Catholicism and Politics - Interesting Segment with Bishop Robert Barron (2 Viewers)

[wardorican]

Start from about 3min in, where I'm linking this. The first bit is about a bible they put out.



First, I found his early discussion on the nature of political debate being mostly a conflict of wills, of experiences, and how that's not helpful. It's the breakdown of real argument.

So, the way past that is to refuse to cooperate in that verbal violence. don't make it will vs will, experience vs experience. Appeal to values in common, e.g. propose various objective values. A few posters are better than others at this, but I see many try. It really does sum up where political talk goes bad, without directly criticizing that.

Later it gets into Catholic teaching, and politics. Somewhat lightly, since the main idea is that they'll never tell you who to vote for, and the truth is, neither party bats 1000 with the church, so both are generally equally valid.

I thought it was an interesting chat.

I've caught a few other chats with him that are good. He makes an interesting point about the Church having a high bar of expectations, but also lavishly gives divine mercy when we fail.

 

[Brennan77]

I think I understand what you're saying, and I agree to an extent. However, it seems to me that what WE believe are objective truth has changed and evolved throughout history, just as we have. And as such, "objective truths" are relativistic themselves, they're just held as truth by the majority of society at a certain period of time.

So for example, this is often seen as an objective truth from the Declaration of Independence: " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " While we love and celebrate these words and document still today, the truth is none of those are self-evident or unalienable rights and that isn't an objective truth. Not even by Jefferson, who wrote it. It never has been. Those are truths that we obtained through power, rebellion and self governance, but that still aren't true for everybody today. And the meaning behind those words have evolved and changed just as we have evolved and changed as humans/Americans.

Thanks for the reply. This is a really good place from which to illustrate what I mean.

Unalienable rights are a good example of objective value. These rights refer to something that ought to be recognized. However, it is not a statement that they are in practice recognized. It means that there are certain rights inherent to the human person as having been endowed by the Creator and is therefore not subject to the changing whims of human history and will.

The idea is that these qualities belong to each human by their nature, regardless of others' respect or disrespect of them. That is the very basis by which we can claim they have been violated. So if we are able to say that the United States at its founding did not respect the rights of all human persons, we can point to the objective truth of their dignity as persons as the objective reality that is being violated. Here we can recognize the obvious incompatibility between the declaration and practices such as slavery.

From this view, we can see that the reality of unalienable rights transcends and is not reliant upon temporal governances and power struggles for its validity. Furthermore, a majority or minority of popular recognition has no effect on its truthfulness. For example, if slavery were considered by the majority of a society to be morally acceptable, this does not make it actually so. It means that the majority of that society is wrong. This is not a value that is subject to their own or collective will. It is so precisely because they are violating a truth that is unalienable and objective.

It is very dangerous idea to believe and act as if a majority / most powerful dictate what is true.

 

[Brennan77]

The challenge with the concept of objective truths is humans are very rarely objective. We are shaped by our experiences, backgrounds, and what is best for the welfare of us and our tribe. People claim to be objective because the human ego often refuses to acknowledge bias, but bias is an intricate part of the human survival extinct and to protecting our emotional health.

We have to make a distinction between objectivity and objective truth/value itself. Objectivity is the measure confirmity to that which is objective. From there we can examine where we might be right or wrong and where our biases may or may not lead us astray. But our failures in this regard do not logically necessitate that objective realities do not exist altogether. Otherwise we are left with the nonsensical statement that there is no objective truth that applies to us all. And that leads to chaos and violence, and much of the absurdity we are witnessing today.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

We have to make a distinction between objectivity and objective truth/value itself. Objectivity is the measure confirmity to that which is objective. From there we can examine where we might be right or wrong and where our biases may or may not lead us astray. But our failures in this regard do not logically necessitate that objective realities do not exist altogether. Otherwise we are left with the nonsensical statement that there is no objective truth that applies to us all. And that leads to chaos and violence, and much of the absurdity we are witnessing today.

That's fair. I think I'm coming to it right to left and you're coming at it right to left (not politically but down the path of thought), but we are probably ending up in the same place.

 

[SystemShock]

I think we're saying the same thing. Re-read what I said... "if we just use..." that's similar to being close minded.

No, it is not.

Just to be clear: do you mean to say only using experiences to make arguments, or listening to others's arguments even if one has no experience on the subject?

 

[SystemShock]

So who's "objective value" do we accept and proceed forward with for the good of society? Mine or the Catholic Church's?

If those are the only choices, I'd definitely go with yours.

 

[JimEverett]

At the risk of being very pedantic, the statement "who's objective value do we accept" makes it appear that there is a lack of understanding of objective value. However, I am sure that is not the case - I am taking that it is shorthand for the idea that something called an "objective value" really isn't objective at all.

That might come from some sort of metaphysical or ontological argument - as in "value does not exist separate and distinct from human beings"; or it may stem from some sort of epistemological argument, like "we cannot know what objective value/morality/etc is even if may exist apart from human beings."

 

[coldseat]

At the risk of being very pedantic, the statement "who's objective value do we accept" makes it appear that there is a lack of understanding of objective value. However, I am sure that is not the case - I am taking that it is shorthand for the idea that something called an "objective value" really isn't objective at all.

That might come from some sort of metaphysical or ontological argument - as in "value does not exist separate and distinct from human beings"; or it may stem from some sort of epistemological argument, like "we cannot know what objective value/morality/etc is even if may exist apart from human beings."

I suppose there is some of that in my reply. But I'm also asking how do we identify a true "objective value"? What framework are we using to define what that is? And I guess beyond that, why/how is that framework/definition/objective value the same for everybody?

 

[JimEverett]

I suppose there is some of that in my reply. But I'm also asking how do we identify a true "objective value"? What framework are we using to define what that is? And I guess beyond that, why/how is that framework/definition/objective value the same for everybody?

What I have been interested in lately is the idea that value is embedded in even the most "hard" of the sciences. Consider the notions: simplicity, justification, coherence, etc - those are all value-laden concepts/ideas - that play enormous roles in science.
And those concepts are not "value-neutral" or something to that effect, or at least they do not seem to be. Consider "simplicity" - in science that is used as an action-guiding term, it goes towards the justification of acceptance of the statement, or justification of the theory.
These action-guiding terms have the same meaning in moral/value contexts. And both between cultures and within cultures there are disagreements about these specific values - about what is simple, coherent, justified, plausible, etc. This is due to many factors, not least of which is historical conditioning. But few people are calling for an idea of mechanical truth as relative, like they do in the moral field.

 

[Ayo]

And thus we have no mechanism to peacefully proceed in disagreement. It's the death of dialogue. (dia = through; logos = truth) We are simply left with your view and my view. Since there is no truth and no dialogue, the only way forward is a power struggle.

I do not believe this is accurate, though. “Monologue” does not mean “one” or “self” truth. It means a discussion with one self (as opposed to a soliloquy which means to speak alone, sol - alone and loqu- to speak, and loqu and logu have the same toot meaning - Eg loquacious).

“Logos” is not the root in question. The Greek is “legien” which means to speak. It comes from the root “leg” which refers to gathering. When the word was formed, it was to indicate a conversation with another person. It didn’t have anything to do with truth.

“dia” does mean across or through, but dialogue is specifically conversation. Not truth.


The more direct Greek word (before it arrived to us from Old French and, prior to that, Latin) would be ‘dialogesthai’ for “to converse”

 

[Ayo]

What I have been interested in lately is the idea that value is embedded in even the most "hard" of the sciences. Consider the notions: simplicity, justification, coherence, etc - those are all value-laden concepts/ideas - that play enormous roles in science.
And those concepts are not "value-neutral" or something to that effect, or at least they do not seem to be. Consider "simplicity" - in science that is used as an action-guiding term, it goes towards the justification of acceptance of the statement, or justification of the theory.
These action-guiding terms have the same meaning in moral/value contexts. And both between cultures and within cultures there are disagreements about these specific values - about what is simple, coherent, justified, plausible, etc. This is due to many factors, not least of which is historical conditioning. But few people are calling for an idea of mechanical truth as relative, like they do in the moral field.

we are incredibly limited by language, too. To expect our ability to actually say what we mean with clarity and zero misunderstanding is pretty audacious.

I mean, if that were the case, hermeneutics would be strictly an act of substitution and translation would be a simple act

maybe there is an objective truth out there, but if there is I’m far too modest think I could even conceive of it, much less explain it

 

[wardorican]

No, it is not.

Just to be clear: do you mean to say only using experiences to make arguments, or listening to others's arguments even if one has no experience on the subject?

I was under the impression, the Bishop, and thus my point, was the first part. Only using experiences, unwilling to listen to bulk data analysis.

The second part is interesting. I think you can listen to someone's argument with out experience, but you need some sort of experience to bridge the gap. e.g. some sort of analogy that's appropriate. In that case, the arguer would be likely responsible for that, in order for their point to be made effectively.

 

[wardorican]

As somebody who grew up Catholic, was very devout for a good period of time, got married and had a child and lived for the majority of my life repressing and denying my homosexual orientation and then eventually accepting it and coming out, I feel I have a different view of this. The priest talks of those "objective values" as if something we can all agree on. "Homosexuality is a sin" is an objective value of the church. That is not an "objective value" for me. And yes, that is drawn from my life and experience. Furthermore, with the exception of the violence that is brought on homosexuals by those who oppose homosexuality, there is no objective measure that homosexuality is bad for society.

So who's "objective value" do we accept and proceed forward with for the good of society? Mine or the Catholic Church's?

I can do that with a number of issues that we face today and that are the reason we are so divided. Who is defining what an "objective value" is? Is it the "moral authority of the church?" Which church? Why a church if we have separation of church and state? We first need to define and agree with what are the "objective values" we hold true on a societal level and how that's done,

I think that's the rub.

At the end of the day, the Church is making a point, but not driving it to the conclusion. i.e. they raise a bar. They make a statement, they don't seem to mind too much if you can't achieve it, unless it's really egregious.

It's almost like saying, don't do that, but if you do.. meh.

 

[Brennan77]

I do not believe this is accurate, though. “Monologue” does not mean “one” or “self” truth. It means a discussion with one self (as opposed to a soliloquy which means to speak alone, sol - alone and loqu- to speak, and loqu and logu have the same toot meaning - Eg loquacious).

“Logos” is not the root in question. The Greek is “legien” which means to speak. It comes from the root “leg” which refers to gathering. When the word was formed, it was to indicate a conversation with another person. It didn’t have anything to do with truth.

“dia” does mean across or through, but dialogue is specifically conversation. Not truth.


The more direct Greek word (before it arrived to us from Old French and, prior to that, Latin) would be ‘dialogesthai’ for “to converse”

You're not incorrect. But the Greek origin, and thus the latin and our own usage does indeed seem to rely on logos. Logos does mean to speak, but it's a bit of a loaded concept as it also involves the notion of truth. So it's something like truth activated in reality, which is why it is also used to reference the person of Christ (Word of God). It's not simply speaking between persons. It's speaking with the intention of communicating and discovering truth or with the intention of solving a problem, which really fits our own practical understanding and usage.

At any rate, you can see the point I am making in the way that I am intending to use the word. If one does not believe that objective truth exists or even can exist, then there is no point to dialogue. The only move to further your own reality is to exert power over your perceived opponent.

 

[SystemShock]

I was under the impression, the Bishop, and thus my point, was the first part. Only using experiences, unwilling to listen to bulk data analysis.

The second part is interesting. I think you can listen to someone's argument with out experience, but you need some sort of experience to bridge the gap. e.g. some sort of analogy that's appropriate. In that case, the arguer would be likely responsible for that, in order for their point to be made effectively.

That someone uses only their experiences to make arguments doesn't mean they are unwilling to listen arguments for/against something they have not experienced.

Political arguments are where they are not because people make arguments only from their own experiences; it is because they don't want to listen or care what the other side has to say, and champion the ideology of their tribe, even if they don't believe in some of it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

At any rate, you can see the point I am making in the way that I am intending to use the word. If one does not believe that objective truth exists or even can exist, then there is no point to dialogue. The only move to further your own reality is to exert power over your perceived opponent.

I disagree. If one does not believe objective truth exists, then it can be even more important for people to dialogue so that we communicate what we believe to be true and understand what others believe to be true, so that we can find a common ground/truth to cooperate from.

Cooperating versus controlling behavior are driven by the emotional states of individuals more so than they are driven by philosophy, ideology or religion.

Exerting power over others is driven by emotions, not intellect. It's a fear response. To avoid the urge to exert power over others, individuals need emotional awareness much more than an intellectual understanding or acceptance of objective truth. Addiction has the same dynamic. It's driven by emotions, so no amount of awareness of the objective damage done by the addiction is going to get someone out of an addictive cycle.

A belief that theree is no objective truth is not inherently a belief that there is no truth. Many who believe that there is no objective truth, accept individual truth and operate from a place of tolerance and finding common truth/ground to work from.

I think it's very important to note that objective truth can and has been used as a way of creating a reality that exerts power over the masses to the benefit of a few.

Relativism and objective truth are not inherently productive or destructive. Like everything else, whether they are productive or destructive has everything to do with how individuals use both.

 

[wardorican]

That someone uses only their experiences to make arguments doesn't mean they are unwilling to listen arguments for/against something they have not experienced.

Political arguments are where they are not because people make arguments only from their own experiences; it is because they don't want to listen or care what the other side has to say, and champion the ideology of their tribe, even if they don't believe in some of it.

That's the original point I was making. Maybe poorly.

 

[JimEverett]

I disagree. If one does not believe objective truth exists, then it can be even more important for people to dialogue so that we communicate what we believe to be true and understand what others believe to be true, so that we can find a common ground/truth to cooperate from.

Cooperating versus controlling behavior are driven by the emotional states of individuals more so than they are driven by philosophy, ideology or religion.

Exerting power over others is driven by emotions, not intellect. It's a fear response. To avoid the urge to exert power over others, individuals need emotional awareness much more than an intellectual understanding or acceptance of objective truth. Addiction has the same dynamic. It's driven by emotions, so no amount of awareness of the objective damage done by the addiction is going to get someone out of an addictive cycle.

A belief that theree is no objective truth is not inherently a belief that there is no truth. Many who believe that there is no objective truth, accept individual truth and operate from a place of tolerance and finding common truth/ground to work from.

I think it's very important to note that objective truth can and has been used as a way of creating a reality that exerts power over the masses to the benefit of a few.

Relativism and objective truth are not inherently productive or destructive. Like everything else, whether they are productive or destructive has everything to do with how individuals use both.

I understand the idea that a belief that there is no objective truth does not equate to a belief that there is no truth.
If there does not exist "objective truth" and there does exist "relative truth" and/or "individual truth" then the fact that a culture or subset of a culture and/or an individual believes "racism is good" or "pedophilia is good" or "making 8 year olds work 12 hours day in a factory is good" means that racism, . . ., etc is good. Now you might say that it is good only relative to x, y, z, etc. But it is still good.
That seems problematic to me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I understand the idea that a belief that there is no objective truth does not equate to a belief that there is no truth.
If there does not exist "objective truth" and there does exist "relative truth" and/or "individual truth" then the fact that a culture or subset of a culture and/or an individual believes "racism is good" or "pedophilia is good" or "making 8 year olds work 12 hours day in a factory is good" means that racism, . . ., etc is good. Now you might say that it is good only relative to x, y, z, etc. But it is still good.
That seems problematic to me.

First and foremost, my main point was that we act off of our emotions more than our philosophies. There are racists who believe in moral relativism and there are racists who believe in objective truth. That wouldn't happen if philosophical belief was the primary determinant of behavior.

If someone is being racist, there's an underlying, unaddressed emotional issue in play. Same is true if someone is exerting power over others. You can convince someone to believe in moral relativism or objective truth, but they will not change their actual behavior towards themselves and others if they remain emotionally unaware of themselves.

I can only speak for myself, but I don't treat others with respect, tolerance, empathy and compassion because of any objective truth. I treat people that way, because it's my truth and it always will be. Even if someone objectively proved to me that objective truth says that's not how I should treat people, I still would. If some god appeared before me and said I would be cursed for an eternity unless I treated people differently, I'd tell that god to eff the hell right off.

Supposedly our society believes in the objective truth that everyone is endowed by some creator with inalienable rights, yet here we are as a society that committed genocide, slavery and still has a problem with systemic racism to this day. All of that happened and started long before moral relativism was around.

How has the relatively new philosophy of moral relativism been any more problematic and a contributing factor to American genocide, slavery and systemic racism, than the philosophy of objective truth has historically been? The answer, again, is that any problem stemming from those philosophies lies not within the philosophies themselves, but within those who subscribe to and allegedly practice those philosophies.

Our social and political problems come from a tragic level of unresolved emotional issues and a lack of emotional awareness and competency, much more so than they do from any lack of intellectual, ideological or philosophical competency.