The Parable of the Absent Parents

Discussion in 'Religion' started by James R, Feb 3, 2020.

  1. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    Actually, I did that. You'd sort of have read a few posts of the other thread, starting here.

    This thread is spawned from that one. If I were a cynic, I'd say that JamesR was - er - dissatisfied with being presented with a construct that was positive and self-consistent rather than the common cynical self-confirming atheistic view.

    (Note to JamesR: No offense intended. Not trying to skewer you as the bad guy. Just trying to make my case.)


    I agree.

    In fact, I believe the very premise (of JamesR's) is flawed, because the parable is essentially pandering directly to the atheistic skepticism.

    My framework was attempting to show how - if one were brought up in a culture that embraced it, rather than regarded it with inborn skepticism - there is an internal logic to a God that a] gives humans free will, b] tells them how to live well, c] tells them what not to do, and then d'] still justifiably punishes them for their choices.

    (My usual disclaimer: I am an (evidence-based) atheist. I don't believe God exists , but that doesn't mean I believe the construct - in terms of loving thy neighbor - is as illogical as many atheists believe. That's why I'm playing Devil's Advocate.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2020
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    Fine. I was responding to this thread. .

    And where did you find that god? Not in the OT. Certainly, those commandments tell me very little about how to live well. None of the gods I've read about actually did that, though they were given credit for the efforts of a few decent, hard-working priests and a whole lot of volunteers who gave them a good name.
    [...
    ...]
    That's quite the caveat! Most people in the USA, as well as many, many other countries today, were brought up in religious households in religious communities in cultures that, at the very least embrace, usually entrench, and in many instances, demand, adherence to the tenets of an institutional faith. Where is the 'inborn skepticism' supposed to come from, when most people have had beaten or browbeaten out of them by puberty?
    Look only to the evidence of history. The holy pictures are very pretty (I know, I collected them as a child: externalized hearts, white wings, lots of gilding - weird, a bit scary, but pretty) but the acts are not.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I think you'll find theists see it differently. Having been immersed in the culture, they surely find a lot in it that tells them how to live well.

    I'm not sure what point you're making here. You don't speak for theists who embrace their religious culture.

    The inborn skepticism is in you and me and JamesR. We and our ilk have not had it beaten out of us.
     
    wegs likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    In the culture - in which, I, too was immersed, so do I. In the law according to Leviticus, considerably less. In the ten commandments as presented to Moses, hardly any. In the Sermon on the Mount, quite a lot more - but the two books were already incompatible in 300AD and "the culture" in which anybody is immersed today is not the same culture in which either of those rule-books were written.
    Why would I? You're doing it. Though less than convincingly.
    The people for whom you are playing advocate have.
    And some of them are living well under the shelter of their faith - just they would without it.
    But that doesn't balance out the harm they do with it, knowingly and gleefully, as much as from ignorance.
    Hence the reference to a corporate Jesus
    What does this god tell us about living well?
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2020
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Since this seems predicated upon a fairly simple view of Christian beliefs, it doesn't really seem much more than a straw man.
     
  9. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    That's the sum total of your thoughts on this?
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    It's not the sum total of my thoughts, but I agree with V's view.

    What is the point in an atheist constructing a simplistic fable that he thinks is flawed - and then asking if others think it is flawed?

    It's a strawman from the get-go. The same old strawman every atheists whips out of his back pocket at the jerk of a knee?
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  11. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    Well, most theists don't view God as an ''absent parent.'' That's the first flaw with your parable, James - if you're trying to offer it as an analogy for Christianity, Islam, or any other theistic belief. And in terms of ''punishment,'' in Christianity anyway, there is room for repentance of one's wrong doings. In Judaism, there is a day of Atonement, and so on. The idea that you're putting forth is that if a believer ''sins,'' he is banished to hell (assuming this is what you mean by ''punishment'' in your story), no questions asked. Is this what you have been led to believe?

    If that is how you characterize Islam, Christianity or Judaism (they all draw from the Old Testament, which is what your story is attempting to suggest), I don't blame you for not believing.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
    Vociferous likes this.
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Please explain.
     
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Great! Two people who can explain, then.

    Well, thanks for your opinion, DaveC. It would probably be more interesting if you had reasons to share with us, but it is what it is.

    I intend to comment more fully when I have some more time.

    In the meantime, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that only the last line of my opening post actually mentions God or religion. There's a whole preamble there that considers the morality of the situation solely in the light of human actions.

    Sure, I posted this thread in the Religion forum and I do intend to draw a parallel. But it's not all I'm interested in. The first thing you need to do is to examine the morality of the example, and I suggest that it is best to do so before you bring in all your God baggage. The God thing is the last question I asked, not the first.
     
  14. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    That's what I did.
    Make up your mind - Is this a parable of Abrahamic religion or American parenting?
     
  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Okay. Here are some of my thoughts to provoke further discussion. I'm certainly not claiming I have all the answers.

    The first place the boy's parents are found wanting is in their complete absence from the boy's life. Who are these people who expect their children to follow a whole manual full of rules that they have invented, who expect strict adherence to their whims, yet who lack the compassion to care for the children who are forced to live under their draconian rule?

    The second place they are found wanting is that, as far as we know, all of the rules in the rulebook are completely arbitrary. Certainly there are few signs (actually none, in the description I gave) that the parents who wrote the rulebook provided any reasons for the rules being what they are. Essentially, they just say "follow our rules, or else!" They are running a fear-based regime from a distance.

    Maybe you don't see a problem with either of these things.

    First, you might say that maybe the parents had the best of intentions in writing the rulebook. If that's what you think, then consider whether the parents could have done a better job by dispensing with the rulebook altogether and being actively present in the boy's life, guiding him in moral behaviour.

    Second, you might say the rules aren't arbitrary at all, but are an attempt to codify right moral behaviour in an easily-digestible list of only a few thousand rules. But in that case, why give a list of rules to the boy without explaining the reasons why the rules are as they are? If the rules only say "Don't trash the house, or else!" then is it surprising that the boy might not understand why it would be bad to trash the house? Also, a list of rules doesn't give the boy any rational reason to follow the rules, other than fear of adverse consequences from the parents. If the parents' moral authority is based on nothing but fear, then I'd say they are acting immorally. They are not parents; they are authoritarian dictators. if, on the other hand, the parents are merely attempting to codify some "higher" principles, then why not tell the boy about the higher principles instead? If he is to be held morally culpable by the parents, then he must be in a position to understand the moral reasons for the rules, assuming there are some. But if he can do that, the rulebook is irrelevant in the end, and even moreso are the absent parents.
     
  16. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    The key word in your original story was "preteen". That skews the whole picture.
    Free will in old parlance, legal responsibility in modern terms, doesn't apply until after the particular culture's rite of passage, whether it's a bar mitzvah, being slingshotted off a tree or getting a driver's license.
    Children simply don't work in parables about crime and punishment.
     
  17. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    Jeeves:

    Would it? Suppose the appointed caregivers were simply given a copy of the rulebook themselves and told "make sure the boy learns all this and follows it, or else!"

    Suppose that when the boy is an adult himself, he hands the rulebook on to his own children, saying "You'd better follow these rules now. You don't want to go to prison for life like me!" Would the boy's parents' be at fault, then, regarding the grandkids?

    Assuming the parents have access to all the relevant facts, the "crime" is clear, hearing or no hearing. The rules say "Don't trash the house." The boy knew the rules and chose to trash the house anyway.

    What you appear to be saying is that the parents don't have the right to punish the boy for breaking the rules. If so, doesn't that raise the question as to whether they have the right to impose the rules on the boy in the first place?

    All excellent questions, in my opinion, and I agree.

    Does it matter?

    Why are you assuming he was disturbed?

    Regarding the appointed guardians of the boy, my scenario doesn't say what, if anything, happened to them. Maybe there's a rule in the book that says "Don't let anybody else break the rules, or else!" or "Keep control of minors, or else!" Maybe the guardians can expect their own knock on the door from the parents.

    Regarding the parents, they get off scott free because the rules are their whims and nothing more, presumably. If there's more to the rules than that, then why dress the thing up and call it the parents' rulebook?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    DaveC:

    The boy in my Parable is explicitly in a parental vacuum. All he has is the rulebook and what his guardians have to say in light of that. The parents are nowhere to be seen - right up until the point where they drag the boy off to jail.

    Okay. So let's assume we have a multi-generational culture established around this parental rulebook. It "works" in the sense that it keeps people's houses neat for the most part, and it keep the homosexual segment of the population low. Most of the people are happy, even if a few are dragged off to prison for what some might argue are minor breaches of the rules, or because they dare to question - or even test - some of the rules (the horror!)

    Does all this excuse the parents, then, who are the foundation of the social order?

    All good questions. So the parents who created the social order discussed above could never be morally culpable. Is that what you're saying, by analogy?

    You seem to be saying that because the boy isn't aware of his parents reasons for the rules (if they have any beyond their arbitrary whim), nobody can blame the parents for what happens to him. He should have just been smart and followed the rules without question.

    By "correctly" you mean only that he chose to comply with the rules as set down by the parents. Right?

    If the end result is that the child follows the rules, as the parents desired, would it matter?

    Or are you maybe suggesting that the parents would be at fault if they didn't allow the boy freedom to break the rules - even though they knew they would punish him if he did?
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    DaveC:

    Would you say that gods are closer to being absent parents, or to being micro-managers, bearing in mind what Jeeves had to say about the Old Testament biblical descriptions of God and what Christians believe about God now.

    Eventually we'll get around to addressing the question of whether God needs to answer for his morality (as described in the texts).

    Attributing wisdom to a couple of specific human beings who wrote a book is completely different to attributing wisdom to a god whose followers wrote a book. Right?

    Are you saying the parents are culpable because they weren't there to provide care and protection to the boy? That agrees with my point of view. Now, is there anything that applies to God in that?

    I think this thread was spun out of another one in which certain believers were arguing that their God is a loving god. That God is often referred to as "our Father". That God is described as setting down laws and rules of behaviour for his followers, and as punishing them when they disobeyed. If this is not an accurate portrayal of that God, as described in the Holy Book, I'm happy to be corrected.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  20. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    That word was a hang-over from DaveC's original example in a different thread. It is not essential to the scenario I'm putting, here. I'm sorry if it skewed your view of the situation; I didn't intend it to. If the boy was 18, legal age of responsibility, would that make a difference to how you'd answer the questions I put in the opening post? If so, how so?

    Would it make a difference if the boy was a 37 year old man who had been brought up in the tradition of the parents' rulebook?
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    How is that different to my example in the opening post? There we have some parents who give the boy free will, tell him how to live well, tell him what not to do and then punish him for making a "bad" choice. If you find nothing wrong with the "internal logic" of your God example, then I don't see how you can find something wrong with the internal logic of my example.

    Are you agreeing that the two examples are equivalent, then?
     
  22. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,253
    @ James:

    Again, many believers don’t see God as “absent” from their lives. I think it’s an unfair premise to lump all or most believers into a category that isn’t accurate. If you’re speaking of Christianity, most Christians don’t view God as absent, or a micro-manager. You see the concept of a “Christian God” as that, so it seems like you’ve created a parable based on your own projections and assumptions - not on what many followers of Christianity, actually believe. I mean, how does one properly debate a topic if the premise is false? (Your quote is regarding Jeeves' quote, but your OP seems to indicate you believe this.)
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  23. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,089
    That doesn't make them caregivers; that makes the prison guards.
    How does he find a wife and make kids in solitary confinement? Or does he get moved to a co-ed prison? Transported to Australia?
    Might makes right. I'm saying they're morally wrong on all counts.
    The reason doesn't. The fact does. He's at fault.
    Destroying one's own home is not the most appropriate or rational reaction to disagreement with a rule.
    Might makes right. Yes, we covered that. Well, I'm the judge in this court and I condemn them. Not for their stupid rules but for criminal negligence.
    Yes, it would. An 11-year-old has considerably less impulse-control and is physically more susceptible to inebriation than a mature man. But even in adulthood, he would be psychologically damaged by lack of parenting. The most prominent feature of neglect in the formative years is an underdeveloped brain. He might never be morally competent.
    Being brought up in a tradition is relevant only if he's brought up by nurturing, guiding adults. In that case, he may well be persuaded that the rules are just - but then again, he may decide to reject them - in the most common instance, he accepts them in general and obeys them selectively. But doesn't trash his own house: he enlists in the army, gets high on illicit substances and bombs the hell out of somebody else's home that his guardians point out as naughty in God's eyes.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020

Share This Page