Answering an Atheist (2 points I want help with)

[Trevor_Dewey]

The point was and is that a morally acceptable option does not always exist.

For those of us who acknowledge that there is an absolute morality, there is always a morally acceptable option. As Rau stated, “you are never compelled to sin.” That you believe otherwise is because you believe in relative morality that puts the self ahead of all others, you use the word “compassion” in your thought experiment but you really mean “convenient”.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

For those of us who acknowledge that there is an absolute morality, there is always a morally acceptable option.

That is merely wishful thinking and total disregard for the other party’s suffering. To keep someone alive when the continued existence only brings forth more pain, more suffering and loss of dignity (there is no “dignity” in being devoured by rats while being still alive and conscious) is an incredibly cruel and heartless torture. That is “Room one-oh-one” in the Miniluv (Ministry of Love) in 1984.

As Rau stated, “you are never compelled to sin.” That you believe otherwise is because you believe in relative morality that puts the self ahead of all others, you use the word “compassion” in your thought experiment but you really mean “convenient”.

Compassion means compassion. Coming from the golden rule and putting ourselves into the shoes of the other party. In similar circumstances I would prefer to be killed, fast and relatively painlessly. And if I would be in the position to express that wish, I would ask for that quick release. To deny such a request is tantamount to cruel torture.

Rau said that “we are never compelled to sin”, but that is just empty utterance. It reminds me of the other empty phrase, which says that “God always gives sufficient grace so we can endure whatever hardship he happens to pile upon us”. The people who commit suicide obviously did NOT get that “sufficient grace” (whatever that might be).

To say that we “put ourselves in front of others” is simply an insult.

 

[Rau]

… In similar circumstances I would prefer to be killed, fast and relatively painlessly. And if I would be in the position to express that wish, I would ask for that quick release.

I might also prefer this. Yet I know that would be wrong. I can hold these two thoughts simultaneously. In the real, world, I might prefer care and protection. But I suspect in the real world, you would simply always support the right to suicide, and regardless of circumstances.

To deny such a request is tantamount to cruel torture.

To deny assistance (getting back to reality…) would be gravely immoral. Your system obligates you to murder innocents in various circumstances, so your conclusion is not surprising.

Rau said that “we are never compelled to sin”, but that is just empty utterance.

Really? I believe it is true.

 

[Rau]

How would you know that? You are not omniscient.

LOL… That’s not particularly insightful…!

 

[Bradski]

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.

You can’t follow an edict without being able to understand it. It’s not really a sensible thing to say: ‘this is what I must do, but I really have no understanding of why I should do it’. I would suggest that by saying: ‘I’m not sure I understand’, what is meant is: ‘I’m not sure I understand why the church has reached a different decision to me’. And that would be because you have already used your God-given intellect to reason the opposite. You understand what the church means, but you disagree with it (yet are obliged to follow what it says).

I’m certain that many Catholics decide that certain aspects of the faith do not suit them. Contraception being an excellent example. And why do you think this is? It’s simply because they have reached a decision that there is no problem with it. They have used their God-given intellect and decided that the church is wrong.

And saying that faith is required to understand certain aspects of morality is a non starter for me. I suspect that what you mean is that you cannot reconcile your beliefs with the church’s so you must resort to faith to override your intellect.

 

[Rau]

You can’t follow an edict without being able to understand it. It’s not really a sensible thing to say: ‘this is what I must do, but I really have no understanding of why I should do it’. I would suggest that by saying: ‘I’m not sure I understand’, what is meant is: ‘I’m not sure I understand why the church has reached a different decision to me’. And that would be because you have already used your God-given intellect to reason the opposite. You understand what the church means, but you disagree with it (yet are obliged to follow what it says).

I’m certain that many Catholics decide that certain aspects of the faith do not suit them. Contraception being an excellent example. And why do you think this is? It’s simply because they have reached a decision that there is no problem with it. They have used their God-given intellect and decided that the church is wrong.

And saying that faith is required to understand certain aspects of morality is a non starter for me. I suspect that what you mean is that you cannot reconcile your beliefs with the church’s so you must resort to faith to override your intellect.

I find I don’t agree with any of that, not intellectually, nor in any other sense. In part, I simply don’t have the sense of “personal superiority” that much of what you write here entails. And in part, I simply don’t find fault in what the church teaches. My transgressions are not attributable to a view the Church is wrong.

I agree that all references to faith, related to morality or otherwise, are a non-starter for an atheist. You really made a non-statement there!

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

That is merely wishful thinking and total disregard for the other party’s suffering. To keep someone alive when the continued existence only brings forth more pain, more suffering and loss of dignity (there is no “dignity” in being devoured by rats while being still alive and conscious) is an incredibly cruel and heartless torture. That is “Room one-oh-one” in the Miniluv (Ministry of Love) in 1984.

Your understanding is limited by your worldview, enduring terrible suffering now can lead to glory in the hereafter. The martyrs of the Church all suffered greatly in their dying, but for enduring that suffering the reside now in heaven.

For the vast majority of those people, who are not martyrs, like you and I suffering can lead to greater understanding of one self, of others, and of God.

I’m sure you know Matthew 19:24 “And again I say to you: It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven.” Badly paraphrasing Gregory the Great here, the statement is much less about rich versus poor, and much more about those who suffer and those who don’t (or worse) cause the suffering of others. The camel (that which is ridden, a beast of burden, often hungry and thirsty) represents those who suffer, the rich man (the one who rides, whips his beasts, and always has food or drink) those who do not. Christ is telling us that suffering in our life has a purpose, without suffering, it is very, difficult to enter into heaven.

Compassion means compassion. Coming from the golden rule and putting ourselves into the shoes of the other party. In similar circumstances I would prefer to be killed, fast and relatively painlessly. And if I would be in the position to express that wish, I would ask for that quick release. To deny such a request is tantamount to cruel torture.

It doesn’t matter what you would prefer, thou shalt not kill others (including the unborn) or yourself, we are not allowed to choose when we come into this world or when we leave it.

Rau said that “we are never compelled to sin”, but that is just empty utterance. It reminds me of the other empty phrase, which says that “God always gives sufficient grace so we can endure whatever hardship he happens to pile upon us”. The people who commit suicide obviously did NOT get that “sufficient grace” (whatever that might be).

To say that we “put ourselves in front of others” is simply an insult.

It’s a straight fact: you are never compelled to sin. I am never compelled to sin. There is no situation that will ever occur to anyone, anywhere throughout the universe, where the answer to WWJD is commit a sin. You can write a million hypotheticals and there is always a morally correct exit. And as for Evil: Satan and his ilk, contrary to Hollywood, they can’t compel you to sin either. He can only whisper in your ear: a small voice telling you to do what you want and damn the rest. It is your choice to listen to him. Now in some cases the morally correct exit results in your death (Gunmen holds a gun to your head, gives you a gun and says kill this person, or I kill you. The morally correct response is to let him kill you) which is to say the morally correct choice may be very difficult, thus, yes, when you say compassion, you mean convenience.

And as for suicide, people commit suicide because of a lack of hope caused by their loss (or absence) of faith in God, egged on by a society that glorifies death through abortion and euthanasia. Christ is hope, reject Christ and you are left with Abaddon…

 

[Pallas_Athene]

I might also prefer this. Yet I know that would be wrong. I can hold these two thoughts simultaneously.

That is called doublethink… also from 1984.

In the real, world, I might prefer care and protection. But I suspect in the real world, you would simply always support the right to suicide, and regardless of circumstances.

Of course. “Whose life is it anyway?” was the title of the movie. Of course if God disagrees with this, he is always free to grab my hand and stop me.

To deny assistance (getting back to reality…) would be gravely immoral. Your system obligates you to murder innocents in various circumstances, so your conclusion is not surprising.

If the only assistance is to kill, then what will you do? Never mind. I will open a new thread about this question in the Moral Theology forum.

Really? I believe it is true.

What you believe only pertains to you, not to the outside reality. And yes, you are not omniscient, so how can you claim that there can NEVER be a true moral dilemma, the one where two imperatives collide.

Your understanding is limited by your worldview, enduring terrible suffering now can lead to glory in the hereafter. The martyrs of the Church all suffered greatly in their dying, but for enduring that suffering the reside now in heaven.

For the vast majority of those people, who are not martyrs, like you and I suffering can lead to greater understanding of one self, of others, and of God.

“Can lead” or “may lead” are empty phrases.

It’s a straight fact: you are never compelled to sin. I am never compelled to sin. There is no situation that will ever occur to anyone, anywhere throughout the universe, where the answer to WWJD is commit a sin.

Are you another omniscient one? Rau says the same.

You can write a million hypotheticals and there is always a morally correct exit.

I will open a new thread in the Moral Theology section about this problem. You will be welcome over there.

But it is rather interesting that innumerable ethicists were pondering the problem of “moral dilemmas”, and you (along with Rau) simply declare that moral dilemmas don’t exist, every dilemma has a morally correct solution.

 

[frangiuliano115]

That is called doublethink… also from 1984.

Of course. “Whose life is it anyway?” was the title of the movie. Of course if God disagrees with this, he is always free to grab my hand and stop me.

If the only assistance is to kill, then what will you do? Never mind. I will open a new thread about this question in the Moral Theology forum.

What you believe only pertains to you, not to the outside reality. And yes, you are not omniscient, so how can you claim that there can NEVER be a true moral dilemma, the one where two imperatives collide.

“Can lead” or “may lead” are empty phrases.

Are you another omniscient one? Rau says the same.

I will open a new thread in the Moral Theology section about this problem. You will be welcome over there.

But it is rather interesting that innumerable ethicists were pondering the problem of “moral dilemmas”, and you (along with Rau) simply declare that moral dilemmas don’t exist, every dilemma has a morally correct solution.

So many omniscient catholics, Pallas Athene. Maybe they agree with each other because they’re both christian and see things differently than you do?

And regarding your last pp: YOU are depending on the moral ethicists, WE are depending on God. I think He’s a slight step higher on the pay scale.

Fran

 

[Marty100]

The Atheist bases everything on his own theories contrived or borrowed.

In ten years he will have new modified theories contrived or borrowed.

It is difficult to argue with fools.

The Laws of physics (entropy, conservation of energy and matter, etc.) do not allow our existence. Case closed.

 

[Rau]

That is called doublethink… also from 1984.

Of course. “Whose life is it anyway?” was the title of the movie. Of course if God disagrees with this, he is always free to grab my hand and stop me.

You reference quote a bit of fiction.

If the only assistance is to kill, then what will you do? Never mind. I will open a new thread about this question in the Moral Theology forum.

Asked an answered many times. It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent.

What you believe only pertains to you, not to the outside reality.

You confuse your model with reality. You understand reality no better than I.

I don’t follow your statements about the existence of moral dilemmas. I think all I said on the point was that sin (in the real world at least) is not an obligatory choice. Now, that’s sin in my system, not yours.

 

[frangiuliano115]

The Atheist bases everything on his own theories contrived or borrowed.

In ten years he will have new modified theories contrived or borrowed.

It is difficult to argue with fools.

The Laws of physics (entropy, conservation of energy and matter, etc.) do not allow our existence. Case closed.

Is Marty100 Fr. Spitzer in disguise?

Higgs Boson = The God Particle. I like that. I read that everything should have exploded and disintegrated right after the big bang by contracting instead it expanded and here we are.

 

[josie_L]

I am sure you are aware that the words: “faith” and “knowledge” are not the same. If you have knowledge, there is no need for faith. And if you need faith, you have no knowledge.

So clearly, you’re a person who knows everything. But I do have one question to ask you:

Is there life after death?

 

[Pallas_Athene]

So clearly, you’re a person who knows everything. But I do have one question to ask you:

Is there life after death?

I never claimed “omniscience”. Looks like you confuse me with someone else… I don’t know who it might be. And I am much more concerned with life BEFORE death, a good, happy, satisfying life, loaded with fun, love, good food and drink, lots of entertainment. I am not keen on having pain, misery or torture, no matter how beneficial they might be to one’s “spiritual growth”.

Concerning your question; since I have never seen any evidence for animated corpses, zombies, poltergeists or ghosts, I don’t believe that such things exist. But, as always, I am open to evidence to the contrary.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

You reference quote a bit of fiction.

Sure… but think about it. Are the parables (fictions) uttered by Jesus insignificant just because they do not refer to physical reality?

Asked an answered many times. It’s wrong to intentionally kill an innocent.

Most of the time. If the first carrier of newly mutated virus would spread the disease to untold millions, and the only way to stop the epidemic would be a quick, clean kill, then in MY ethical system it would be the right thing to do. The justification would be the protection of those untold millions. For you there would be a conflict; 1) do not kill and 2) protect those “innocent” victims. For me there is no real conflict. Bite down and do what needs to be done to protect the would-be victims.

Of course if there would be another way to protect those victims, then that route should be taken. Decisions are always dependent on the circumstances.

I don’t follow your statements about the existence of moral dilemmas. I think all I said on the point was that sin (in the real world at least) is not an obligatory choice. Now, that’s sin in my system, not yours.

You are simplistic. Real life does not always offer a good, warm, fuzzy solution. Sometimes you MUST take a path which is horrible, but when the alternative is even worse, then you have no other option. Just like the famous “trolley problem”.

 

[Rau]

Sure… but think about it. Are the parables (fictions) uttered by Jesus insignificant just because they do not refer to physical reality?

Sure, but consider the relative pedigree of the authors…

Real life does not always offer a good, warm, fuzzy solution. Sometimes you MUST take a path which is horrible, but when the alternative is even worse, then you have no other option. Just like the famous “trolley problem”.

Again, the consequentialist focus… Horrible (consequences) and sinful actions are not synonymous, other than perhaps in your worldview…

 

[Trevor_Dewey]

You are simplistic. Real life does not always offer a good, warm, fuzzy solution. Sometimes you MUST take a path which is horrible, but when the alternative is even worse, then you have no other option. Just like the famous “trolley problem”.

First off you are conflating terrible with sinful here - we’ve already discussed a hypothetical where the moral choice is to let yourself die, possibly painfully, which most people would think is pretty bad, and the sinful choice is to remain alive.

Second, Rau continues to be correct and you continue to miss the point: there has never, and will never be a case where the correct moral choice requires you to do something sinful. That’s not how God’s Moral Universe operates, you are stuck in the Sensate Universe and unable to perceive the Moral Universe, so you’re not going to get this point. The Sensate Universe has no moral code beyond might makes right, and the includes all your self-created moral codes, you will follow them as long as someone doesn’t force you to do something else.

You gave the hypothetical where you said it was the moral thing to kill the sniper to prevent her from some terrible fate. If you knew that you would be prosecuted for killing the sniper and put in prison, somehow I doubt you would do it, despite having previously defined it as the right thing to do.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Sure, but consider the relative pedigree of the authors…

It does not matter, WHO says it, what matters is WHAT has been said.

Again, the consequentialist focus… Horrible (consequences) and sinful actions are not synonymous, other than perhaps in your worldview…

Allowing the horrible consequences are unacceptable in my world view, WHEN they can be prevented. It is NOT the horrible results which are problematic, it is the ability to prevent them, and failing to do so is what makes aloof and passive non-involvement “evil”. There is no difference between actively causing and passively allowing something horrible to happen. I am aware that you cannot accept this assessment, because it makes God’s “noninterventionist policy” evil, and no matter how obvious it is, you cannot accept it.

Do you have a better solution to choose between two options, when both of them entail some unpalatable consequences?

You bypassed the middle section of my post about the innocent person, who will cause a huge epidemic just by existing and harboring a new virus, and letting the virus go and do its devastating effect. There is no one “sinning” there, it is just an unfortunate mutation which will cause the untold millions of deaths.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

First off you are conflating terrible with sinful here - we’ve already discussed a hypothetical where the moral choice is to let yourself die, possibly painfully, which most people would think is pretty bad, and the sinful choice is to remain alive.

I never argued differently. It can be the morally upright action to refuse to be kept alive. Another excellent example of situational ethics…

Second, Rau continues to be correct and you continue to miss the point: there has never, and will never be a case where the correct moral choice requires you to do something sinful.

That is just another empty assertion.

You gave the hypothetical where you said it was the moral thing to kill the sniper to prevent her from some terrible fate. If you knew that you would be prosecuted for killing the sniper and put in prison, somehow I doubt you would do it, despite having previously defined it as the right thing to do.

Fortunately in a RATIONAL society that cannot happen. Even the Catholic world-view accepts using lethal force in self defense, and as an extension of it, to use deadly force in defending others. Even if one could reasonably expect to be prosecuted for killing a sniper, it would be the right things to do… sacrificing oneself for others. Maybe you are under the misconception that only believers would operate according to this principle… but if so, you are seriously mistaken.

 

[Rau]

It does not matter, WHO says it, what matters is WHAT has been said.

I kind of think that when God incarnate says something - a parable perhaps - it may carry a tad more weight than one’s favourite human author writing fiction for entertainment. So yeah, “who” says it matters.

Allowing the horrible consequences are unacceptable in my world view, WHEN they can be prevented. It is NOT the horrible results which are problematic, it is the ability to prevent them, and failing to do so is what makes aloof and passive non-involvement “evil”. There is no difference between actively causing and passively allowing something horrible to happen.

Regrettably, evil exists, and will on occasions have its way. It is not to be fought with more evil (murdering innocents).

I am aware that you cannot accept this assessment, because it makes God’s “noninterventionist policy” evil…

I cannot accept it because I believe it contradicts what God expects. You cannot accept my assessment because it implies/relies on the existence of a God, who imbues man with a unique relationship with God.

Do you have a better solution to choose between two options, when both of them entail some unpalatable consequences

Yes, choose a course which is not intrinsically evil, which has a good intention, and which causes the least harm. But this has been stated many times.

You bypassed the middle section of my post about the innocent person, who will cause a huge epidemic just by existing and harboring a new virus, and letting the virus go and do its devastating effect. There is no one “sinning” there, it is just an unfortunate mutation which will cause the untold millions of deaths.

By-passed due to needless repetition. Murdering an innocent is not an available solution in my ethical system. Not to save 2, 100 or the nation.

Pallas - restating firmly held positions on both sides of this debate is rather fruitless.