Atheism is unnatural

[AlNg]

But I hold - differently to you - that the teachings of the Church are true and unchangeable

It looks like the teaching on burning people alive at the stake has changed. No one today favors that punishment for heretics or others. The teaching on marriage annulments has changed. In the past annulments were granted very sparingly. Today they are granted quite liberally in many cases for reasons which would not have been accepted in the past. For a while it was taught that the Blood was shed for all. Currently, however, they teach that the Blood was shed for many as it was before Vatican II.

 

[AlNg]

One would think that had it been natural - then the communists would have had success in converting everyone - alas, they didn’t.

They may not convert everyone, but it looks like Bernie Sanders has an enormous following and in the past he was advocating the nationalization of many large companies.

 

[Freddy]

Correct - I just wanted to make it clear that only practising Catholics believe in the fulfillment of Truth.

What proportion of those who identify as Catholics do you think believe in the fulfillment of truth?

 

[Dan123]

I agree. One would think that had it been natural - then the communists would have had success in converting everyone - alas, they didn’t.

Catholicism also hasn’t been successful in converting everyone. No religion has to be fair. I doubt you feel that means it’s false.

And I think that you saying that atheists are more moral than Christians is quite disrespectful. I simply meant - in my statement - that practising Catholics support what is moral (e.g. marriage between a man and a women, total abortion ban etc) - when far less atheists do.

I think you missed the point. You’re basically saying “non-catholics are really bad at being catholic.” You’re using your own morality, that which you understand from church teaching, to declare what is moral, then saying others are immoral for not following it.

But not everyone believes in that specific morality, in addition to atheists you have every other religion in the world. Most of the world isn’t Catholic, most aren’t even Christian. They might all view you as immoral for not upholding their teachings of morality.

 

[FiveLinden]

I think it is reasonable for Catholics to hold to a ‘we are moral in what we teach, not necessarily in what we do’ position.

I think it is not possible to compare moralities on a ‘good and bad’ scale. The Catholic Church has some teachings that I think are ‘superior’ to others in that they clarify and point to obligations I think humans have to each other if our society is to work well together. An example is Catholic opposition to ‘detraction’ that is, telling what you believe to be the truth about someone for the purpose of harming their reputation. It’s a good principle. But I would not say it is ‘better’ in any absolute sense than the view of those who think ‘sunlight is the best disinfectant’. And I think this teaching, misapplied, has been been behind some of the abuse scandal.

I’m giving this example to explain the point that ‘my morality is better than yours’ is not going to get anywhere. On the other side I feel that some things the Church thinks are matters of morality (like which body parts may be deployed to give pleasure with other body parts) are plainly not matters of anything I think of as ‘moral’ issues but rather matters of religious practice, like dietary rules.

There have been some really good points made and illuminating comments thrown about in this thread. Can I suggest that we turn down the heat a little in the hope of it being allowed to continue?

 

[o_mlly]

As to the “high bar” of morality:

Two Catholics disagree on the morality of a specific human act seeking consensus. Both appeal to Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the constant Magisterial teaching of the Church and the issue is resolved. The morality of the act in question is no longer in dispute. The Catholic morality “high bar” is not lowered.

Two atheists disagree on the morality of a specific human act. Both appeal to their own authority, their own rationale, their own experience as controlling in the determination of the morality of the act. The morality of the act is not resolved. The atheist consensus morality does not include this particular act; the “high bar” is lowered one notch.

If any group does not have a referee, a set of principles that have authority in matters disputed then the consensus in that group is necessarily a lowest common denominator exercise.

 

[Freddy]

I’ve never read such a blatant example of an appeal to authority.

 

[Dan123]

The morality of the act in question is no longer in dispute. The Catholic morality “high bar” is not lowered.

Except in practice many Catholics still keep their own opinions such as on birth control use. There’s the teaching and the practice. For those outside the church, we never deal with the teaching, I mean we’re often aware of it but the non-Catholic world doesn’t accept the claims of infallibility in church teaching. In practice Catholic opinions seem as varied as any other group. As such the most you can claim when discussing morality with non-Catholics is that the bar, as set by the Church, doesn’t change; whether it’s a high bar remains disputed.

Two atheists disagree on the morality of a specific human act. Both appeal to their own authority, their own rationale, their own experience as controlling in the determination of the morality of the act. The morality of the act is not resolved. The atheist consensus morality does not include this particular act; the “high bar” is lowered one notch.

Except in practice this doesn’t appear to be the case. Typically bringing together multiple viewpoints and backgrounds leads to a better shared understanding. An issue that seems clear from one perspective may be much less so from someone else’s and when they exchange those ideas, we begin to remove the bias brought by the individual and move towards a more encompassing framework.

The trouble with the referee analogy is sometimes referees are wrong. You may feel the Church is never wrong, as said above that’s not shared by the majority of people.

 

[o_mlly]

Typically bringing together multiple viewpoints and backgrounds leads to a better shared understanding. An issue that seems clear from one perspective may be much less so from someone else’s and when they exchange those ideas, we begin to remove the bias brought by the individual and move towards a more encompassing framework.

Presuming that this “encompassing framework” you claim develops is evidenced in agreed upon principles of morality, please list the moral principles that all atheists now give assent to.

 

[o_mlly]

I’ve never read such a blatant example of an appeal to authority.

Yes, I agree. It is egregiously arrogant that atheists would appeal to their own authority rather than the authority of an institution with over 2,000 years of the best thinking on the subject.

 

[flintlock]

Sorry, I don’t believe in atheists.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I’ve never read such a blatant example of an appeal to authority.

Yes, I agree. It is egregiously arrogant that atheists would appeal to their own authority rather than the authority of an institution with over 2,000 years of the best thinking on the subject.

Did you decide that the church had all the right answers or did someone just tell you that?

 

[Dan_Defender]

Two atheists disagree on the morality of a specific human act. Both appeal to their own authority, their own rationale, their own experience as controlling in the determination of the morality of the act. The morality of the act is not resolved. The atheist consensus morality does not include this particular act; the “high bar” is lowered one notch.

This is true. Some atheists disown Nietzsche now but logically nihilism is what atheism leads to. If it all comes down to cosmic dust, why would any morality matter?

 

[FiveLinden]

This is true. Some atheists disown Nietzsche now but logically nihilism is what atheism leads to. If it all comes down to cosmic dust, why would any morality matter?

You really need to think further on this point that you make repeatedly in different ways. Atheism, that is, the view that there is nothing of any substance to suggest the existence of god(s), logically leads only to lives lived in the absence of the belief in god(s). It no more leads to nihilism than Mormonism leads to an interest in chess. There may be some chess-playing Mormons but the process from one to the other is not one of logic. Atheists have all sorts of views on all sorts of things.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

This is true. Some atheists disown Nietzsche now but logically nihilism is what atheism leads to. If it all comes down to cosmic dust, why would any morality matter?

The error here is around what or who needs to care for something to matter. In your world view God is required to care for morality asking other things to matter. But why would anyone outside of the atheist themself be required for morality or anything to matter?

 

[Freddy]

o_mlly:

Two atheists disagree on the morality of a specific human act. Both appeal to their own authority, their own rationale, their own experience as controlling in the determination of the morality of the act. The morality of the act is not resolved. The atheist consensus morality does not include this particular act; the “high bar” is lowered one notch.

This is true. Some atheists disown Nietzsche now but logically nihilism is what atheism leads to. If it all comes down to cosmic dust, why would any morality matter?

Dad, can my girl sleep over?
Well, seeing as we’re all going to be cosmic dust at some point, I guess so.

 

[o_mlly]

This is not an “atheistic” principle.

Really?

Bonding. And because it feels good.

Feel free to give your principled argument that condones homosexuality and condemns bestiality.

 

[o_mlly]

Consent.

One word is not a principle and certainly not an argument. Try again.

 

[o_mlly]

The group called “atheists” share ONE and only ONE trait. They do not believe in some God or gods.

A belief is not a “trait”. To me, your next sentence is more coherent. And if true, you’d get no argument otherwise from me. But some atheists posting on thread make other claims.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Did you decide that the church had all the right answers or did someone just tell you that?

I could not be human without some frame of moral orientation. Without this framework, my faculties could not give meaning to my perceptions. Humans, free agents, must choose a framework. We often, as I did, take on the framework of our parents until we are able to argue with it. In the course of a lifetime, however, we must affirm or alter our inheritance.

My parents and other teachers transmitted and entrusted to me the framework of our two thousand-year old Catholic Christian heritage. The “entrust” component implies, I think, a covenant I have with my ancestry. The covenant requires me, in the course of my lifetime, to internalize the teaching about salvation, make it my own, but altering it only if I must. If I alter the teaching that I pass on to my posterity, I believe the covenant requires that the truth of my alterations be to me beyond a shadow of doubt.

I’ll take that as a yes. Which not surprisingly to almost everyone, but not it seems to you, is what we all do.

Nobody reinvents the wheel when it comes to morality. We are all born into a world where moral rules exist. Whether they are those taught by your church, by someone elses, by another religion, by our parents, by our teachers - we are expected to conform to these moral standards from the moment we are old enough to contemplate them.

And hopefully, when we reach that point we can view them with a critical eye, we can personally determine (because who else could do it for us?) whether the rules we have been taught are worth following. We have to determine ourselves (because who else could do it for us?) what is meant by ‘a good life’ and whether those rules lead us toward it or away from it. We have to consider not just ourselves but others. We have to consider how our actions within a particular moral framework will affect everyone else.

This isn’t an easy task. In fact it is so difficult that I will guarantee that none of us get it completely right. So we end up going through life making imperfect decisions based on imperfect information in an imperfect world. And that ‘none of us’ includes both you and me. So spare us all the holier-than-thou attitude if you could.

So you carry on ‘internalising you teachings’ based on what you have told is the correct moral path to follow and press on with ‘altering it only if you must’. I’ll be doing exactly the same. And as I said, we are both doing this ourselves. We are both personally deciding if what we have been taught is correct or not based on our interactions with others. . . .