The knowledge of Pizza, Definition of Sushi, and Existence of Food
Pizza Toss
Let us watch an expert pizza maker. He makes hand-tossed original pizza and once disowned a cousin who put pineapple on a pizza. We watch him as he grabs a lump of dough and he tosses it into the air… and it falls down.
Because… ‘gravity’.
Fallible Father has continued our ‘Pizza and Sushi’ series, with his most recent post Morality, the chosen definition matters a lot. Now there’s a statement I can agree with! Definitions are hugely important. But, then, so are the things themselves.
I’m going to come at this discussion from the direction of… gravity.
The Existence of Gravity
Ever since the creation of the world, gravity has made things fall down. On the fifth day, the waves went up… and the waves came back down. There was not yet any man to notice, but gravity was in action. From the beginning until now, gravity has always existed.
The Knowledge of Gravity
And since the creation, everyone has known about gravity… sort of. When Eve dropped the apple while trying to hand it to Adam, neither of them (nor the serpent) was surprised when it fell. For all we know, pre-flood, there might have been some imminent physicists who wrote great treatises on gravity, but as far as we know, the next real step in the advancement of our knowledge of gravity came when Newton had an apple drop on his head.
Because everyone had always known that ‘stuff falls down’, but it was left to Newton to explain that it falls up as well. That while the apple was falling ‘down’ to the Earth, the Earth was falling ‘up’ to the apple… and everything was always continually falling toward each other, or at least pulled toward each other, just not very much unless you had something really big (like the Earth or the moon) in which case you could see it.
The Definition of Gravity
The Wikipedia (obviously the font of all knowledge) gives a definition of Gravity as follows:
In physics, gravity is a fundamental interaction which causes mutual attraction between all things that have mass. Gravity is, by far, the weakest of the four fundamental interactions, approximately 10³⁸ times weaker than the strong interaction, 10³⁶ times weaker than the electromagnetic force and 10²⁹ times weaker than the weak interaction. As a result, it has no significant influence at the level of subatomic particles.
Now one thing to notice about this definition is that it really doesn’t say what Gravity ‘is’. The definition ‘a fundamental interaction’ is a bit vague, and makes you think of a romantic comedy. (No, seriously. ‘Coming out in the Spring of ’24 is ‘Fundamental Interaction’ staring Jill Gaines and Roger Altwood…. you can see it, no? Maybe two physicists falling in love while having a big fight at some conference about the nature of gravity.) What it doesn’t do is give you any real grasp on ‘what’ Gravity is.
So how does all of this relate to Pizza, Sushi, Pineapple, God, and morality? Well it seems to me that Fallible Father (and much of our modern world) fails to distinguish between the three ideas above: existence, knowledge, and definition. In his latest reply he seems to bounce back and forth between these three things, and so doesn’t really answer the problem that he set himself to solving.
Morality
In the Christian view of morality we have these three ideas:
Existence:
Morality, right and wrong, righteous and evil behaviour, good and bad… all exist. They are not social conventions or preferences… they are real things. In a forest with no man to hear, they would still exist. In the farthest end of the cosmos, they still exist. They exist at the sub-atomic level, and at the level of whole galaxies. They exist in the human heart and in the breast of a chimpanzee.
Their existence is not dependent upon our knowledge of them, still less our agreement to them. They exist.
Knowledge:
Morality is simultaneously known by all men, and denied by all men. What knowledge we have of it is constantly in war with our own sinful desires, which seek to obliterate that knowledge. Individual men and whole cultures can both seek and find knowledge about morality and ignore, deny, and destroy knowledge of morality.
We can set up edifices of false morality and bow down to them.
Definition:
Like gravity, the definition of morality must always be vague and poorly understood. Because in order to fully define morality, we would have to fully understand it, which would mean not only ending our rebellion against it, but also in our having the capacity for infinite knowledge… for the subject of morality is of infinite depth. (As is the subject of gravity, I wouldn’t wonder. Because of being a pun. You know… falling?… depth? Oh, never mind.)
Reviled
They also learn through play that we treat with respect, that we do not cheat and lie, and that we abide by rules set. If they do not, they stop playing, and that is about the worst thing that can happen to a child!
—
And if you are caught cheating? Reviled.
Fallible Father (two separate quotes)
Let us examine these two quotes for a minute, because it seems to me that if they don’t directly contradict they at least have serious tension between them.
Let us suppose that we are choosing whether or not to play with someone. There could be a dozen reasons why we would, or wouldn’t, play with them. And any combination of those reasons, as well.
One set of reasons we would classify as ‘moral’, or as having a moral dimension. They might be someone who is known to cheat, or lie, or to spend the whole time cursing at the other players, etc.
Another set of reasons would be entirely different. Suppose they were so good at the game that playing with them was no fun. Suppose they were so bad at it, ditto. Suppose they were a girl, and the boys were afraid of hurting them. Or a boy, and the girls were afraid of getting hurt.
Or suppose that you choose to play with them because you have been mean to them in the past, and wish to make up to them. Or because they are rich, and they own the swimming pool you wish to play in!
We can classify these into ‘moral’ and ‘not moral’. reasons. Or as reasons having to do with some aspect of morality or not. It says nothing of a boy’s morality if he is so good at tennis that playing him is no fun. I do not ‘revile’ him for being a good player. Indeed I should not ‘revile’ him for being a bad player, or someone who is too strong or too weak to play with the given crowd. I merely choose not to play with th em.
But if morality is, as the quote would seem to suggest, only a good ‘game playing strategy’… if we have built our system of morality on who we would choose to play with… then where cometh the reviling? Suppose it would be fun to play cards with this kid who cheats, because he isn’t really good at the cards, so it is about the only way he can even come near winning… and who wants to play if one side wins all the time?
Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is looking.
Charles Marshall
What if someone can cheat successfully? What if some business can bend the rules, not get caught, and end up making lots of money? What would game theory say about that? How does ‘abide by the rule set’ work when the only way to win is to draw a foul, or ground the ball intentionally? And the cheering crowd admires your action, and even the referee grins a bit.
The issue at hand in morality has to do with its existence, knowledge, and definition. It is perfectly possible for a psychopath to say, “I abide by these rules because I get more of what I want by following them”… and leave you completely in the dark as to what those rules are! Are they the standard rules of morality, or some twisted way of torturing children?
The difference between the psychopath and his peers is not in those areas where they both do ‘what works’, but where the one person does the right thing when it isn’t what would benefit him. When he throws himself on a hand grenade to save others.
A Psalm of David.
LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy hill?
He that walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart.He that backbiteth not with his tongue, nor doeth evil to his neighbour, nor taketh up a reproach against his neighbour.
In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honoureth them that fear the LORD. He that sweareth to his own hurt, and changeth not.
He that putteth not out his money to usury, nor taketh reward against the innocent.
He that doeth these things shall never be moved.
Moral Contradiction
If, instead, morality is an objective reality, understood by all humanity and externally verified and enforced by all those around us, then we can recognise some things are preferences and some are wrong.
Fallible Father
I would argue that all definitions of morality which do not begin with God are by definition, self-contradictory, but rarely do I see it so clearly illustrated as Fallible Father’s last post. He proposes the above definition… which fits perfectly with the Christian definition, except he leaves out the ‘rebellion’ aspect… and then proceeds to flatly contradict it: denying at least two of these ‘understood by all humanity’ precepts.
Before we get to the the contradiction, let me tease out a couple of things in his definition. He cannot really mean ‘understood by all humanity’ to mean ‘understood by all humanity in the same way, to the same extent, at the same time, by everyone’. He recognises that different people, at different times in different cultures, have skirted or flatly denied each and every moral precept that he could name. Consider the Hamas terrorist who called his mother, boasting about how many Jews he had killed.
What he must mean by ‘understood by all humanity’ is ‘the great mass of humanity, on their best day, by their best people’. And I hope that he is including the ‘democracy of the dead’. In his reply to me he objected that the definition I posted was ‘old’. Well, morality is ‘old’. The definition I posted would have been recognised, more or less, by people 100 years ago, 400 years ago, 1400 years ago, and 2400 years ago. It would have been recognised by Moses, Noah, Job, and Hammurabi. It is only in the last ten minutes that we have changed our definition.
Tradition means giving a vote to most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead… Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. All democrats object to men being disqualified by the accident of birth; tradition objects to their being disqualified by the accident of death. Democracy tells us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our groom; tradition asks us not to neglect a good man’s opinion, even if he is our father.
GK Chesterton
Now let us get to the contradictions. Let us assume that Fallible Father agrees that morality is defined more or less as that code of right behaviour which is “understood by all humanity’ meaning ‘the great mass of humanity, on their best day, their best people; including all over the world and throughout human history.” If that is the case he flatly contradicts this moral code in at least two ways:
1) Honor your father. There is a precept which is and has been taught throughout all of human history as one of the foundation stones of morality, in the top ten one might say. It is ‘honour your father’ (put differently in different traditions). (And mother, but that is another post.) Obviously, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have it in their books. But it is also a foundational tenet in Shintoism, Buddism, Greek and Roman morality, African Paganism, Papua New Guinea Paganism, Norse Mythology… in short, pretty much everyone in all of history and all over the planet has emphasised and do emphasise the importance of honouring/obeying/providing for the father to one extent or the other. The Code of Hammurabi has the word ‘father’ seventy times (in the translation, I looked up and did a quick search on).
But Fallible Father rejects this precept, and would fly in the face of that entire body of evidence, with an argument that basically says ‘The children didn’t have any choice…?” He would elevate this idea of ‘choice’ (which is remarkably absent from pretty much all codes of morality before, like, fifteen minutes ago. And even then is often honoured in the absence.) above this consistent teaching?
What happened to his ‘all of humanity’ definition of morality? Is morality something that, as he says, all of humanity agrees on? In which case we would expect him to realize that he has strayed from morality and accept that ‘honour your father’ is one of the foundational aspects of morality from time immemorial.
But if morality is a mere preference… ever changing from person to person and day to day… then one day ‘honour your father’ can be a bedrock of all right thinking, and the next day outdated and of mere historical interest.
2) And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. This precept has consistently scored #1 in pretty much all rankings of moral behaviour. They might disagree on who they consider God or gods (I believe the fathers are considered gods in Shintoism, so that’s a twofer) but those codes all agree that honouring, serving, obeying, God or the God’s, etc. etc. is the first and most important of moral duties, indeed the one that is the foundation for all of the others. We obey and honour our fathers because that is the way we learn to honor God, because he represents God to us.
So, what price Fallible Father’s definition of morality? Will he be teaching his children to ‘love God’? That would fit with the definition of morality that he posted.
It doesn’t seem so. It seems his definition of morality has devolved into doing what ‘a lot of people of his set happen to agree on, right now, but it might change tomorrow with the latest poll’. Like dyeing your hair blue… or not.
I wrote in my last post:
If nothing is written, if nothing is objective, if nothing is external, then nothing is a sin. It is all just a preference. Pineapple on pizza, your wife sleeping with another man, your daughter having her breasts cut off… just a preference. Pizza or sushi. That is where that path leads.
Fallible Father has stated that pineapple on pizza is not a moral violation, or at least not one worthy of death. But what of adultery or child mutilation? Are they to go the way of honouring the father and obeying God? To blow with the whims of modern thought?
Or are they objective and eternal?
Back to the Beginning
Let’s draw this discussion back to its starting point. Is believing in religion or not, in one religion or the other as unimportant (with all apologies to the Italians and Japanese, and leaving out the issue of pineapple) as whether you like pizza or sushi?
It seems to me that this case is settled, and it is Fallible Father himself who has settled it. He flatly denies two of the most important articles of morality, because of his beliefs.
Coincidentally, this is often done by people claiming that God wants something, and it is therefore correct. Jihad? God’s will. Crusades? Positive that they were just. Millions dead by communism? Obviously it was necessary, and a few eggs being broken does not negate the good outcome of an omelet.
Fallible Father
He then goes on to list other issues that reflect his rejection of various people’s moral understanding, which came from their religion (or lack thereof). Was it the Amish who fought in the Crusades? Orthodox Jews who led the Jihads? The Quakers who promoted communism and starved the Ukranian Kulacks? IOW, did the religious understanding of the various groups lead to the moral understanding of the various groups, and thus to the acting out of that moral understanding… or were the Crusades just a bunch of guys going out for pizza who got a bit lost? Is Jihad just an abstract theological argument amongst Muslims about the value of sushi?
If there is no God, and our definition of morality requires God, there can be no hope. Let me go buy some heroine and pick up a prostitute, it is all for naught!
Fallible Father
I think I will end with this fantastically revealing quote, and ask what is it about morality that, if it didn’t actually exist, would lead to no hope?
Is it not written:
Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, vanity of vanities; all is vanity.
What profit hath a man of all his labour which he taketh under the sun?
Ecclesiastes 1:2-3
and then concluded:
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14
Fallible Father is completely right. If there is no God, then there is no hope. But God exists, and because He exists, we can have hope. Morality depends upon God… and He exists. Morality makes no sense without God, because He exists.
Left Out
I feel like I covered way too much in this post, but I have obviously left a whole lot out. But I think we have to get this foundation issue settled before we can adequately deal with those, and to do that I think we need to, or at least I need to, be quite focused.
Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!
Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.
If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!
Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,
Von
Jihad and the crusades... and how they are related to religion? The argument I am making is:
1) All humans have a knowledge of morality, and they impart that into their religions, cultures, nations, etc.
2) All knowledge of morality is flawed due to:
a) Deliberate rebellion against God (sin) and
b) Imperfect knowledge
3) Different individuals, cultures, religions, nations, etc have differently flawed knowledge of and relation to morality but
4) These are not at all the same. Some have more knowledge and are more in harmony; some less, all different. Thus one individual/culture/religion/nature might get humility right, and pride wrong; or murder right and lust wrong, or one might get one part of lust right and another part wrong; etc etc.
5) Thus what religion you belong to is one very important part of what your knowledge and relation to morality is. The different flaws, and depth of flaws, result in very, very different outlooks and actions.
Thus it wasn't the Amish that led the crusades, the Orthodox Jews who burned witches, and it isn't conservative Christians who are having their daughter's breasts cut off and their boys castrated.
So not only is the difference not the same as preference (leaving aside pineapple, which is a moral issue), but the bad religion (and lack of religion, which doesn't exist, but we'll go with it for a minute) will have bad results. Different bad religions, different bad results. Good religion badly applied, bad result. Good religion badly applied in a different way, different bad result.
Well written, but a quick clarifying question.
At the point where you quote me on how belief in God does not, in my view, protect us from having our inherent moral sense from being twisted, as communism, jihad and the crusades are examples of how it can be done using religious or secular ideals, what exactly is the argument being made?
Possible readings of this:
1) Yes, religion can twist morality, thus religion has a gravity that is much deeper than pizza or sushi
2) Certain religions do this, which is why they are untrue and a bad choice, so it is not the same as choosing between pizza and sushi, which really is just a preference issue compared to picking a bad religion
There are probably other ways I can read this, but these seem the two most likely. Thanks for clarifying!