A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

I’m not sure that this works. God, according to Christians, is love itself. As PR says, no greater can be imagined (although I would seriously doubt the ability of your average Christian to quote Anselm or to even know who he might have been).

Too true, too true.

Although all Christians understand God to be this. Even my 6th grade daughter could apprehend, intuitively, St. Anselm’s definition of God, even if she wouldn’t be able to articulate it.

Nevertheless, unless the particular Christian has specifically selected God on the basis that she happens to agree with what He has decided is be used as a moral framework, then stony ground awaits.

Well, Christians demand that others’ definitions of God be consonant with Truth.

What’s so bad about that, eh? :ehh:

So it is an undoubted fact, an undeniable, cast iron certainty, that Christians (and quite possibly the majority of Christians) work out their own morality in certain circumstances and reject whatever their church, or their scripture, or their religious leaders are telling them is God’s will.

That they do this, no one ought deny.

That they* should* do this, well, we do indeed deny.

 

[PRmerger]

Bradski, Christians have created their god in their own image and likeness.

Some do. Sadly. 'Tis true, this.

They cannot and do not worship a God whom they do not agree with.

This Christian does.

To wit: I do not agree that divorce and re-marriage is adultery, personally. If I were God, I wouldn’t have made it so.

Yet, it’s quite clear that God proclaimed that it is, so I defer to Him and His revelation, rather than my own person beliefs.

And I continue to worship Him, even when I disagree with Him on this.

It’s impossible. Ask any one of them here what they don’t like about God, and you will get silence.

See above.

Christianity is a theoretical religion, and allows the alleged adherents to act holier than thou by holding up what they interpret the bible to mean with regards to morals, and when you get someone to feel guilty over something like homosexuality or masturbation, you have control over that person if he buys into your belief system. In a nutshell, religion is all about power and control, and the individuals who preach it are seeking validation from their imagined God and power over individuals who do not think like they do. As we see, humans kill other humans in the name of their God construct. Just yesterday, 12 innocent humans were massacred. Fortunately today the Christians just try to do it with thought control.

Do you think the perpetrators of this horrifying act should feel guilty about what they did?

Just curious about this, Paradoxical, as you seem to view “someone feeling guilty” as being a bad thing.

Don’t you think people who do bad things *ought to *feel guilty?

 

[PRmerger]

This is translated to mean that this imagined God of Christianity will not stop cancer, stroke, heart attacks, starvation, children dying, or anything else.

Hmm, kinda like he aint there. Isn’t that conveeeennnnient for Christian theology? Something good happens…it was God. Millions starve to death in Africa or a loved one dies from the ravages of cancer…it is God’s will. Didn’t the Muslims who just killed 12 people shout the same phrase when they massacred them?

Surely you see you’re conclusion doesn’t follow: God doesn’t exist because God doesn’t stop heart attacks, cancer and children from starving.

That’s not a logical impossibility, Paradoxial. There is no logical contradiction between God existing and evil and suffering in the world.

Can you see that it’s entirely possible for God to exist even if He doesn’t stop world hunger?

 

[PRmerger]

For the sake of clarity, some one might make a moral judgement and make a decision [to act] that is incompatible with their judgement. Ex: Mary finds a wallet with cash in it. Mary decides the the most moral set of actions that she can do is contact the person whose information is in the wallet and return it. Mary instead decides to take the cash from the wallet and then turn it in. Mary’s assessment of her actions are that she could have made a more moral decision, but Mary decides not to correct what she has done.

Then she didn’t act morally. She didn’t follow her conscience, which told her to do one thing and she did another.

We are always compelled to follow our conscience. You agree with that, as even your examples prove my point.

 

[Hee_Zen]

We are always compelled to follow our conscience.

No, not exactly. We are only compelled to follow a “well-formed” conscience. And what is a “well-formed” conscience? The one which does not deviate from the teachings of the church. As such, if your conscience disagrees with what the church says, then you should not follow it. Pretty much like the old adage went about Henry Ford: “you can have a car of any color, provided that you want a black car”.

 

[PRmerger]

No, not exactly. We are only compelled to follow a “well-formed” conscience.

Well, yeah.

And what is a “well-formed” conscience? The one which does not deviate from the teachings of the church

Well, no. A well formed conscience is one that does not deviate from the Truth.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Then she didn’t act morally.

Yes, she didn’t take the course of action that she herself evaluated to be more moral.

She didn’t follow her conscience, which told her to do one thing and she did another.

Sure, she didn’t follow the course of action that she herself thought would have been the more moral thing to do.

We are always compelled to follow our conscience.

If by “compelled” you mean “forced” or “restricted to” there we part ways. If a person successfully does something that violates her own evaluation for what is the more moral course of action then it seems contradictory to me to say that she was compelled/forced/restricted to do otherwise.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, she didn’t take the course of action that she herself evaluated to be more moral.

Sure, she didn’t follow the course of action that she herself thought would have been the more moral thing to do.

There you go. She should have followed her conscience.

No. “Compelled” here means “obligated”.

So I trust we do not “part ways”.

You do believe that a moral agent must always obey her conscience.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

No. “Compelled” here means “obligated”.

Which seems to be compatible with the definition that I was using. But obligated by what? Some other person, force, condition, dependency? Right now it seems you are referring to some floating sense of obligation without any source.

You do believe that a moral agent must always obey her conscience.

“Must?” No. While I might encourage doing so nothings been identified that is obligating her to do so.

 

[PRmerger]

Which seems to be compatible with the definition that I was using. But obligated by what?

That which compels us to do the right thing and avoid doing the wrong thing.

Some other person, force, condition, dependency? Right now it seems you are referring to some floating sense of obligation without any source.

Well, I am referring to God. That’s the point, isn’t it?

“Must?” No. While I might encourage doing so nothings been identified that is obligating her to do so.

No one is obligated to do good and avoid evil?

Is that your point?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

How 'bout you offer some arguments for the existence of this all powerful being that isn’t “super good”?

(Let’s dismiss the “super nice” part because that’s not how philosophers have defined God. Parents shouldn’t aim to be “super nice”. But they should aim to be “super good”. Why? Because we model ourselves on God).

I don’t believe in this god, or any god.

But the argument was made that belief in a creator in general, or the Christian one in particular, helps you get to a moral system. I’m claiming that this is not true- the fact that a being is all powerful does not make is moral system any better in an objective sense. Thus, the individual still has to subjectively decide that he or she likes the creator they believe in, and then they can adopt whatever rules they think the creator has seen fit to impose. But if we’re capable of determining for ourselves whether or not a creator is good enough for us to impose moral rules, why do we need the creator at all? If I can determine whether or not the creator is good, why not use that same moral sense to determine whether or not a given action is good?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t believe in this god, or any god.

Yep. That’s understood.

But the argument was made that belief in a creator in general, or the Christian one in particular, helps you get to a moral system.

Actually, no.

Not a creator in general. Not even the Christian creator.

Just simply God.

A God who is all good, all loving…who is Truth.

That’s who we’re talking about.

I’m claiming that this is not true- the fact that a being is all powerful does not make is moral system any better in an objective sense.

We are agreed.

Thus, the individual still has to subjectively decide that he or she likes the creator they believe in,

LOL!

If God exists, then whether we “like” Him is irrelevant.

and then they can adopt whatever rules they think the creator has seen fit to impose. But if we’re capable of determining for ourselves whether or not a creator is good enough for us to impose moral rules, why do we need the creator at all?

Well, we don’t need a creator to be good. I’ve never proposed that.

I think there are a whole lot of atheists who are much more noble than some Christians.

 

[Bradski]

If God exists, then whether we “like” Him is irrelevant.

And welcome to the stony ground.

 

[Bradski]

That they do this, no one ought deny.

That they* should* do this, well, we do indeed deny.

That Christans make up their own minds is something we deny? Who is the ‘we’ to whom you refer? Is it the small majority of Christians who always obey God? Do you include yourself is this ‘we’?

But anyway, Christians, as you admit, generate their own morality. Then why are Christians constantly asking atheists how it is done? You already know.

Now whether any given Chrisitian decides that what God says is right but I will disobey God or…says that what God says is wrong and therefore I will make up my own mind, well that’s a question that we need answered by Christians.

Once that is answered, then we can discuss why they think God is wrong or why they think that they are right in disobeying Him.

And once you understand that then you’ll probably be a lot closer to understanding how someone develops morality without a belief in God.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

ThinkingSapien:

Which seems to be compatible with the definition that I was using. But obligated by what?

That which compels us to do the right thing and avoid doing the wrong thing.

Patient: Doctor, my foot hurts. What is causing it?
Doctor: It is caused by that which makes your foot hurt, of course.
**Patient:**That’s genius!

Well, I am referring to God. That’s the point, isn’t it?

Making sure it wasn’t some floating obligation.

No one is obligated to do good and avoid evil?

Is that your point?

Nope. My point was stated earlier. A person does not always take the course of actions that she has decided to be more moral. People take actions that may be found to be good or evil.

I encourage people to consider the impact of their actions, avoid injuring the well being of their selves and others, and try to improve the well being of themselves and others. But it’s up to the person if and when she does so.

 

[PRmerger]

And welcome to the stony ground.

Huh?

Do you find fault with the statement: if God exists, whether we “like” him is irrelevant?

 

[PRmerger]

That Christans make up their own minds is something we deny?

No. I said the exact OPPOSITE of that.

This, verbatim: “That they do this, no one ought deny.”

Who is the ‘we’ to whom you refer?

Catholics in union with the Bishop of Rome.

Is it the small majority of Christians who always obey God?

There is no small majority of Christians who always obey God. Well, except for Jesus. And Mary.

Do you include yourself is this ‘we’?

See above.

But anyway, Christians, as you admit, generate their own morality. Then why are Christians constantly asking atheists how it is done? You already know.

Because they shouldn’t “generate their own morality”.

That’s exactly what the story in the first chapters of Genesis is all about.

We are compelled to discern what’s moral and what’s immoral. Not decide what it is and declare it to be so.

Now whether any given Chrisitian decides that what God says is right but I will disobey God or…says that what God says is wrong and therefore I will make up my own mind, well that’s a question that we need answered by Christians.

Indeed.

Once that is answered, then we can discuss why they think God is wrong or why they think that they are right in disobeying Him.

Exactly. I would love to listen in on a conversation you have with a Christian–esp. a dissident Catholic–to hear how this Catholic justifies her belief that God is wrong.
That would be quite amusing!

And once you understand that then you’ll probably be a lot closer to understanding how someone develops morality without a belief in God.

I’ve always proclaimed that atheists can have a moral system without a belief in God. (It’s just that you haven’t connected the dots as to where this system comes from. And you can never provide a cogent apologia to anyone who disagrees with your moral code).

In fact, I believe some atheist’s moral code is more noble than a lot of religious folks.

And! I think I’d rather have you have my back than I would some of the religious folks I’ve met here on the CAFs.

But that’s irrelevant as to whether God exists.

 

[PRmerger]

Patient: Doctor, my foot hurts. What is causing it?
Doctor: It is caused by that which makes your foot hurt, of course.
**Patient:**That’s genius!

Funny.

Nope. My point was stated earlier. A person does not always take the course of actions that she has decided to be more moral. People take actions that may be found to be good or evil.

So tell me again how someone can be acting in the most moral way while disobeying her conscience?

Remember, we’re not talking about sociopaths, or how people sometimes act in their own selfish interests…we are talking about how to discern what’s the RIGHT thing to do.

We have a person with a rightly developed conscience who is acting morally by disobeying her conscience…how?

I encourage people to consider the impact of their actions, avoid injuring the well being of their selves and others, and try to improve the well being of themselves and others. But it’s up to the person if and when she does so.

Very Catholic, this!

 

[PRmerger]

No one is obligated to do good and avoid evil?

Is that your point?

THINKING SAPIEN: could you please address the above?

Are we as human creatures obligated to do good and avoid evil? Yes? Or no?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So tell me again how someone can be acting in the most moral way while disobeying her conscience?

I had earlier said that a person can decide some course of action that seems to be the most moral of those that she can identify as her options but then take some other course of action while still having the knowledge/opinion/view that this is not the most moral thing that she can do. Her actions don’t necessarily follow what she sees to be the most moral thing to do.

You seem to be asking about something different here; it seems you are not asking about a person that has identified which of

…we are talking about how to discern what’s the RIGHT thing to do.

Talking about how people make decisions on what’s considered moral, immoral, helpful, hurtful, justified, and unjustified it’s going to vary, but a sense of empathy is a starting point from which a person might figure out a good bit such as “Let’s not kill people to take their stuff” (though looking at history it’s evident that empathy hasn’t always been extended to out-groups, especially but not limited to times during imperialist expansions. But that’s another discussion).
Beyond the simple stuff community involvement is going to be needed for figuring other things out. Predicting the ramifications of our actions especially as it relates to systems or the aggregate result of actions might require more knowledge than one person has acquired on their own. Many of us carry with us some amount of knowledge and perspectives that were shared by those that we interact with and influence us directly or at a distance (both in terms of distance and time) that play a role in thinking morality out. What I said in the previous thread about “objects of concern” is relevant here too (I won’t type it again since there is already a link to that thread).

With the accumulation of time and experiences we encounter new situations for which previous rules didn’t consider or cover well. Sometimes this results in further discussions and considerations on how to modify and reinterpret old rules or come up with new rules all together.