A World without Religion?

[Bradski]

No actually, what I am saying is that reality does make sense AND goodness is embedded into it, therefore I have every reason to believe that God does exist. If God didn’t exist, goodness, along with meaning, significance and purpose wouldn’t be qualities that humans would have come up with – they would never have arisen.

Well, that’s not exactly a debatable point, is it. If I ask: ‘Could you be good without God?’ your reply is: ‘There is no good without God’. The conversation stops there. Impasse. But I didn’t ask about God. I asked about being good without religion, which is the point of the thread. And I think that it’s generally been accepted that that means a lack of belief in God (as opposed to a believer with no specific affiliation to any given religion).

So the question remains: Without a belief in God, would you feel that everything is permissible yourself, or do you think that might be applicable to other people?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So the question remains: Without a belief in God, would you feel that everything is permissible yourself, or do you think that might be applicable to other people?

In Catholic theology we have a firewall against complete moral anarchy. It’s called natural law. Even when we violate the laws of God by denying there are any laws to violate, nor any final consequence to the violation of those laws, we know that God has given us a conscience that sooner or later catches up with our denial. In my own case I am a Catholic revert because my conscience caught up with me. I can’t speak for others, but I think conscience is a highly prized quality for Catholics, and that is emphasized by the fact that confession is required of Catholics at least once a year, but preferably as often as needed to purge oneself of sin and guilt.

But there are those who do give themselves over to the devil so completely that they can accomplish a lot of evil before they come to their senses (often on their deathbed if not sooner). This is the value of religion, that it is a constant reminder to us that we can yield our souls to the devil and had better be on the watch for the one “who prowls about the world seeking whom he may devour.”

 

[Zzyzx_Road]

Read this excellent article by Msgr Charles Pope here. It represents to me why there will never be a religion-free world.

blog.adw.org/2014/09/god-has-put-the-timeless-in-our-hearts-a-meditation-on-a-saying-from-ecclesiastes/

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Read this excellent article by Msgr Charles Pope here. It represents to me why there will never be a religion-free world.

blog.adw.org/2014/09/god-has-put-the-timeless-in-our-hearts-a-meditation-on-a-saying-from-ecclesiastes/

Good point. Etienne Gilson also wrote a little book called The Dilemmas of Atheism in which he makes a similar point, that God has not died and in the hearts of men cannot die even if we deny him in our heads.

And then there’s Chesterton’s brilliant one-liner:

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

So as long as there are atheist we know God is still with us.

 

[PRmerger]

Here’s a simple question, then: All other things being equal, do you consider the relationship between a man and woman who are faithful to each other exactly the same as the relationship between a couple where one of them is cheating?

They are obviously different. And one isn’t as good as the other. One is broken. The other isn’t.

Exactly.

I would say the same about a homosexual union. All other things being equal, the (sexual) relationship between a man and woman who are faithful to each other is NOT the same as the (sexual) relationship between a man and a man.

They are obviously different. And one isn’t as good as the other. One is broken. The other isn’t.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, that’s not exactly a debatable point, is it. If I ask: ‘Could you be good without God?’ your reply is: ‘There is no good without God’. The conversation stops there. Impasse. But I didn’t ask about God. I asked about being good without religion, which is the point of the thread. And I think that it’s generally been accepted that that means a lack of belief in God (as opposed to a believer with no specific affiliation to any given religion).

People can be good (here, read: moral) without God.

So the question remains: Without a belief in God, would you feel that everything is permissible yourself, or do you think that might be applicable to other people?

Everything wouldn’t be permissible for me. But it would be permissible for anyone else to do any immoral thing he decided to do.

When I say: that’s not the right thing to do!
He would then say: different strokes for different folks. I come to a different conclusion than you do, and there is no ultimate authority save for the almighty self. And I decided that it’s absolutely moral to kill my daughter.

 

[PRmerger]

I might argue that a person does choose to bring harm to themselves, to go to hell through a willful turning away from God, persisting in it until the end.

Yes. I agree and would add that we “choose hell”, a little bit of it, anyway, each and every time we sin. We choose it, even knowing that are are doing so.

 

[PRmerger]

Clearly happiness does not monotonically increase with orgasms- but, equally clearly, people actively seek pleasure from sex. Contraception just allows them to do it with less risk. I’d put it in the same category as artificial sweeteners (discounting any potential health impact), which allow people to get the pleasure from their sugary drinks without fulfilling the “natural” purpose of eating (nutrition).

I would put it in the same category as bulimia. Wanting to get the pleasure without the natural purpose of procreation/eating (pregnancy/weight gain).

 

[Bradski]

Exactly.

Well I’m glad you agree at last.

I would say the same about a homosexual union. All other things being equal, the (sexual) relationship between a man and woman who are faithful to each other is NOT the same as the (sexual) relationship between a man and a man.

They are obviously different.

Good so far. But here it falls down.

And one isn’t as good as the other. One is broken. The other isn’t.

That’s not a good analogy. In fact, it’s not an analogy at all. The first is a broken relationship. Two people has trust in each other, they promised to be faithful to each other but one of them cheated, and his/her promise and their relationship was broken. There is a reason why we can say it is broken. And as you said:

Exactly.

But a homosexual relationship isn’t broken. It is simply ‘not the same’. The only reason you can give (and you do need a reason) is that it is against Natural Law. And we’re back to God (It’s wrong because it’s wrong because…well, God says so). That’s not acceptable.

Everything wouldn’t be permissible for me. But it would be permissible for anyone else to do any immoral thing he decided to do.

For anyone else but not for you? How does that work? Are you a better person than everyone else? You’d probably say not. So what would prevent you doing what you wanted? You’d have no Natural Law, no morality ordained by God, no Church to give you guidance, but you’d still be a good person. Which is odd, because if you asked a gazillion Christians would they rape and murder if there were no God, everyone would say – oh no, not me. That would be someone else. Every. Single. One. Because we’d all be seriously concerned if they said otherwise, wouldn’t we (What? Is your belief the only thing that stopping you? No way!)

So all the Christians would be good. All the atheists are already in that position, so we’re all good. So it look like, to me, that nothing would change.

When I say: that’s not the right thing to do!
He would then say: different strokes for different folks. I come to a different conclusion than you do, and there is no ultimate authority save for the almighty self. And I decided that it’s absolutely moral to kill my daughter.

A belief in God doesn’t stop you killing (check out the murder rate in the US versus the percentage Christians) and a lack of belief doesn’t allow you to (as you’ve just explained).

 

[PRmerger]

Well I’m glad you agree at last.

We are agreed on lots o’ things, mate.

That’s not a good analogy. In fact, it’s not an analogy at all.

Well, it’s a good thing I never claimed it was an analogy, then, eh?

The first is a broken relationship. Two people has trust in each other, they promised to be faithful to each other but one of them cheated, and his/her promise and their relationship was broken. There is a reason why we can say it is broken.

He knows it’s broken.
She doesn’t. In her mind it’s just fine an dandy.

So is your position that it’s objectively broken, despite what she believes?

Is that…

objectively…

true?

 

[PRmerger]

But a homosexual relationship isn’t broken.

Well, it’s disordered. If you don’t want to call it “broken”, then that’s just antics with semantics.

It is simply ‘not the same’. The only reason you can give (and you do need a reason) is that it is against Natural Law. And we’re back to God (It’s wrong because it’s wrong because…well, God says so). That’s not acceptable.

Well, it’s not “the only reason”.

But even if it were…being against Natural Law is a biggie.

That would be like (wait for it…here it comes…my adultery reference…) a man telling his wife, “The ONLY reason you think I cheated is because someone gave you a video of me and my boss having sex.”

Say what? Yep. That’s a pretty good reason, don’t you think?

 

[PRmerger]

For anyone else but not for you? How does that work? Are you a better person than everyone else? You’d probably say not. So what would prevent you doing what you wanted? You’d have no Natural Law, no morality ordained by God, no Church to give you guidance, but you’d still be a good person. Which is odd, because if you asked a gazillion Christians would they rape and murder if there were no God, everyone would say – oh no, not me. That would be someone else. Every. Single. One. Because we’d all be seriously concerned if they said otherwise, wouldn’t we (What? Is your belief the only thing that stopping you? No way!)

So all the Christians would be good. All the atheists are already in that position, so we’re all good. So it look like, to me, that nothing would change.

Oh, gosh, no! That’s not what I meant at all.

I simply meant that I would be bound to follow my conscience. Self imposed. And another person would not be bound by that. He could do whatever he wants.

Because there is no outside authority to whom I can appeal to this amoral monster save the almighty self…he is not obligated to do good and avoid evil…like I am imposing upon myself.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

To be sure, there are plenty of historical revisionists who want to purify Hitler’s reputation, such as Mark Weber who is a Holocaust denier and right wing white supremacist who also denied the authenticity of Hitler Speaks.

ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p378_Weber.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Weber

Oh please. The allies put out substantial volumes of propaganda. Being somewhat skeptical of some claims doesn’t make one a holocaust denier, it just makes one not gullible. Believing an account from a broke man writing for cash, completely corroborated by the mountains of other accounts is just silly. Sorry, but there’s no good reason to but Hitler in the atheist camp. At the very least, the book should not be used as an authoritative source.

 

[Latias]

Oh, gosh, no! That’s not what I meant at all.

I simply meant that I would be bound to follow my conscience. Self imposed. And another person would not be bound by that. He could do whatever he wants.

Because there is no outside authority to whom I can appeal to this amoral monster save the almighty self…he is not obligated to do good and avoid evil…like I am imposing upon myself.

You could appeal to his rational self interest.

mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Black

 

[AnimalSpirits]

And then there’s Chesterton’s brilliant one-liner:

“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.”

So as long as there are atheist we know God is still with us.

I don’t follow.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

I would put it in the same category as bulimia. Wanting to get the pleasure without the natural purpose of procreation/eating (pregnancy/weight gain).

And if bulimia had no averse health impacts associated it with it, I wouldn’t see it as a problem. Currently it can kill you, so that’s a problem. Then again you’re also directly wasting food that could have fed someone else, which might be seen as problematic.

Hypothetical- if there was a pill you could take after a meal that would prevent the nutrients from being absorbed, would you see that as a problem?

 

[RGCheek]

It certainly works for you then, RG. Lucky you’re not Hindu or Muslim.

I was not born Catholic, bro. I studied and came to it of my own free choice.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . if there was a pill you could take after a meal that would prevent the nutrients from being absorbed, would you see that as a problem?

If you are ok with massive explosive diarrhea, go ahead knock yourself out, enjoy.

 

[Magicmaninthesk]

I disagree. All one has to do is look at history where non-religious based governments were in control like Hitler’s Germany, Stalins Russia, Mao Zedongs China, or Bashar al-Assad Syria, to disprove that a world without religion doesn’t equate to a higher moral ground.

Hitler was a christian

 

[Aloysium]

Hitler was a christian

Welcome.
Christianity is not a club; it is a life style dedicated to loving God and one’s neighbor, and that includes everyone.