Godless morality?

[Bradski]

But what are you going to say when he says, “I am an atheist, like you, and I subscribe to no higher morality than what I personally find to be moral. And I think it is 100% moral to torture cats.”

What will your response be?

It doesn’t matter if he’s an atheist or someone with a religion. It’s a simple Q and A session.

Me: Do you prefer to live with pain or without it?
Cat Torturer: Without.
Me: If I caused you pain for no reason at all, would that be acceptable to you?
CT: No.
Me: Would you find it acceptable if I told you I got pleasure from it?
CT: No.
Me: So would you class it as being wrong?
CT: Yes.
Me: So causing pain to someone for pleasure is wrong?
CT: Yes.
Me: Do cats feel pain?
CT: Yes.
Me: Do you think they enjoy it?
CT: No.
Me: So do you think it’s a good thing to cause it?
CT: No.

So CT knows it’s wrong. If he actually goes on to torture a cat because he gets pleasure from it, he still knows it’s wrong. He and I are in agreement. The fact that he has some personality problems that allows him to do something that he knows is wrong is another problem.

 

[belorg]

One still needs to explain how things that cannot reason acquire that power - all by themselves!

Yes, that’s true. But the fact that we cannot explain this “how” yet does not mean it cannot be true. Just as the fact that we cannot explain how an immaterial being can influence the material world does not mean this cannot be true.

 

[belorg]

Hiya, Bradski. :curtsey:

So…to continue.

We are agreed that you and I could propose (the same) rationale to the cat-torturer for why it’s wrong to torture cats.

But what are you going to say when he says, “I am an atheist, like you, and I subscribe to no higher morality than what I personally find to be moral. And I think it is 100% moral to torture cats.”

What will your response be?

I think Bradski has answered this the best way it can be answered.
The bottom line is: there is no 100 % objective kind of morality.
We can always ask, "But what are you going to say when he says, “I am an theist, like you, and I subscribe to no higher morality than what my God finds to be moral. And He thinks think it is 100% moral to torture cats.”

If you reply with, “Then your God isn’t the true God”, you apply an external standard to God. And if there is such an external standard, that same standard can be used by an atheist to objectively judge whether something is moral or not.

 

[belorg]

James
**
I’m not convinced that an atheist is damned. It just seems to me that the disciple Thomas also doubted that Jesus was the Lord and would not believe that he had risen from the dead. Jesus was patient and did not condemn him for his disbelief but appeared to him. **

Thomas was not an atheist when he died.

I am talking about dead atheists. Obviously, any atheist while living can still avoid hell by confessing his sins and seeking forgiveness from God. But certainly no atheist who dies without doing so can gain heaven. If that were the case, Christian or atheist it would not matter how much you sinned or how badly you sinned, if you did not repent, you would still get to heaven.

Really?

Why would being dead or alive matter to somebody who holds that life is eternal?
The point is, not unlike athiests, Thomas wanted clear evidence in the from of Jesus personally appearing to him in order to believe. Lots of atheists nowadays would want the same thing. What you are saying now is that Thomas was granted this and other peopkle are not. Or that, if you have a conversion just before you die, it’s OK, but if, just after you’ve died, upon seeing for yourself that God exists, you realize that you were mistaken, that does not count anymore.
If the point is that one should believe without seeing, then Thomas was as mistaken as every atheist and shouild be judged as such.

 

[Sair]

Thanks. It follows that the **reasons **why we feel grateful or contrite are in the same category as far as material reality is concerned. In other words morality doesn’t make sense either because the universe is not reasonable!

Actually, what you’re really getting at is that the universe is not emotional - it’s purely, coldly rational, all cause-and-effect interspersed with random occurrences. It doesn’t care, doesn’t have any interest in us or our feelings.

It doesn’t make sense to be grateful to the universe because it’s not, in its totality, a subjective being (at least we have no indication that it is so). God was invented to give people an object of gratitude that might care when we thanked it for good weather or good hunting or being able to find water during a drought.

But there’s nothing wrong with just feeling a sense of gratitude in general. It’s an emotion inclined to make us feel happy, generous and personable towards those around us. Nothing wrong with that, and it can have far-reaching benefits. Why should we care that such gratitude doesn’t have a particular, personal object to whom we must be grateful, on pain of displeasure on the part of said object?

And the entire universe doesn’t have to be rational in order for morality to make sense. It makes sense in the context of subjective interaction, which is where and how it evolved in the first place.

 

[Sair]

James
**
I’m not convinced that an atheist is damned. It just seems to me that the disciple Thomas also doubted that Jesus was the Lord and would not believe that he had risen from the dead. Jesus was patient and did not condemn him for his disbelief but appeared to him. **

Thomas was not an atheist when he died.

Thomas, according to the story, presumably wasn’t an atheist when he died precisely because he had been offered tangible, indubitable evidence of the existence of the supernatural nature of the divine, in the person of Jesus. If Jesus loved Thomas enough to actually offer him such direct evidence in order to assuage his doubts, what’s his issue with the rest of us? Why is it deemed a virtue to believe without evidence?

 

[JamesATyler]

Thomas, according to the story, presumably wasn’t an atheist when he died precisely because he had been offered tangible, indubitable evidence of the existence of the supernatural nature of the divine, in the person of Jesus. If Jesus loved Thomas enough to actually offer him such direct evidence in order to assuage his doubts, what’s his issue with the rest of us? Why is it deemed a virtue to believe without evidence?

Also, I think it is more understandable why a person might doubt the existence of God in this age of scientific thinking. It is highly encouraged to require evidence of something before the truth of it is expounded. Meanwhile, taking truths on faith has been deemed a less reliable way to approach matters. It’s a good question, “Why is faith a virtue?”

Say we’re on board the Star Trek Enterprise. Everything has gone to hell and the crew is in that moment when it doesn’t look like they are going to make it. The captain, though, against all odds, believes that they are going to make it through. He seems heroic and his confidence gives everyone the tenacity to perform their duties extraordinarily. They pull through. That’s a type of faith in the self and crew and we see that in most idealized heroic tales.

Say there’s a young child who is often bullied at school. His parents also neglect him, being caught up in their own lives. He is often treated as if he won’t amount to anything. Yet he has faith in himself and goes on to become a successful member of the swim team. He had faith in himself before he had a good reason to. That’s a type of faith is often encouraged in people.

I guess what I am saying is that having faith in something that is unproven is also highly encouraged in our society. We see it manifested in many different ways besides having faith in God. Having faith is God is that aspect of our belief where we believe that God will set things right for us. He will prevail. I’m not sure if that is the same thing as just believing that he exists. The fallen angels know that he exists but they do not have faith in God. So believing that God exists and having faith in God doesn’t appear to be the same concept. I’m not sure why believing without evidence is a virtue.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair
**
If Jesus loved Thomas enough to actually offer him such direct evidence in order to assuage his doubts, what’s his issue with the rest of us? Why is it deemed a virtue to believe without evidence? **

Thomas did not deny that God exists, as the atheist does. He just could not wrap his head around the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus appeared again to him. But then Jesus said, “Blessed rather are those who have not seen but believe.” That is why we deem it a virtue to believe in God, whether or not we have direct evidence of His existence. Jesus is our teacher. We don’t presume to deny his teaching, as does the atheist.

 

[JamesATyler]

Sair
**
If Jesus loved Thomas enough to actually offer him such direct evidence in order to assuage his doubts, what’s his issue with the rest of us? Why is it deemed a virtue to believe without evidence? **

Thomas did not deny that God exists, as the atheist does. He just could not wrap his head around the resurrection of Jesus. Jesus appeared again to him. But then Jesus said, “Blessed rather are those who have not seen but believe.” That is why we deem it a virtue to believe in God, whether or not we have direct evidence of His existence. Jesus is our teacher. We don’t presume to deny his teaching, as does the atheist.

He is just asking us, people who follow Jesus, why Jesus said they are blessed. Why does God prefer that to someone who seeks evidence so that he doesn’t fall into error?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

belorg

**If the point is that one should believe without seeing, then Thomas was as mistaken as every atheist and shouild be judged as such. **

I’ll have to repeat the substance of a post already written. Thomas was mistaken, but he was given the grace to repent, and he accepted that grace. Your assumption is that an atheist can die unrepentant of his sins and still be forgiven. That is not what we believe, either for atheists or for Christians. ALL must repent to be forgiven. The atheist denies there is anyone to whom he can admit his sins and seek forgiveness. If he dies unrepentant, he does not get a free pass into heaven because he was, as you like to put it, “mistaken.”

 

[Charlemagne_II]

James
**
He is just asking us, people who follow Jesus, why Jesus said they are blessed. Why does God prefer that to someone who seeks evidence so that he doesn’t fall into error? **

Because God wants us to trust in Him, and there is no greater trust than that which is given without the evidence of the senses. But there is still reason to believe, because the reasons of the heart are more convincing than the reasons of the head.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This is heading off into the realm of the bleedin’ obvious again, but here goes…

You and I have decided that we would personally like to live our lives free from being killed in an arbitrary manner by a third person. You have personally decided that remaining alive is ‘a good thing’. So in the interest of fairness, we also, therefore, grant this freedom to others (if we don’t want to be killed by a psycho then it’s only fair that we don’t want the psycho to kill anyone else either). I sincerely hope that that sounds reasonable to you.

Now, if a psychopath does go on a murder spree and kills you, then he is preventing you from continuing to live your life. And we decided above that continuing to remain alive is ‘a good thing’. He is therefore doing what we could describe as ‘a bad thing’.

Because we granted the freedom from being arbitrarily killed to others, as well as ourselves, if he kills someone apart from you and me, it is also ‘a bad thing’.

I can’t believe I had to write that out.

So we made some arbitrary rules, and because we like them, they apply to everyone? What if I decided that all people needed freedom from seeing people standing on two feet, and so granted that freedom to everyone by deciding that all people who don’t stand on one foot have committed a capital crime? If I get enough people to go along with me on that, and convince most of the “reasonable” people that exist that it should be so, does that make it good?

If it does, then good and bad are stupid.

And it’s not that much of an exaggeration - witness foot binding, and that many people considered slavery etc to be moral. That all reasonable people consider a thing to be moral doesn’t really matter. You haven’t given any reason why the sort of golden rule style thing you are suggesting applies but the arbitrary everyone must do what they person with the biggest stick tells them to do or get whacked by it is not a legitimate system.

The key here is “what we could describe” as a bad thing. We can describe whatever we want as a bad thing, and that doesn’t make it so. Any sort of morality that we claim comes from people has the same issue - it falls into moral relativism, and moral relativism kills morality. It makes morality no more than “you get punished if you do something that enough other people don’t like.”

And again, that’s not morality.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

The are the different types of governments that mankind uses to settle just that question.

Absolute monarchy, Anarchy, Authoritarian, Commonwealth, Communist, Confederacy (Confederation), Constitutional, Constitutional democracy, Constitutional monarchy, Democracy, Democratic republic, Dictatorship, Ecclesiastical, Emirate, Federal (Federation), Federal republic, Islamic republic, Maoism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Parliamentary democracy, Parliamentary government, Parliamentary monarchy, Presidential, Republic, Socialism, Sultanate, Theocracy, and Totalitarian.

That a government forces or prevents or allows some actions does not make them moral or immoral. Witness slavery, genocide, etc etc. Unless they are following some greater code, their actions are pretty much arbitrary and meaningless.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Does it make sense to express gratitude to purposeless particles? Or tell them we’re sorry for having caused unnecessary misery?

I think the wording of the question might misrepresent (or not accurately represent) the view(s) of the people in question, more specifically how those people feel about those to which they express gratitude… That may interfere with the ability to get an applicable answer.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

I’m not convinced that an atheist is damned. It just seems to me that the disciple Thomas also doubted that Jesus was the Lord and would not believe that he had risen from the dead. Jesus was patient and did not condemn him for his disbelief but appeared to him.

It is not Catholic teaching that all atheists are damned. Some Catholics think so, but this really is going beyond what we have the ability to say.

 

[JamesATyler]

So in a purely atheistic world it is through strength that moral law is established. What that moral code is just depends on the morality of the ruling party(s) or person(s). What else could it be? What universal moral principle exists if there is no God? I can’t think of any principle that can’t be rejected by someone. If that someone holds the power then he also is the closest thing to a god in a purely atheist world.

 

[belorg]

belorg

**If the point is that one should believe without seeing, then Thomas was as mistaken as every atheist and should be judged as such. **

I’ll have to repeat the substance of a post already written. Thomas was mistaken, but he was given the grace to repent, and he accepted that grace. Your assumption is that an atheist can die unrepentant of his sins and still be forgiven. That is not what we believe, either for atheists or for Christians. ALL must repent to be forgiven. The atheist denies there is anyone to whom he can admit his sins and seek forgiveness. If he dies unrepentant, he does not get a free pass into heaven because he was, as you like to put it, “mistaken.”

Again: what is the difference between living and dead in this context? Why can’t someone repent after he has died, and with the certainty that there is someone to whom he can admit his sins and be forgiven? Thomas asked for that kind of certainty and was given it. Most probably because Jesus loved him so much He wanted to grant him that certainty. Am I to believe that God has certain favourites that he grants that certainty , while otherswill suffer for their mistkae for eternity?

 

[belorg]

So in a purely atheistic world it is through strength that moral law is established. What that moral code is just depends on the morality of the ruling party(s) or person(s). What else could it be? What universal moral principle exists if there is no God? I can’t think of any principle that can’t be rejected by someone. If that someone holds the power then he also is the closest thing to a god in a purely atheist world.

That’s the key sentence here you can’t think of any moral principle that can’t be rejected by someone because there is no moral principle that can’t be rejected by someone. What follows it that there is no objective moral principle and that we are forced to adopt a principle that comes closest to an objective moral principle. And Bradski’s principle is the closetes anyone can get to a relevant moral principle.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

belorg
**
Am I to believe that God has certain favourites that he grants that certainty , while otherswill suffer for their mistkae for eternity.**

Certainty is a state of mind that we can choose or refuse. The atheist is so certain of atheism, yet without the slightest convincing proof that there is no God. Atheism is not an honest mistake. It is willful denial that cannot be mistaken for a mistake…

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Iron

**It is not Catholic teaching that all atheists are damned. Some Catholics think so, but this really is going beyond what we have the ability to say. **

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33