Human created societies and the meanings that we attach to things (like race, for example) can and do create objective, known, real-world pain and suffering.
You have managed to not answer my simple question again: how do you explain racial inequality? What is the root cause? Is it God-ordained?
MS
One more quick thing that I just remembered. I don’t think that your worldview (as you have described above) necessarily prevents you from understanding and agreeing with some sociological principles about the social construction race, ethnicity, or gender. There are plenty of scholars, members of the clergy, writers, philosophers, etc. who share your worldview AND understand these basic principles and how they shape people’s lives. So in short, your worldview and a naturalistic worldview are not mutually exclusive. Maybe you just don’t agree with some of the political ramifications of social science data and research…
Freddy Davis
MS – Different worldviews are different conceptual languages. We are not talking past each other, we are speaking different languages. The difference is, I understand your language but you don’t understand mine. I am talking about a big picture concept while you are stuck in one little corner of the concept. I am not trying to talk down to you or to be condescending. It is just that I understand the Naturalism you are working from, but you are evaluating my Theistic beliefs based on your naturalistic ones. That is where the problem lies and it simply does not work. You seem to think that my concept of worldview is limiting our ability to communicate because I am filtering my beliefs through worldview in a generic sense. What is happening, in fact, is that while I am trying to help you see a bigger picture, you are locked into only seeing a small picture. Using a metaphor, it is like I am talking a about mathematics in general, but you insist on only talking about algebra and don’t recognize that there are other areas. I am talking big picture concepts and you are stuck on algebra. I am not dismissing what you are saying, I am putting it in a larger context that you are just not grasping.
The reason I dismiss Naturalism has nothing to do with the fact that it disagrees with my beliefs. It does disagree, but that is not the reason I dismiss it. Naturalism, as a belief system cannot justify itself based on its own presuppositions. That is the reason I dismiss it. If you want to prove me wrong, then I am open to being corrected. However, it can’t be done.
You said, “any worldview that claims to monopolize the “truth” is dangerous.” What you don’t realize is that EVERY worldview does that — mine, yours, and every other one. That is why it is important to analyze for truth – and we do it by matching up the presuppositions of the various worldviews with how the real world works. Your objections to my line of reasoning simply doesn’t relate to what we are talking about.
I have not been avoiding your question. Asking me how I explain racial inequality is a nonsensical question. How do you explain income inequality, or educational inequality, or athletic inequality, or any other kind of “inequality.” It is just the wrong question. We are all in the situation we are in, and we make decisions that thrust our lives in different directions. When I lived in Japan I never thought of myself as oppressed, even though I had certain disadvantages as a foreigner. It was just my life situation and I lived and worked within it. It gave me advantages in some places and disadvantages in others. Your approach to dealing with that issue is a collectivist approach – I do not buy it and you still have not given me any reason why I should.
Your last paragraph once again misses the entire point. I accept the data that the social sciences generate. However, if you interpret that data through a naturalistic lens, you end up with conclusions that are faulty based on the inadequacies of naturalistic beliefs. Naturalism and Theism are mutually exclusive. Your problem is that you are not defining the terms correctly so you are coming to wrong conclusions.
MS
Thanks for the reply. And I just have to laugh…and not in a condescending way. I feel like I am seeing things in a larger or “big-picture” way you are talking only from within your worldview framework. I want to know where this worldview framework came from. I’m not sure who is correct, maybe we both are.
I also understand your concern about which questions we ask. For example, I hate the nature versus nurture question. It’s both.
For example, you wrote, “We are all in the situation we are in, and we make decisions that thrust our lives in different directions.” That presupposition ignores the broader context (my main point). Decisions and choices don’t exist in a vacuum. They are contextualized by history, social context, relations of power, etc. It’s not as simple as choice. Does someone born into poverty have the same life choices as someone born into wealth? Your experience(s) in Japan are insightful, but that’s a unique context and doesn’t explain forms of inequality here in the states.
If you accept the social science data, then why can’t you answer my question about how you explain or interpret it? Isn’t that the point? It sounds like you believe that inequality is a result of individual choice. Is that it? You may think it’s the wrong question, but plenty of people don’t. Are they all wrong?
Freddy Davis
People born into poverty do not have the same choices as those not. But that is not the point. There are many who were born into poverty and became rich, and many born rich who die paupers. This is where you ask the wrong question. It is not a matter of what state people are born into that is important, but what they do with their lives as they live it. Material wealth or poverty is not the measuring stick for how well a life is lived, and it certainly is not the basis upon which racism is measured. Expressions of racism, at their root, are individual expressions, not societal. If you have a whole group of people who express racist beliefs, it is not society that is racist (because “society” is not a sentient body), but a whole host of individuals. Certainly when the people of a society institutionalize evil, that needs to be dealt with, but if you really want to solve a problem like that, you have to change hearts and minds, not just create new laws. Simply creating laws without changing hearts and minds does not eliminate oppression, it just puts it in a different place.
But then you have another problem. Who gets to decide what is right and wrong, moral and immoral? Your approach assumes that such a thing exists because it pushes against what you consider wrong. But Naturalism’s only way of defining morality is the preference of those in power. Where is the science in that? As I keep saying, naturalistic presuppositions do not provide any kind of objective basis for making the kinds of assertions you are making about racism or any other moral issue.
Back to understanding worldview beliefs: When I tell you my particular beliefs, I am speaking from my personal worldview framework. However, when I speak of the big picture of worldview and define the belief structure of the various worldviews, I am not speaking from within my worldview framework. That is all based on definitions. Theism has particular presuppositions. Naturalism has particular presuppositions – and so on. When I talk about naturalistic beliefs, I am not speaking from my worldview framework, but am talking about the beliefs that Naturalism is based upon. (BTW: My experience in Japan is not unique in the way you say. The principle is exactly the same.)
Let me see if I can refresh your memory a little. There are only 4 basic worldview categories. Every religion, cult, and philosophy in existence is somehow based upon those 4. I can know which one you are basing your arguments upon by simply seeing which one you are using to make your case. When you are using some argument from a social science, your argumentation expresses naturalistic presuppositions. If I disagree with that, it is not because I don’t believe social science methodologies can come up with legitimate data, it is because you are interpreting the data based on Philosophical Naturalism, not on empirical science. When you say you are an Agnostic Buddhist, I look at what you say and don’t see any legitimate Pantheism or Monism in anything you are saying. Not seeing those kinds of beliefs that are part and parcel of Buddhism makes me question whether or not you actually believe Buddhist beliefs (and speaking of not answering, you sort of ignored that questions, too). All of your argumentation is based on naturalistic presuppositions.
MS
Regarding your first paragraph: I don’t have time to fully dissect all your points. And, no offense, but I’ve heard all of these arguments and positions before. They aren’t necessarily wrong, they are simply too narrow and leave out much of the broader picture. You are operating from a framework that only takes into account individual beliefs and explanations. We’re very good here in the Western world of seeing things psychologically, but not sociologically. And this is why your perspective is understandable and expected. But this is where you’re missing the bigger picture. That framework itself is a product of culture. You are illustrating how dominant cultural beliefs shape individual opinions and perspectives. And therein lies the irony: the belief that it’s only about “the individual” is itself a cultural belief and narrative. Other cultures and value systems see things differently.
Yes, “expressions” of racism operate on an individual level. An obvious example: a racist manager won’t hire black people. But that’s only the tip of the iceberg. Are all individual expressions clear and obvious? No. Legacy policies at institutions of higher ed are implicitly racist; how jobs are advertised are implicitly racist; how people are treated within the criminal justice system is implicitly racist. I could go on. The point is that even those with “good intentions” and claim to “not (to) be racist” act in ways that are implicitly or subtly racist (meaning people are treated differently based on their racial grouping). We see this all the time among liberals.
This is because these mechanisms are invisible to the untrained eye who only sees racism as an “individual problem.” The belief that “if we can just get rid of the racists, things will be fine.”
Again, too shallow. We’re all “racist” to some degree. Are you familiar with the psych research around “implicit bias”? Question: is anyone born with racial stereotypes in their head?
You wrote, “People born into poverty do not have the same choices as those not. But that is not the point. There are many who were born into poverty and became rich, and many born rich who die paupers.”
This is factually incorrect. Class position is relatively stable, and works across generations. ALL of the literature illustrates this.
I’m not sure how you define “many” but most people stay and die in the class they were born into. This is a fact.
I agree that wealth and income are not the only measurements of “success.” Plenty of people who are materially and economically “poor” but live happy lives. If you really want to dig down, you’ll see that part of this problem is connected to a consumption-oriented economy.
More in a moment…this is too long!
MS
Ok, I really want to figure this out because it’s driving me crazy!
Let me try to use your language. Regarding morals: I think I understand what you are saying: a naturalistic worldview has no “source” for morals. Correct? It can’t be “objective” because there is no basis for moral judgments; everything is “made up” (post-modernism, etc.). Everything is understood as either a social construction or a physical/natural reality. And then there is the problem of interpretation and how the specific worldview presupposition understands/judges/values that thing/data/idea, etc. Am I correct?
Allow me to try and answer briefly. From my view (naturalism?), objectivity is a difficult thing to attain from the position of a spiritual being in a physical body. Is it possible for a single human to be completely objective? Probably not. So what do we do? Well, we can aim to be “more objective” or what is called a “stronger objectivity.” Collectively, over time, “we” decide what is right and wrong. We argue, we go back and forth (as we are doing now) and we come to some kind of agreement, much of which is and was based on various religious or spiritual traditions. See, I don’t deny the power of religion, faith, or spirituality in the creation of moral frameworks. I know that played a big role; to say otherwise would be foolish. But then there is a lot of disagreement in that area as well…
My main point: we, as groups of people, say that something is “right” or “wrong” because that’s what we’ve decided to do. We say that something is “objective” or “true” because all (or most of us) say it is. It’s a collective process. I know you will disagree with this. And maybe we’ll need to leave it that…
And if you’ll notice, all religions are a collective process too. That’s how they come about. Religion is an inherently social institution.
You wrote, “But Naturalism’s only way of defining morality is the preference of those in power.” I don’t think so. If this is the case, then I’m not a naturalist. Morality is defined by individuals and also groups (large and small) of people. Those in power can and often do try to define and shape “morality” but it’s not always successful. And this is actually one of the primary principles/concepts in sociology: understanding power. We’re very critical of how power works in society: how it influences institutions and dominant ideologies (like what is “moral”). So while we do understand that power gives a person or group more influence on defining what is moral, we are very critical of this process as undemocratic and authoritarian. So this is not the frame or perspective that sociology uses.
Freddy Davis
Collectively, over time, “we” decide what is right and wrong. We argue, we go back and forth (as we are doing now) and we come to some kind of agreement, much of which is and was based on various religious or spiritual traditions.
Naturalism does have a source, and you have just directly expressed it. Morality to you, based on your naturalistic worldview, is a social construct. Morality to me, based on my Christian theistic worldview, is an objective reality. We can come to an agreement if you are willing to conform your understanding of morality to what I believe – and you can actually do that because your moral viewpoint, based on Naturalism, is relative. My viewpoint is, on the other hand, objective and not subject to change. Christian Theism understands morality to be revealed by God based on his very character. So to respond to your assertion, it is not a matter of “us being objective” but of reality being an objective actuality. It doesn’t change. (Now, lest you think that I am being narrow-minded in saying this, remember that we are dealing with reality. If God actually does exist the way I believe, then it is not narrow-minded, it is true. Also, you need to recognize that while you probably don’t see it that way, your point of view is also narrow-minded. You, out of hand, reject my point of view.)
As a Naturalist, how do you even get at objectivity in the realm of morality? It doesn’t exist. All you have is personal preference and an attempt at consensus. Objective morality does not exist in Naturalism. The only objective reality for Naturalists is the natural world.
We can, certainly, agree to disagree, but in doing that, at least one of us is wrong, and the one who is wrong lives in a fantasy world. At the very least, my presuppositions account for all of the elements of human experience. Naturalism simply does not.
When I use the concept “those in power,” I don’t necessarily mean it is imposed by powerful politicians. Power is wielded in many arenas and in many ways. For instance, leaders in various arenas of pop culture wield massive power, and influence what is accepted by large numbers of people (whether it is true and right or not). The same can be said of people in the media, business, etc.
MS
Let’s just (say) that everything you state here is true. You come from a Christian theist worldview and I come from a naturalistic worldview. Now, regarding the issue here (and related to this original post) I don’t think that your worldview necessarily precludes you from seeing or understanding “race” as a real thing that affects people differently and that racism exists in both individual and structural ways. And coming from a Christian theist worldview, you should find that to be problematic at best and immoral at worst.
Because there are a lot of people (many that I know personally) who espouse the same Christian worldview (like yours) AND they understand that race and racism are real, meaningful, social constructs that shape and affect real, objective, everyday lives. Are they all wrong?
From what you have noted above, you think racism only operates at the individual level. That focus and omission of other forms of racism is not a result of your worldview, but something else.
Freddy Davis
You are absolutely right; as a Christian I do think racism exists and that it is abhorrent. And, I agree that it does have actual, objective effects on real people’s lives – at an individual level and I also believe it spills over into society resulting in injustice on a broader level.
However, when you say that I said racism only operates at the individual level, I don’t think you are characterizing what I said correctly. What I said was that society is not a sentient entity, so racism can’t be changed on a societal level. Only individuals are sentient, so if you want to actually deal with racism, you have to do it at an individual level. You can enforce behaviors through laws that you deem to remedy the injustices of racist thinking, but that is not curing racism. People can still be racist while being forced to act in ways that they don’t agree with. And, when those in power who are able to enforce those kinds of laws eventually lose power, everything swings the other way. Racism is a heart and mind problem before that kind of thinking spills over and becomes a societal problem. And if you want to cure it, you have to change hearts and minds – which can only be done at the individual level.
Now, since you have mentioned the original post again, where does the racism actually reside? The meme accuses people of bad motives and evil intent (racism) not because those people are actually racist, but because the meme’s creator does not like their political position. Personally, I think the meme’s creator is actually the one who is the racist.
One more point that I will keep hammering: Where does a Naturalist get their view of morality? Since there is no objective basis for defining it, there is no other choice but to assert morality based on one’s own personal preferences. If a Naturalist calls someone a racist, why is that person’s standard for defining racism any better than someone who disagrees? Naturalism is incapable of adequately answering that question. The only possibility based on naturalistic worldview beliefs is “the survival of the fittest” – the ones with the power make the rules.
MS
I’m glad we can agree on the fact that racism is, in part solved at the individual level. After-all, it all began with the notion that white Europeans were “closer to God” than darker skinned people, thereby justifying colonization and enslavement.
But it also needs to be addressed at the institutional level, namely policies and laws. You’ll probably disagree here, but it works both ways. For example, how does someone adopt and continue to hold prejudiced views? They learn it from somewhere…and it’s more than just the family. Racial stereotypes permeate our culture. It’s everywhere.
I asked you about implicit bias…are you familiar with that?
But I’m not sure what you mean by the political pendulum “swinging the other way.” It sounds like you are referencing some kind of “reverse racism,” which is a myth. It is true that any individual (regardless of racial grouping) can hold racist attitudes or prejudices, but those in the subordinate group don’t have any institutional or political power to actually DO anything about (it). Even president Obama wasn’t in a position where he could push for policies or laws that discriminated against white people. But why would he?
But I understand the confusion…when a person already thinks the playing field is even, then any push for equality by a marginalized group feels like “reverse discrimination.”
Regarding the meme: the racism resides in the statements and actions of the people involved: the two main targets here are Trump and Sessions. I don’t know how you can ignore the decades of evidence for Trump’s racism. It’s literally everywhere. And I’m not one to point to individual people and say, “s/he’s a racist” because I’m more concerned with institutional and cultural forms which create individual racists (because no one is born with those beliefs).
Last point: to make things easy and to speak in your terms, I’ll go ahead and claim to be a Naturalist. I get my view of morality from my own experiences: my Catholic upbringing (yes, I don’t deny that religion played a role), my personal experiences, my education, and my belief in a greater good. That makes it “objective” to me.
If Christian morals are objective and haven’t changed over time, how do you explain the role of the Christian faith in colonization and enslavement? These people saw the indigenous people of North America as “non-Christian heathens,” thus justifying their exploitation? Were they acting from a position of Christian theism? Do you think that the Christian moral ethos has been non-changing since the birth of Christ (or before)? This is exactly my point: there may in fact be an “objective moral truth” but humans have to figure out what that is. And that is a collective process…
And I reject the “survival of the fittest” narrative. Social Darwinism is a debunked and discredited theory.
Freddy Davis
If you think racism began with white Europeans, you have very little understanding of the history of mankind. Did you know that there were black slave owners in early American history? Did you know that the slave sellers of black Africans in Africa were other black Africans? Did you know that slavery is actually an accepted tenet of many forms of Islam – even today? Did you know that it is not only dark skinned people who are trafficked today, but whites, as well – especially women? Did you know that racism and slavery exist in, literally, every part of the world (and has from time immemorial)? Your premise is simply wrong and it is leading you to false conclusions.
Implicit bias – you mean like the bias that your point of view promotes?
Your concept of an “even playing field” is what is flawed. There never has been and never will be an “even playing field” in the way you envision it. The only way that will ever happen is to understand the playing field using a different paradigm than your naturalistic presuppositions allow. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s approach (which was based on Christian Theism, BTW) is the only conception of “even” that can ever work in a practical sense. (I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.) When your standard is based on some kind of material expression, it is simply impossible.
It doesn’t matter what you “claim” or “don’t claim” regarding your beliefs. Every argument you make is based on naturalistic presuppositions. You are a Naturalist not because of your claims, but because of the beliefs you espouse. I can’t help it if you don’t understand where your beliefs ultimately come from. You have, obviously, borrowed values from the Christian faith because you were raised in an environment where that is what you were taught (I actually do agree with you on that point). But you don’t hold them because they are Christian, or because you are bound by what you were raised with (in fact, human beings have the unique ability to evaluate and change their beliefs), you hold them as a practical matter because you see them as better than other alternatives (for whatever reason). But in order for them to actually be objective, they have to be “true” – and you don’t believe there is such a thing as objective truth, in spite of anything else (at least you don’t have any kind of objective basis to make that kind of claim). What you have said is that the concept of “objective” to you is what you deem it to be. That is not really the meaning of objective.
Regarding the meme: You have imposed your values on people you don’t know, and assumed motives and beliefs that you don’t understand. The fact that people listed in the meme evaluate life based on different worldview beliefs than you do does not make them racist. In making that claim, you have made yourself to be God by assuming you know their motives, and that your understanding of morality is true (there’s that word again). But not just their motives; you obviously have never done any serious investigation of the lives of the people you are accusing. You are cherry picking things that you don’t like and assigning motives, out of context, that you have no way of understanding. It is just wrong.
The fact that some people (in history and currently) claim to be Christian and act in ways that are not Christian says nothing about the Christian faith itself. All it says is that there are people who do not act consistently with the faith they claim. (Of course, that same principle holds true for people who claim other faiths, as well – including naturalistic faiths – in fact, even some of your own claims). Figuring out “objective moral truth” is not a collective process. Moral truth is revealed, and those who wish to truly understand it must know the Revealer. It is not simply a matter of following a particular code of ethics. You would do yourself a favor to come to a genuine understanding of the Christian faith, because until you do, you will continue to mischaracterize it.
MS
I never said that the colonization of North America was the beginning of the concept of “race.” But it played a big role in how in the US understand(s) “race” today. Yes, I know that there were black slaveowners in the colonies. But the(y) were very rare and don’t discount the broad trend. And yes, that slavery existed in Africa and in every part of the world before white Europeans came to America. Some White Europeans were slaves once. I’ve heard all these arguments before and you’re sounding like (a) slavery apologist. Slavery elsewhere doesn’t justify what many or our ancestors did.
You are correct in that we can’t know someone’s true motives or what’s in their hearts. But we can get a good idea of their values (and) beliefs by their actions and words. You are doing some pretty serious mental and moral gymnastics to ignore all the evidence of Trump’s racism. From not renting apts to black people in the 70s, to the attack on the Central Park 5, to his comments about his genetic superiority, to painting people of color with a broad brush, etc. These are all examples of racist words and actions. Maybe in his heart he isn’t, but I haven’t seen any evidence of that. Maybe he isn’t but he uses this rhetoric to rally his “base.” Maybe a good measure is who really loves Trump: White Supremacists. Ask them what they think of him.
I get that you may have been troubled with Trump’s “style” and probably preferred another GOP candidate. But you felt you had to keep Hillary out and that you still stood with the GOP platform that Trump would help push through. I totally get that. But to deny his racist words and actions and how that can impact his decisions and how we look to the rest of the world….you may not be racist yourself (I don’t think you are), but you are enabling it. One need not be an individual racist to support institutionalized white supremacy. Many white liberals do it all the time.
2 questions:
Do you act consistently with the faith you claim?
How do you know that Christian theist beliefs reveal objective moral truth?
Freddy Davis
Saying I sound like a slavery apologist is a profound indication that you have either not read what I have written or have not understood it. In fact, I think I have been very clear that slavery and slave-holding is not a part of my worldview. Once again, you are demonstrating a massive lack of understanding of a biblical worldview and are continuing to interpret my beliefs through yours. If you keep doing that, you will never understand what I am saying.
You can get a good idea of people’s values and beliefs by watching their words and actions, provided you actually interpret their words and beliefs correctly. You are cherry picking words and actions and generalizing them to people’s entire value system based on your own naturalistic presuppositions. You have totally ignored the many examples of Trump’s words and actions that show he is not racist, and the ones you have cherry picked have no context. By the same token, if you support the values Hillary espouses while ignoring her MASSIVE failure to live up to them, you have done exactly what you are accusing other people of doing. It would be very easy to turn that on you and make you look like a total bigot. It would not be true, but it could be done. I think you need to understand what you are asserting before asserting it, and you have not done that.
2 Answers:
1. I diligently work to act consistently with the faith I claim, but, as with all humans, I am a fallen creature and have a built in tendency to sin. This is the reason we need a Savior (that God has provided). This is a core belief of Christian Theism, and if you don’t understand it, you will never understand my faith, and will also never understand why the Utopian goal of naturalistic philosophy is doomed to failure.
2. Because I know the Revealer.
MS
Thanks for the conversation, Freddy. Be well.
Freddy Davis
(Thumbs up emoji)
© 2018 Freddy Davis