Do the Atheists have it right: Just Be Good for Goodness' Sake?

[Realcatholicgk]

FIrst we would have to get by the question - Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

**

Hi Buffalo,

Maybe He or she did!

“I would rather live my life as if there is a God, and die to find out there isn’t, than to live my life as if there isn’t, and die to find out there is.” —Unknown

God Bless **

 

[MegaTherion]

Interesting. You seem to be suggesting that there is a universal moral code which defines this “world in which we all would like to live.” Can you define this world? What would this world look like? Would there be divorce? Universal health care? Open borders? Slavery? Polygamy? Who would decide that these concepts are ethical or not in your world guided by an “application of reason”.

Just to be clear, I am not a moral relativist. I think moral imperatives exist – they are dictated by the situation and our rational evaluation of our choices (not from a supernatural force), and we are (hopefully) becoming more moral in most areas as time goes on. For example, we no longer think of women as the “property” of men; we no longer use cruel and unusual punishments; we permit freedom of speech, even when that speech offends the majority of people. These are huge improvements in our collective morals.

I’m less interested in establishing rules that cover every aspect of behavior than I am in developing in each individual a virtuous character that responds rationally to the world around us.

Will we always agree on what is the most moral? Human beings historically have not, even members of the same belief system. But I am quite confident that over time, reason will win out in human affairs – if it is given the chance.

A lot of the things you list above are political questions. And while I do think we can use reason to come up wth the best solution to those problems, I have been talking about morality much more generally: Do not murder people; do not enslave them; do not steal from them. These are general principles we can abstract from the individual situations we face. No virtuous person would do those things.

I think it is absolutely wrong to enslave another in any way whatsoever. I think it is absolutely wrong to torture a human being (and even more wrong to torture anyone for eternity). I think it is absolutely wrong to commit genocide for any reason whatsoever. When I read about these things endorsed in the Bible, I can only conclude that I am more moral than the god it depicts.

 

[Dameedna]

Since you are posting on a Catholic forum, I’m going to assume that you believe that this is why Catholics strive to “be good”–in order to enter heaven and avoid hell. Just to clarify–Catholicism does not teach that by being good you will go to heaven.

It is one of the many ideas that I’ve heard from christians in General. The point of life is to serve God, and go to Heaven.

I’ve also seen it here, regardless of what people are "officially"supposed to believe. I’ve even seen it on this thread.

Ironically, you seem to be proposing something here as morally true.

No. As I said throughout my post, I do not know. I thought that was clear.

Yes, but only one set of “rules” is the True set.

Which unfortunately a large number of people claim to support, and they all disagree with each other.

Again, this has as much moral weight as your opinion. You seem to be trying to make a statement of truth, but it contradicts your previous statement.

Nope. I’m starting to wonder if you’ve actually read my post?

 

[Dameedna]

However, relativism is damaging society.

All society has ever had, is moral relativism. An individual claiming their “truths” are absolute, is simply that. A person making a claim.(or a church, or a book etc etc)

What you see is a world filled with people, who believe they are correct. People don’t tend to follow what they think is wrong. They may also follow something they don’t understand out of trust, but that TRUST comes from a decision that some-one else is correct.

It’s all a personal choice about what is true. Not something that is verifiable, hence what is ultimately true, and what people claim as truth are 2 very different things.

All of us need to face the reality of what happens when absolute truth is absent… Start with life at conception and continue through the economic crisis, identity thief, and random shootings…

The problems of society are complex. It also sounds like, you are trying to blame the ills of society, on those that don’t believe in an absolute truth, which to you is probably that of the catholic church.

There are many that believe in absolute truths, and they are sure that they have it.

Do you think those that caused 9/11 had any doubts? Did they not believe, 100% that they were doing the right thing? I’m sure they didn’t do it for the fun of it. Hence, believing you are right and claiming you have THE absolute truth is no longer good enough for our global society.

And at the end of the day, unless you want to force people to conform to your “truths” you can’t control it and must accept we live in a world of moral relativism. Your current Pope realizes this and is working toward a system of ethics that can be based on a commonality of all people, namely nature.

I think he’s got the right idea, and it’s a good start. Personally, I think that humans need a good dose of humilty so we can re-introduce the concept of doubt. With our verifiable scientific method, we’ve begun to believe we are infailable.

If you DO want to restrict the rules more, then you will end up with what we’ve alway’s ended up with. Wars over idealogies.

We need to find another way. The day’s of claiming others won’t follow “the absolute” truths as an excuse for our problems and the days of being able to force another’s hand are over. We just don’t live in isolated societies any longer, where we can ignore the strength of anothers convictions.

 

[grannymh]

We need to find another way. The day’s of claiming others won’t follow “the absolute” truths as an excuse for our problems and the days of being able to force another’s hand are over. We just don’t live in isolated societies any longer, where we can ignore the strength of anothers convictions.

Dear Dameedna,

Your last paragraph of Post 82 is powerful.

I hope everyone reads it with their brain in gear. There is one caveat: the last sentence is not a call to arms. In my humble opinion, it is a statement of fact, a reality.

That being said. The thread’s issue could benefit from a different point of view, that is – for the want of better words – the negative side. What happens when absolute truth is absent?

It is not my intention to place blame for society’s ills on people or institutions because I view absolute truth as being a commonality of all people. If we are going to discuss “goodness” we need to figure out if and what is the ultimate common truth.

Blessings,
grannymh

 

[buffalo]

That being said. The thread’s issue could benefit from a different point of view, that is – for the want of better words – the negative side. What happens when absolute truth is absent?

I

Then we are vectorless.

 

[grannymh]

Then we are vectorless.

Good point (pun intended). Please continue. However, we are experiencing a heat wave of 16 degrees and I’m going out to play in the sun. Seriously, I’m out of here for most of the day. Talk to you later.

Blessings,
granny

 

[PRmerger]

Just to be clear, I am not a moral relativist.

Understood. Thank you for clarifying.

I think moral imperatives exist

Do you mean moral absolutes? If not, what do you mean by moral imperatives?

For example, we no longer think of women as the “property” of men; we no longer use cruel and unusual punishments; we permit freedom of speech, even when that speech offends the majority of people. These are huge improvements in our collective morals.

These concepts all evolved from Christianity and were promoted and established because of the teachings of the Church.

I’m less interested in establishing rules that cover every aspect of behavior than I am in developing in each individual a virtuous character that responds rationally to the world around us.

Yes, but being virtuous is NOT rational. It does not make rational sense to give one’s coat to another who has none. And the most virtuous of acts is the most irrational–to lay down one’s life for another.

I think it is absolutely wrong to torture a human being (and even more wrong to torture anyone for eternity).

Which is why hell exists–a loving God will not force anyone to endure the “torture” of His love for eternity to those who find it abominable.

When I read about these things endorsed in the Bible, I can only conclude that I am more moral than the god it depicts.

Perhaps if one reads the Bible in isolation, without the wisdom of our Church, one could indeed conclude that those things are “endorsed” in the Bible. That’s the danger of reading the Scriptures without the context of history, culture, etc etc etc.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve also seen it here, regardless of what people are "officially"supposed to believe. I’ve even seen it on this thread.

That’s irrelevant. Just 'cause someone said it doesn’t make it so.

You could go to the post office tomorrow and try to mail a letter with a 35 cent stamp and say, “Someone said it only costs 35 cents to mail a letter”. Won’t get you anywhere.

No. As I said throughout my post, I do not know. I thought that was clear.

Yes, quite clear. You’re merely stating your opinion, or your preference. Thus, your comments have as much weight as your trying to convince everyone here that “Pink is the best color!” You have no truth–nothing–to back it up. Just what you feel.

 

[redrosetea]

If there is no God who decides what is the right thing?

 

[buffalo]

If there is no God who decides what is the right thing?

I do. My way or the highway.

 

[MegaTherion]

Yes, but being virtuous is NOT rational.

You are wrong. It is very rational to be virtuous. I can rationally determine that the best kind of society is one in which people help one another; as a result, I can implement actions to contribute to such a society.

Now it’s true that humans have a drive towards empathy and that this drive, rooted in the emotions, isn’t itself logical. That’s true – but morality is the guiding of our natural empathy by reason.

Which is why hell exists–a loving God will not force anyone to endure the “torture” of His love for eternity to those who find it abominable.

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that your god has set up a place of infinite punishment for those who have committed finite crimes…and that one of these crimes is not believing in him.

It is an absolute moral evil to torture anyone forever for any reason whatsoever. Any rational person would conclude that. Anyone who advocates eternal torture is morally reprehensible.

Similarly, it is an absolute moral evil to enslave anyone for any reason whatsoever. I know some apologists claim that (some forms of) slavery condoned by the Bible were more like being an indentured servant or whatnot – it’s irrelevant. Any rational person can conclude that the owning of other human beings is an absolute moral evil. Anyone who advocates any form of slavery for any reason is morally reprehensible.

Your god advocates things that are morally reprehenible.

Edit: I suppose I should make crystal clear that I don’t believe your god (or any other) exists – and it’s a good thing, too, since he’s a monster.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Anyone who advocates eternal torture is morally reprehensible.

Morally reprehensible?! Are you implying that there is some objective standard by which we can judge morals?!

(I’d like to hear your argument that morals stem purely from reason)

 

[Realcatholicgk]

Good point (pun intended). Please continue. However, we are experiencing a heat wave of 16 degrees and I’m going out to play in the sun. Seriously, I’m out of here for most of the day. Talk to you later.

Blessings,
granny

**
Hi granny,

**It is 75 here so you aren’t in Texas! ****

Hi OnlyAmbrose,

Touché

God Bless

 

[Dameedna]

That’s irrelevant. Just 'cause someone said it doesn’t make it so.

You could go to the post office tomorrow and try to mail a letter with a 35 cent stamp and say, “Someone said it only costs 35 cents to mail a letter”. Won’t get you anywhere.

Yes, quite clear. You’re merely stating your opinion, or your preference. Thus, your comments have as much weight as your trying to convince everyone here that “Pink is the best color!” You have no truth–nothing–to back it up. Just what you feel.

That’s the point merger. No-one does. Anyone “claiming” a moral truth, or a moral absolute is just claiming it. They don’t have anything to back them up making the whole concept of Moral absolutes meaningless for those that don’t agree(and there are plenty that disagree with each other on the concept of morals)

 

[Dameedna]

Morally reprehensible?! Are you implying that there is some objective standard by which we can judge morals?!

(I’d like to hear your argument that morals stem purely from reason)

Are you suggesting there is some “objective standard” upon which an individual can claim an eternal torture is moral?

I’d like to hear your argument that an eternal suffering is moral,purely from reason.

 

[Dameedna]

If there is no God who decides what is the right thing?

If there is a God, who decides what God wants?

The Jew’s?
The muslims?
The christians?
The FDLS?
The Cargo Cults?
The scientists?

There are a lot of people who believe in God, and they all disagree with one another about what God wants.

Invoking a 'God" to justify a particular moral code, is rather pointless considering what kinds of things are done in the name of God.

 

[PRmerger]

You are wrong. It is very rational to be virtuous. I can rationally determine that the best kind of society is one in which people help one another; as a result, I can implement actions to contribute to such a society.

The most rational thing in the world is to take care of yourself.
The most virtuous thing in the world is to lay down your life for another.

You don’t see a disconnect there?

But let’s just say that one can indeed be rationally virtuous, even sacrificially virtuous. If one accepts this virtue, it is because Christianity has proclaimed it to be a virtue.

You’re conveniently ignoring the fact that your god has set up a place of infinite punishment for those who have committed finite crimes…and that one of these crimes is not believing in him.

If someone is there it’s because he chose it. “Thy will be done” says God.

It is an absolute moral evil to torture anyone forever for any reason whatsoever. Any rational person would conclude that. Anyone who advocates eternal torture is morally reprehensible.

Agreed. Hence the existence of hell. God would not torture someone eternally with His Love if it is rejected. You refuse the Divine Marriage proposal, He’s not going to torture you with His presence.

Similarly, it is an absolute moral evil to enslave anyone for any reason whatsoever. I know some apologists claim that (some forms of) slavery condoned by the Bible were more like being an indentured servant or whatnot – it’s irrelevant. Any rational person can conclude that the owning of other human beings is an absolute moral evil. Anyone who advocates any form of slavery for any reason is morally reprehensible.

Agreed.

Your god advocates things that are morally reprehenible.

How do you know this?

 

[MegaTherion]

Morally reprehensible?! Are you implying that there is some objective standard by which we can judge morals?!

(I’d like to hear your argument that morals stem purely from reason)

Yes, there is an objective standard, and it does come from reason. I outlined it earlier in the thread, post 70. I’ll paste the relevant parts below:

Most atheists appeal to reason as the source of moral judgments. In any given situation, it is possible to look at the spectrum of actions available to us and decide which of those actions are more likely to produce positive results and which are less likely. Remember, since this life is the only one that we are all certain that we will have, it’s in everyone’s best interest to build the best possible society in the here and now.

As social animals, humans have a natural drive to work together (we see similar behavior in many species), and through an application of reason guided by this natural empathy, we can behave in an ethical manner towards one another to build the kind of world we would all like to live in.

Note: I personally define “positive results” as “results that are in accord with the natures of all parties involved and that do not unnecessarily violate the free will of anyone or cause unnecessary harm to any party.”

In other words, moral imperatives emerge from conditions and situations. We don’t “get them” from anywhere – they emerge from our experience and can often be generalized into rules.

 

[redrosetea]

If there is a God, who decides what God wants?

The Jew’s?
The muslims?
The christians?
The FDLS?
The Cargo Cults?
The scientists?

There are a lot of people who believe in God, and they all disagree with one another about what God wants.

Invoking a 'God" to justify a particular moral code, is rather pointless considering what kinds of things are done in the name of God.

Not according to scripture…scientists are secular…