Can atheists do "good?"

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Notwithstanding that the differences in meaning between ‘think’ and ‘feel’ are debatable, I should point out that neither of them equate with ‘know’. A term that you didn’t use.

In order to understand your position, please define your understanding for the definitions of the words “feel”, “think” and “know”.

The general use of ‘I think’ and ‘I feel’ are interchangeable. As in ‘I think that you are wrong’ meaning ‘As far as I know, what you said is wrong’. And ‘I feel that you are wrong’ implies exactly the same thing. There is no certainty.

Whereas ‘I know that you are wrong’ states a fact. Not that you are wrong but that it’s a fact that I am convinced. That there is no doubt in ny mind.

As you said, you think the church is correct. I think it’s not. There is no certainty.

 

[o_mlly]

The general use of ‘I think’ and ‘I feel’ are interchangeable. As in ‘I think that you are wrong’ meaning ‘As far as I know, what you said is wrong’. And ‘I feel that you are wrong’ implies exactly the same thing. There is no certainty.

Whereas ‘I know that you are wrong’ states a fact. Not that you are wrong but that it’s a fact that I am convinced. That there is no doubt in ny mind.

As you said, you think the church is correct. I think it’s not. There is no certainty.

I disagree on your definitions of “feel” and “think”. There is no argument that can be made that one’s feelings are in error. However, one can argue with the thinking process of another, i.e., chain of logic from principles to conclusions. We’ve been over this. No need to rehash. Time to move on.

 

[Dan123]

I disagree on your definitions of “feel” and “think”. There is no argument that can be made that one’s feelings are in error. However, one can argue with the thinking process of another, i.e., chain of logic from principles to conclusions.

So on what basis did you conclude that…

One may find as many moral systems as their are atheists: they appeal to their own authority which often is how they personally feel about things. Feelings are quite fickle.

That is, why do you think secular morality systems are built on feelings and not thinking.

 

[o_mlly]

That is, why do you think secular morality systems are built on feelings and not thinking.

What is your summum bonum? Do all atheists agree with you?

All faithful Catholics agree on their highest good and from that principle all morality proceeds.

 

[Dan123]

What is your summum bonum? Do all atheists agree with you?

All faithful Catholics agree on their highest good and from that principle all morality proceeds.

For me those things which increase the wellbeing of creatures, in particular sentient creatures, are generally considered good, and those things which hinder or decrease the wellbeing of such creatures are the things we label bad or evil. Moral questions and quandaries occur when the wellbeing of multiple creatures come into conflict.

But lets think about the discrepancy here between the standard you set for me and the one you set for yourself. Do ALL atheists agree with me? Probably not, secular humanists likely would but you’re asking if a broad group of people agree with a specific moral system. Now let’s contrast that to the bar you set for yourself.

Do all theists agree with you? No.
Do all Christians agree with you? No.
Do all Catholics agree with you? No.

You’re left with just the faithful Catholics, a group you said above is a minority, possible a particularly small minority especially in the west. Apply the same bar and then explain why you deciding the Catholic Church’s teachings will be the foundation for your moral system and me deciding to base mine on the wellbeing of sentient creatures are somehow not both built on our own thoughts and feelings.

 

[Freddy]

All faithful Catholics agree on their highest good and from that principle all morality proceeds.

You slipped it in maybe thinking no-one would notice. Or maybe its such a part of your thought processses that you didn’t realise it. So to adjust:

All faithful Catholics agree on their highest good and from that principle all their morality proceeds.

I’ll actually go with the latter.

 

[o_mlly]

You’re left with just the faithful Catholics, a group you said above is a minority, possible a particularly small minority especially in the west.

And your point is what?

All faithful Catholics agree on their highest good and from that principle all their morality proceeds.

Nope. I put it correctly. Faithful Catholics do not have their own morality after the Church has definitively taught on a particular issue. We are one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

I’ll actually go with the latter.

Go where ever your feelings take you.

 

[Freddy]

Faithful Catholics do not have their own morality after the Church has definitively taught on a particular issue.

I’ll agree with that. But I’d place the emphasis here:

Faithful Catholics do not have their own morality after the Church has definitively taught on a particular issue.

Which more accurately indicates the intention of the original point.

 

[o_mlly]

Faithful Catholics do not have their own morality after the Church has definitively taught on a particular issue.

Which more accurately indicates the intention of the original point.

Well, looks like you’re back to mind-reading, a skill I admittedly do not possess. I’ll leave you with your imaginations. But do let me know as soon as you interview a faithful Catholic who reports that their morality differs from Church teaching.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Faithful Catholics do not have their own morality after the Church has definitively taught on a particular issue.

Which more accurately indicates the intention of the original point.

Well, looks like you’re back to mind-reading, a skill I admittedly do not possess. I’ll leave you with your imaginations. But do let me know as soon as you interview a faithful Catholic who reports that their morality differs from Church teaching.

That’s the point. Their morality is the church’s morality. Unless perhaps there’s been a recent declaration from Rome which allows you to differ from what they teach?

Let’s say that I ask someone a question about their views on a moral position - is something allowed or not. If that person is not sure about the church’s position then we’ll have to wait for them to check to see what it is before they can tell us.

‘Is it morally acceptable to do X?’
‘I’m not sure. Let me check…’

 

[o_mlly]

That’s the point. Their morality is the church’s morality. Unless perhaps there’s been a recent declaration from Rome which allows you to differ from what they teach?

The point that you seem to continually miss is that morals, the rightness and wrongness of human acts, is singular and independent of what one may think, or in your case, feel is the right thing to do or not do. There is no “my” or “their” possessive qualifier that makes the same act moral for one person or immoral for another. The act is objectively good or evil.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s the point. Their morality is the church’s morality. Unless perhaps there’s been a recent declaration from Rome which allows you to differ from what they teach?

The point that you seem to continually miss is that morals, the rightness and wrongness of human acts, is singular and independent of what one may think, or in your case, feel is the right thing to do or not do. There is no “my” or “their” possessive qualifier that makes the same act moral for one person or immoral for another. The act is objectively good or evil.

Saying it don’t make it so.

And the point still remains. Is contraception ok? I think so but I’ll need to check. Is ssm marrrigae ok? I think it is but I need to check. Is it ok to have sex before we get married? Surely that’s ok but I’ll need to check first.

Ah yes. It seems that all the answers to the questions are objectively true according to the Catholic church. Which is something akin to the Euthyphro dilema.

 

[o_mlly]

Saying it don’t make it so.

And the point still remains. Is contraception ok? I think so but I’ll need to check. Is ssm marrrigae ok? I think it is but I need to check. Is it ok to have sex before we get married? Surely that’s ok but I’ll need to check first.

Inserting one’s feelings and giving them priority into one’s thinking ends up in a muddled morality. One who has no principles upon which to anchor their reasoning also ends up with a muddled morality.

Your list of questions would seem the kind that might come from the mouth of a raging hormonal teenage boy but not from an adult. So, yes, if you’re muddled in the rules of math or morality you should seek a teacher. Else you’ll end up feeling one plus one does equal three.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Saying it don’t make it so.

And the point still remains. Is contraception ok? I think so but I’ll need to check. Is ssm marrrigae ok? I think it is but I need to check. Is it ok to have sex before we get married? Surely that’s ok but I’ll need to check first.

Your list of questions would seem the kind that might come from the mouth of a raging hormonal teenage boy but not from an adult. So, yes, if you’re muddled in the rules of math or morality you should seek a teacher. Else you’ll end up feeling one plus one does equal three.

You are avoiding the point. If someone doesn’t (hypothetically) know what the moral position is of the church on any given point then they have to check before you they can say what theirs is. Because it has to match the church’s position.

Hence:
‘What’s your position?’
‘I’m not sure. I need to confirm it’.

Or if you’d like to put it another way…

‘I’d like to become a Catholic. What should my position be on contraception?’

And yeah, if you don’t agree then you can’t become a Catholic. It’s the church’s morality. You either agree with it or you don’t. The original point being that most don’t.

 

[o_mlly]

You are avoiding the point.

No, the point has been fully addressed several times. You just do not see or will not see. In either event, I am moving on.

Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words—go outside that house or town and shake the dust from your feet (Mat 10:14).

 

[Dan123]

One who has no principles upon which to anchor their reasoning also ends up with a muddled morality.

You are avoiding the point. If someone doesn’t (hypothetically) know what the moral position is of the church on any given point then they have to check before you they can say what theirs is. Because it has to match the church’s position.

Another way to say this is you aren’t really advocating for a morality based on principles but one based on edicts; if you have a moral position based on principles and the Church contradicts them, you abandon the principle and go with the Church.

What you seem to insist on ignoring is that most atheists don’t base their morality on feelings but on thought, reason and principles. That’s why your belief that atheists change their morality from day to day doesn’t match reality at all, thoughts on a particular issue can change but changing the principles we base them on is rare. It’s no different than saying because you decided Catholicism was true, you could decide tomorrow to be Hindu. Those kinds of ‘big decisions’ happen but seldom and usually after a lot of deliberation.

 

[o_mlly]

Another way to say this is you aren’t really advocating for a morality based on principles but one based on edicts …

Dan, you do not understand Catholicism. If you are serious, enroll in an RCIA class and learn what it is before you criticize.

… most atheists don’t base their morality on feelings but on thought, reason and principles.

Do you have a Pew research report to support that claim?

The atheists who post here report that they do change. To wit:

When I was Atheist it wasn’t as hard to change my viewpoint on “that is good” and “that is bad” …

We have developed and changed and modified our morality on many subjects …

And some atheists who post in CA say their underlying moral principle is empathy.

And you have yet to support your claim that Catholicism changed its moral teaching on the use of contraceptives.

Time to move on, Dan.

 

[Dan123]

The atheists who post here report that they do change. To wit:

When I was Atheist it wasn’t as hard to change my viewpoint on “that is good” and “that is bad” …

And we’ve been over that Christians do this too, so you said Catholics. And we pointed out Catholics do this, so you said faithful Catholics. What OrbisNonSufficit does in his/her own mind isn’t my business. Also note they say wasn’t as hard, not wasn’t hard.

And you have yet to support your claim that Catholicism changed its moral teaching on the use of contraceptives.

I never claimed this. I said Christians hold a huge variety of opinions on the subject, and cited studies showing the Catholic Church’s position on it is held by a minority of Catholics, at which point you went full Scotsman on it.

 

[JohnStrachan]

And you have yet to support your claim that Catholicism changed its moral teaching on the use of contraceptives.

But it did change its teaching on the use of torture:

Loading…

en.wikipedia.org

 

[o_mlly]

But it did change its teaching on the use of torture:

No, the Church did not change teaching. Search beyond wikipedia for the facts. The word “torture” in the English translation does not appear. The bull is a proclamation of laws, not doctrines.