Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Pallas_Athene]

The view that morality rests on a 3-font structure is not “bleedin’ obvious”. It is, however, the basis of Catholic moral theology, very briefly outlined here:
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Many, many years ago, when I read about three “prongs” of morality in the catechism, I became pleasantly surprised. My thought was that maybe there is some common ground between the catholic and the secular concept of morality. One cannot argue with the concept of those three “prongs”, the “what you want to achieve”, the “why do you want to achieve it” and the “how do you go about achieving it”. My pleasant surprise did not last long, when I realized that the church wishes to separate the three prongs and wishes to evaluate them individually. This makes no sense at all. Just like as if someone would attempt to evaluate the different ingredients that make up a dish.

Moreover, the church is not totally rigid in its stance. A homicide is not condemned unconditionally, the intent and the means are taken into account - at least partially. Homicide in self-defense is allowed, and also allowed in a “just” war. But it is not allowed when the intent is a mercy killing. I recall the movie: “Full Metal Jacket”, when a very seriously wounded enemy sniper is encountered, and she begs to be shot. The leader of the American soldiers refuses and says: “We shall leave her to the mother-loving rats”. When one of the other soldiers disagrees, the leader says: “You wanna waste her, then waste her”. (Which he does.) So what is the correct solution according to the church? (And there is no third option, it is a war and the objective MUST be met. Besides the sniper just shot three of the American soldiers.)

On the other hand, certain acts of love-making are condemned unconditionally, they are declared “intrinsically evil”. So killing is sometimes acceptable, but certain expressions of love are not.

So, why are you surprised (if you are surprised at all) that the secular world disagrees with the suggested catholic “morality”? Don’t you see that it is internally inconsistent?

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, why are you surprised (if you are surprised at all) that the secular world disagrees with the suggested catholic “morality”? Don’t you see that it is internally inconsistent?

It is only internally inconsistent through the lense and viewpoint of “the secular world” where the universe is mindless, intentionless and the only meaning there is to be had is the immediate and subjectively based one brought to reality by the subject him or her self.

Once meaning is permitted to exist independently of one’s subjectivity and viewed as resident in reality such that purpose and intention – goodness even – exist in measures far exceeding those even possible to insular subjectivity, then “internally consistent” becomes consistent with all of potential reality not merely consistent with subjective internality.

What is restrictively “consistent” with what exists encapsulated inside the walls of an egg need not be in any way consistent with the far reaches of reality.

Let’s face it, secular humanism and atheism, in general, place limits on morality which roughly translate to rational self-interest. That means neither can see any value or merit whatsoever in transcending the limits of meaning one makes for oneself to the possibility that a far richer meaning and value system might exist beyond that constructed by the individual subject. As a matter of fact, a secular humanist cannot even conceive that such meaning could possibly exist since it would threaten the very grounds by which any significance whatsoever is determined by such individuals.

If a secular humanist or atheist were to even consider the possibility that meaning, significance, purpose or value exist in any sense beyond that which originates within their own subjectivity, that admission, itself, would blow apart their worldview – well, at least, crack the mental eggshell which offers such dark and warm comfort.

 

[Bradski]

Don’t you mean…

“So if you CAN’T persuade me that any given act is harmful, then I am going to ACCEPT it as permissible, in my system and in yours.”

Your expression simply doesn’t make sense according to your own “system.” Why would you reject an act as “immoral,” if it can’t be shown to be harmful, given that harm, for you, is the determiner of “immoral?”

My bad. Yes, you’re right. I had it the wrong way around. What you have in quotes above is what I meant to write.

 

[Bradski]

I may have a rationale (“follow God’s law”, not my own reasoning) which provides a basis to look beyond human reasoning and choose what I (or am taught) is right. The Atheist would have no reason to depart from his reasoned conclusion (unless choosing what he concludes is “wrong”).

A “believer”, in thinking about an issue, may conclude exactly the same thing as the Atheist (cannot through reason understand why something is taught as immoral). But, he is called to subjugate his reason to God’s law and the teaching authority of his Church.

God’s laws are pretty much universal as well. It always surprises me to listen to Christians explaining God’s Rules as if they were something that wouldn’t be obviously apparent to anyone. But there is obviously a problem when what God sez doesn’t seem to make any sense to you. When it runs counter to your own reasoning. Then you admit that rather than consider that the message may been delivered incorrectly or someone has interpreted it incorrectly, you have to follow it regardless, even though reason tells you otherwise, simply because God sez.

In passing, do you mind giving me an example of what you think is unreasonable but are obliged to do (or not do)?

Why is it immoral to kill a primate?

Sentience. An ape has it. A dog has it. A mosquito…I don’t believe a mosquito has it. And sentience leads to empathy. We understand and recognise what an ape or a dog is feeling. Not so with the mossie – or a group of cells (that for Peter as we can all see where his argument was going).

The view that morality rests on a 3-font structure is not “bleedin’ obvious”. It is, however, the basis of Catholic moral theology…

OK, I’ll be specific. It’s bleedin’ obvious to me.

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

Who does it affect, why does it affect them and what are the circumstances?

Using harm as the initial determinant, shooting a man might be immoral as opposed to shooting a plant. If the end view is to prevent him causing harm to others, then that might be moral. If he is just about to cause that harm, then in that circumstance it seems it could be classed as moral. If the harm coulkd be considered minor, then it may be immoral.

Look, the church didn’t discover these proposals for determining the morality of actions. They aren’t Catholic Rules. They are universal. A ten year old child could articulate them quite easily. You don’t have to be a Catholic or a Christian or need to believe in God to understand them. They are obvious and logical steps that any reasonable person would go through to determine if a course of action is right or not.

How is harm measured? Do you mean physical injury alone constitutes harm? Do you count injury to internal psychological or subjective states as harm? Is harm in those instances, purely self-reported?

Relying on such non-objective indicators would make determining harm to be highly problematic.

I believe I said earlier that it doesn’t have to be physical.

THE salient question to be properly answered before we can adequately discuss what it means to “harm” a human being in any meaningful moral sense. Yes?

We’re not just talking about harming humans.

 

[Rau]

God’s laws are pretty much universal as well. It always surprises me to listen to Christians explaining God’s Rules as if they were something that wouldn’t be obviously apparent to anyone. But there is obviously a problem when what God sez doesn’t seem to make any sense to you. When it runs counter to your own reasoning. Then you admit that rather than consider that the message may been delivered incorrectly or someone has interpreted it incorrectly, you have to follow it regardless, even though reason tells you otherwise, simply because God sez.

Not all would agree with you. I’ve not encountered the Christians you have in mind. The problem you refer to is a challenge - faith or personal reasoning. You have great faith in your capacity to reason correctly on these subjective matters. But God tells us his ways are far above our own. And to your last point, not compelled, but rather believe that is the right course. But the problem is symmetrical - you are compelled to follow your own judgement. The difference is in what do we have the greatest faith.

In passing, do you mind giving me an example of what you think is unreasonable but are obliged to do (or not do)?

My struggles lie more in doing the right thing than doubting what is right.

Sentience. An ape has it. A dog has it. A mosquito…I don’t believe a mosquito has it. And sentience leads to empathy. We understand and recognise what an ape or a dog is feeling. Not so with the mossie – or a group of cells (that for Peter as we can all see where his argument was going).

I understand, though I’m mot sure I understand why sentience makes the difference. There would be nothing immoral in shooting a dog to provide food to survive. Though to kill a person for the same reason certainly is.

OK, I’ll be specific. It’s bleedin’ obvious to me.

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

Who does it affect, why does it affect them and what are the circumstances?

Who it affects is not the meaning of the “object chosen”.

Look, the church didn’t discover these proposals for determining the morality of actions. They aren’t Catholic Rules. They are universal. A ten year old child could articulate them quite easily. You don’t have to be a Catholic or a Christian or need to believe in God to understand them. They are obvious and logical steps that any reasonable person would go through to determine if a course of action is right or not.

Are you familiar with the origins and development of this piece of catholic theology? I think they are a little more challenging than you currently understand. I note Pallas rejects them out of hand.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I note Pallas rejects them out of hand.

You misunderstood me. I explicitly accepted the “three prongs”, I only deny that they can be investigated separately, as if they were independent, which they are not.

I even presented a real life problem (depicted in the movie) and asked what is the correct procedure according to the catholic theology? Let nature (and the rats) take its course, and allow the sniper to die to her wounds, or grant her last wish and help her into death? This question is always neglected… I wonder why?

 

[frangiuliano115]

To return to the original post:

MC: “Gotta say that the logic of “if there are bad things in the world, God is implied” is completely illogical, and is a HUGE leap of faith. The concept of evil is more easily defined as the things we don’t want done to us, or others. The worse the indiscretion, the more evil we perceive it to be. **Those ideas can and do exist without God. To say that I need God in order to know that killing, stealing, etc, is bad is to give away your common sense to a man in the sky. We know it’s bad because we can see the effects it has on people everyday. **They’re tangible. They effect us. **To accept that there is a “way things are supposed to be” is incredibly naïve. People shouldn’t hurt each other because people know what it feels like to be hurt. **That’s logic. Anything else is just arbitrary reasoning for things you don’t, or can’t understand.”

I don’t see how it is possible to prove, or disprove, the existence of God. I don’t want to get involved in an argument about evolution. Suffice to say that the existence of a moral code MAY be explained in terms of the evolution of adaptive behaviour. A pioneer in this field is Martin Nowak, a practising Catholic. See his book, SuperCooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each Other to Succeed

As an amusing aside, I don’t think anyone has caused Richard Dawkins to spit the dummy like Martin Nowak.

According to Wikipedia:

Nowak was co-director with Sarah Coakley of the Evolution and Theology of Cooperation project at Harvard University, sponsored by the Templeton Foundation.[11] He is also a member of the Board of Advisers of the Templeton Foundation.[12] In a lecture given at Harvard in March 2007 called “Evolution and Christianity”, Nowak, a Roman Catholic,[13] argued that “Science and religion are two essential components in the search for truth. Denying either is a barren approach.”[14]

So why do some people believe in God and others not?

I don’t know.

I grew up in what was essentially an atheist family. Over decades I sort of drifted towards a belief in God. In my case there was no Damascene conversion, no sudden moment of seeing the light, nothing dramatic. It just sort of happened. I can’t give any logical explanation for it.

A personal testimony. The best argument in this continuing debate.

Fran

 

[Rau]

You misunderstood me. I explicitly accepted the “three prongs”, I only deny that they can be investigated separately, as if they were independent, which they are not.

I even presented a real life problem (depicted in the movie) and asked what is the correct procedure according to the catholic theology? Let nature (and the rats) take its course, and allow the sniper to die to her wounds, or grant her last wish and help her into death? This question is always neglected… I wonder why?

I thought the answer was obvious. Kill the rats, not the person.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I thought the answer was obvious. Kill the rats, not the person.

PA started a whole new thread on this.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=979944

In that thread, You (not you ) has taken the wind out of PA’s sails.

 

[Peter_Plato]

T
MC: “Gotta say that the logic of “if there are bad things in the world, God is implied” is completely illogical, and is a HUGE leap of faith. The concept of evil is more easily defined as the things we don’t want done to us, or others. The worse the indiscretion, the more evil we perceive it to be. **Those ideas can and do exist without God. To say that I need God in order to know that killing, stealing, etc, is bad is to give away your common sense to a man in the sky. We know it’s bad because we can see the effects it has on people everyday. **They’re tangible. They effect us. **To accept that there is a “way things are supposed to be” is incredibly naïve. People shouldn’t hurt each other because people know what it feels like to be hurt. **That’s logic. Anything else is just arbitrary reasoning for things you don’t, or can’t understand.”

I suspect you are missing the point of the argument. The reason, perhaps, is that you begin with a presumption with regard to the nature of God. If God is some external being that resides somewhere outside and independent of you, then you are correct there is NO logical connection between the existence of evil and the existence of God.

However, if God is Being Itself – not belonging to any genus, not another being, whatsoever – but the very ground of existence itself that ultimately determines the nature of all that exists and of logic itself, then it would make perfect sense to claim that evil could only be recognized as “evil" in contradistinction to the way things OUGHT to be.

If reality is merely blind, unguided, material causes and effects then the sense that things are not what they ought to be simply wouldn’t exist. There would be no sense in which things could be what they ought not be. It would all be brute fact – no “shoulds” or “oughts." No transcendence from which to assess or value could even be possible.

The fact that our consciousness is imbued with a moral sense determined by what it means to be a moral agent who can transcend brute cause and effect material reality is a reason for thinking a transcendent God is immanent in the physical realm and THAT immanence within our very being is what permits us to see (though perhaps not always very clearly) what ought to be as opposed to what is.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I thought the answer was obvious. Kill the rats, not the person.

Obvious, eh? All thousands of them, in the middle of a military mission? Why not just hire the Pied Piper from Hameln? Or call in an exterminator company to poison the rats with cyanide? You cannot change the parameters of a thought experiment to suit your needs… Of course these attempts to move the goalposts are also very telling. They show the weakness of the ethical system you try to defend.

 

[Rau]

Obvious, eh? All thousands of them, in the middle of a military mission? Why not just hire the Pied Piper from Hameln? Or call in an exterminator company to poison the rats with cyanide? You cannot change the parameters of a thought experiment to suit your needs… Of course these attempts to move the goalposts are also very telling. They show the weakness of the ethical system you try to defend.

I see you created another thread on this contrived dilemma (contrived to exclude the noble options…) and your question is well answered there.

You refer to the obligation to show compassion, then artificially eliminate from the scenario all acceptable means to do so. Sheesh…!

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I see you created another thread on this contrived dilemma (contrived to exclude the noble options…) and your question is well answered there.

You refer to the obligation to show compassion, then artificially eliminate from the scenario all acceptable means to do so. Sheesh…!

I answered your objection there. As for eliminating all the means what you would LIKE to choose… don’t blame the messenger. Guano happens!

 

[Rau]

I answered your objection there. As for eliminating all the means what you would LIKE to choose… don’t blame the messenger. Guano happens!

I was referring to Gorgias and “you” who dealt well with your scenario. And you well know that euthanasia is unacceptable in the Catholic faith, and good intentions and circumstances can’t change that.

Stuff happens. People suffer. We can only do our best, acting morally.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I was referring to Gorgias and “you” who dealt well with your scenario. And you well know that euthanasia is unacceptable in the Catholic faith, and good intentions and circumstances can’t change that.

I am aware of that. I merely question the rationality of it.

Stuff happens. People suffer. We can only do our best, acting morally.

The point was and is that a morally acceptable option does not always exist. What to do in that case is the crucial problem.

 

[Bradski]

My struggles lie more in doing the right thing than doubting what is right.

And in regard to deciding what this is, you said this earlier:

A “believer”, in thinking about an issue, may conclude exactly the same thing as the Atheist (cannot through reason understand why something is taught as immoral). But, he is called to subjugate his reason to God’s law and the teaching authority of his Church.

Now I assumed that you were talking from personal experience. Or at least knew of an example you could give me. Because I think that this is an important point. Either all decisions you make using your own intellect will correlate with God’s wishes or they won’t.

If they do, then my point that one doesn’t need God to enable us to work out what is right or wrong stands. You just do it yourself (notwithstanding that it does come across as a little suspicious for someone to claim that everything they decide also happens to align exactly with what God wants).

If what you decide is right does NOT align with God’s wishes (or the church’s teaching), then it would seem you have a problem. You believe you are right. So you logically must believe any opposing view is wrong. You must believe that God (or the church’s teachings) is wrong.

So which is it? Are you perfectly in tune with what God wants? Or are there occasions when you follow a course of action because it is what the church or God wants yet there is a little voice inside you saying: ‘I don’t think this is right’.

It’s my view that that problem has always existed. But only recently that Catholics have started listening to that little voice. Time was they’d toe the line. Time is they don’t. That little internal voice is now a fully formed debate.

 

[Rau]

…The point was and is that a morally acceptable option does not always exist. What to do in that case is the crucial problem.

Palatable options may not exist. We are never compelled to sin.

 

[Rau]

And in regard to deciding what this is, you said this earlier:

Now I assumed that you were talking from personal experience. Or at least knew of an example you could give me. Because I think that this is an important point. Either all decisions you make using your own intellect will correlate with God’s wishes or they won’t.

If they do, then my point that one doesn’t need God to enable us to work out what is right or wrong stands. You just do it yourself (notwithstanding that it does come across as a little suspicious for someone to claim that everything they decide also happens to align exactly with what God wants).

If what you decide is right does NOT align with God’s wishes (or the church’s teaching), then it would seem you have a problem. You believe you are right. So you logically must believe any opposing view is wrong. You must believe that God (or the church’s teachings) is wrong.

So which is it? Are you perfectly in tune with what God wants? Or are there occasions when you follow a course of action because it is what the church or God wants yet there is a little voice inside you saying: ‘I don’t think this is right’.

It’s my view that that problem has always existed. But only recently that Catholics have started listening to that little voice. Time was they’d toe the line. Time is they don’t. That little internal voice is now a fully formed debate.

The voice has not said “this is not right”. It may say “I’m not sure I understand”. For many, the voice may really be saying “this doesn’t suit me”.

Some Elements of the faith are not knowable through reason, but only faith. Human reason says the Real Presence makes no sense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

And in regard to deciding what this is, you said this earlier:

Now I assumed that you were talking from personal experience. Or at least knew of an example you could give me. Because I think that this is an important point. Either all decisions you make using your own intellect will correlate with God’s wishes or they won’t.

If they do, then my point that one doesn’t need God to enable us to work out what is right or wrong stands. You just do it yourself (notwithstanding that it does come across as a little suspicious for someone to claim that everything they decide also happens to align exactly with what God wants).

If what you decide is right does NOT align with God’s wishes (or the church’s teaching), then it would seem you have a problem. You believe you are right. So you logically must believe any opposing view is wrong. You must believe that God (or the church’s teachings) is wrong.

So which is it? Are you perfectly in tune with what God wants? Or are there occasions when you follow a course of action because it is what the church or God wants yet there is a little voice inside you saying: ‘I don’t think this is right’.

It’s my view that that problem has always existed. But only recently that Catholics have started listening to that little voice. Time was they’d toe the line. Time is they don’t. That little internal voice is now a fully formed debate.

This is a rather simplistic accounting of “time was” and “time is.” As usual, it ignores the actual reality and replaces it with a “preferred” view.

First of all, merely agreeing or disagreeing, believing or not believing, deciding or not deciding are insufficient as far as what God wants. God isn’t interested very much in what we currently think or believe but rather what it is about us that believes or thinks. That “whatness” about us is what needs to be properly aligned and “in tune” with God in the sense of being, not merely that a current belief, thought or emotion happens to align with what God wants. The end is metanoia – a complete change to the level of one’s core being.

I suspect “time was” always included “Catholics” who “toed the line” for a variety of reasons but their “hearts” weren’t in it. They may have found it pragmatic, easy, profitable, etc., to “toe the line” but they weren’t aligned with God in the relevant sense - though they may have given the appearance of being so aligned. Now, as “time is” passing by, those former appearances are falling away and glimpses into real motives and into the real “hearts” of the matter are being revealed.

Now, at least, some of what you think of as Catholics not “toeing the line” is more a matter of regaining orientation when the world (society) has become shaken to its core and turned upsidedown as far as morals and spirituality is concerned. Some may find reorientation takes a little time, but I suspect when the true consequences of abandoning right alignment with God come about, like the Prodigal Son, many of these Catholics will find their way home.

The problem with freedom is that sometimes license (or licentiousness) parodies true freedom and enchants the feeble-hearted, but the bitter taste that results becomes intolerable fairly quickly and those humble enough to view things honestly will see the truth – it took the foul taste of pig swill to finally convince the Prodigal Son that his real home was elsewhere than the sty.

Unfortunately, some do feel quite at home in the sty quaffing swill and the intoxicating effects of that swill are sufficient to convince them that a sty makes a fitting abode for them. Coming to one’s senses is always a challenge when one’s senses aren’t fully functional or impaired.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Palatable options may not exist. We are never compelled to sin.

How would you know that? You are not omniscient.