Godless morality?

[Bradski]

And what “degree” is that? Thomas Jefferson thought that Christian morality was the best suited to “civilized society,” but I doubt you agree,

No I do agree. I could well imagine myself helping him iterally cutting and pasting the parts of the bible that he thought were worthy. Like me, he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus, but thought that a lot of what was reported as being said by Him was morally sound.

“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence; and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being.”

 

[PRmerger]

I am an atheist.

In the case of torturing a cat, it is not objectively bad if nothing can be objectively bad…

 

[JamesATyler]

Now we’re on the same page. I have also ‘pretty much already figured out what is acceptable treatment for an animal’. And if it’s ‘something that is easy to figure out, then, sure, I can just make that decision myself’. The problem is, some people might suggest that the moral position that you reach by those methods (making the decision yourself) is just your own and has no validity.

What you need to do then is put forward explanations as to how you reached that position. Explanations that any reasonable person should be able to accept.

Without referencing a higher authority, it sounds like the best possible way to defend a moral position and do some teaching at the same time, in the case of speaking with children for example. People often do quote accomplished persons to use as supporting evidence as well. The persons that are quoted could be framed as higher authorities on the subject or simply as trustworthy sources. Even referencing God, does not create a position that is unassailable if someone wants to contradict your conclusions. Religious people do that to each other all the time, even if they follow the same God.

When a moral authority is recognized by a person, external pressure to change is created if the morality of the person is different. As a parent, you fill that role for your children if they are still young enough to recognize your authority. If the person submits to the authority, then that pressure can transform the person’s conscience. Your children, for example, as they grow up will identify other authorities. It may be their peers, figures on television, characters in books, teachers, etc. This creates competition. God, and in the Catholic religion, the Church, asserts itself as the highest moral authority. If a person believes in that authority, the competition is ended and the transformative power over the conscience proceeds from only one source.

Submission to God is not the same as submission to the laws of God. Submission to the laws of God is indirect. Consider the biblical figure Abraham. God tested him by asking him to kill his own child. Surely, this violated his normal sense of morality but he submitted anyway and was greatly blessed by God. For Abraham, was able to submit directly to the will of God. That is the goal of the Christian but it is extremely difficult but it is also a great gift.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree that atheism cannot, by definition, give you a metaphysical commandment to behave “appropriately.” It can, however, impose a social and legal commandment – a social norm.

I have always been puzzled by this argument. Social norms are an atheist’s moral authority?

Really?

Who is “society” except “people like me”? And why would “people like me” have any authority over me?

 

[PRmerger]

I would decide that particular point based on reason. Does a particular creature feel pain? Would it feel discomfort in a way that we would recognise. Would it try to avoid that pain if it couldl. I’d bet that you would make the decision also based on very similar reasons.

Where does this ‘higherst good’ come into the decision?

It comes into the discussion when you are in dialogue with the CT.

He will proclaim with every ounce of his being that his reason tells him that it is not immoral to torture cats.

Now what do you do as an atheist without any objective moral law to which you can appeal?

The CT is using the exact same paradigm you use. As such you cannot object to his paradigm. Nor can you object to his conclusion. He came by it the same way you did.

 

[PRmerger]

In the Middle Ages, burning cats as a form of entertainment was quite the thing. kattenstoet.be/en/page/497-510/cat-torturing-in-the-middle-ages.html. If you wander around any market in S. E Asia, then you need to be equipped with a strong stomache.

Is there a Magisterial document from the Middle Ages that proclaims “burning cats as a form of entertainment is absolutely moral”?

Answer:

If you had been born in another time or another place, PR, then your definition of the ‘highest good’ would be different. It’s even different between contemporary Catholics (fishing is ok, hunting is not; eating animals is ok, battery farming is not). Your ‘highest good’ is actually ‘your’ highest good.

When there is confusion, chaos, or disagreement on any particular issue, all one needs to do is to appeal to the authority of the Magisterium, Bradski. We have the gift of bishops teaching in union with the pope,speaking for the Church and who can articulate the Catholic position.

 

[PRmerger]

You would lose that bet, my friend. As PR said, the cat is an “it”. Meaning that the cat does not have an “immortal soul”. And God gave dominion over the beasts of the land. Therefore we, “the crowns of creation” can do whatever we feel like doing.

Again, your ignorance of Catholicism is limned in the above statement.

I suggest you check Fr. Google regarding: “Catholicism” and “stewardship” and “creation”.

As such, you ought to amend your signature. It’s embarrassing you.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Simon

**People create purpose, meaning, and values for themselves based on their own subjective experiences. Whether an objective purpose - one independent of human cognition - exists or not is irrelevant. **

Not so. We are talking about whether we exist on the planet for a purpose. We cannot assign that purpose to our own designing. A dog can believe his purpose in life is to chase cats. But he did not assign that purpose to himself. A higher power designed that purpose in his genes. You would probably say Nature designed that purpose. But that’s only going part way. Who or What designed Nature’s purpose?

Oh, I forgot. Nature has no purpose!

 

[polytropos]

People create purpose, meaning, and values for themselves based on their own subjective experiences. Whether an objective purpose - one independent of human cognition - exists or not is irrelevant.

It seems rather irrelevant to me that people can value subjectively. As animals we have drives, but without God there is no intrinsic importance in those drives’ satisfaction. There is no natural consequence for violating a subjective purpose, meaning, or value.

People can think that they’ve created their own purpose, meaning or values. That does not make those valuations true, though, because nothing metaphysical can have any integrity in a godless, purely physical, random universe. To move from subjective valuation to “morality” is a very large leap that you have, I think, not argued for with sufficient rigor.

 

[Bradski]

It comes into the discussion when you are in dialogue with the CT. He will proclaim with every ounce of his being that his reason tells him that it is not immoral to torture cats. Now what do you do as an atheist without any objective moral law to which you can appeal?

In the first instance, there is no objective moral law to which either of us could point to that says: Thou Shalt Nor Torture A Cat. But we could both try to change his mind. I’d run through all the reasons why I think it’s immoral and you might say, at least in the first instance: ‘It’s wrong because the church says so’.

Whatever his answers to my reasons would be, I’m pretty certain that the answer to yours would be: ‘Why does the church say so?’. And then you’d run through all the reasons that I gave. The church doesn’t pick a position on any given morality out of thin air. The positions, I’m certain that you’d agree, are all based on reason. That is to say, the church and myself reach the same position in the same way.

Now I’m pretty much in agreement with the church on almost all matters. Because I agree with the reasons that result in those positions. That is, the reasons make sense. Don’t kill, don’t steal etc. The areas where we differ are ones where, in my opinion, the reasons simply aren’t valid. And the vast majority of Catholics seem to work on that basis as well.

We have the gift of bishops teaching in union with the pope,speaking for the Church and who can articulate the Catholic position.

(Raises eyebrow. Coughs politely).

 

[PRmerger]

(Raises eyebrow. Coughs politely).

disappointed.

A gif would be ever so appropriate here.

 

[Bradski]

disappointed.

A gif would be ever so appropriate here.

It would. I looked! There must be one of Roger Moore raising an quizical eyebrow somewhere (is there one where he isn’t?), but I can’t find them. Give me a clue where to look, can’tya?

 

[tonyrey]

People create purpose, meaning, and values for themselves based on their own subjective experiences. Whether an objective purpose - one independent of human cognition - exists or not is irrelevant.

Welcome to the forum, Simon.

How on earth - or anywhere else - could we - or anyone else - create purpose, meaning, and values if they didn’t exist? It sounds like a case of wishful thinking:

“Let’s pretend life isn’t futile, absurd and worthless even though it’s a spark in the dark!”

 

[tonyrey]

Simon

**People create purpose, meaning, and values for themselves based on their own subjective experiences. Whether an objective purpose - one independent of human cognition - exists or not is irrelevant. **

Not so. We are talking about whether we exist on the planet for a purpose. We cannot assign that purpose to our own designing. A dog can believe his purpose in life is to chase cats. But he did not assign that purpose to himself. A higher power designed that purpose in his genes. You would probably say Nature designed that purpose. But that’s only going part way. Who or What designed Nature’s purpose?

Oh, I forgot. Nature has no purpose!

You also forgot all our statements are meaningless because they are valueless and purposeless - except in our imagination.

 

[tonyrey]

I am an atheist.

I do not think you can argue for objective morality without religion. Philosophers have argued for subjective morality, but I don’t think subjective morality is a worthwhile concept. (I find it easier to think of morality as not existing if you are going to talk about “subjective morality.”)

Morality can be objective from a religious perspective because it is divinely decreed, which makes it absolute and timeless: objective. If God forbids “murder,” then that forbidding is embedded upon the fabric of the universe. If God does not forbid “murder,” then there was a time when humans (and life) did not exist, so there was a time when “murder” was not defined.

“Murder,” without religion, is a legal term that denotes a very widely held opinion that humans will generally speaking be better off as a group if they do not kill each other. Without God nothing gives it absolute moral force.

In the case of torturing a cat, it is not objectively bad if nothing can be objectively bad. Without God, life was not created; it occurred and as such has no dignity. Humans might have a psychological response against torturing a cat, but torturing a cat does not do anything to “upset” the nature of the universe.

I admire your courage and sincerity in stating the truth about Godless morality.

 

[tonyrey]

In the first instance, there is no objective moral law to which either of us could point to that says: Thou Shalt Nor Torture A Cat. But we could both try to change his mind. I’d run through all the reasons why I think it’s immoral and you might say, at least in the first instance: ‘It’s wrong because the church says so’.

Whatever his answers to my reasons would be, I’m pretty certain that the answer to yours would be: ‘Why does the church say so?’. And then you’d run through all the reasons that I gave. The church doesn’t pick a position on any given morality out of thin air. The positions, I’m certain that you’d agree, are all based on reason. That is to say, the church and myself reach the same position in the same way.

Now I’m pretty much in agreement with the church on almost all matters. Because I agree with the reasons that result in those positions. That is, the reasons make sense. Don’t kill, don’t steal etc. The areas where we differ are ones where, in my opinion, the reasons simply aren’t valid. And the vast majority of Catholics seem to work on that basis as well.
(Raises eyebrow. Coughs politely).

What is your reason for believing it is wrong to torture a cat?

 

[Bradski]

What is your reason for believing it is wrong to torture a cat?

They’ll be exactly the same as yours.

 

[PRmerger]

They’ll be exactly the same as yours.

Except when you try to appeal to the atheist CT who says, “I arrived at my reasoning the very same way you did. Now what?”

 

[Portofino]

I have always been puzzled by this argument. Social norms are an atheist’s moral authority?

Really?

Who is “society” except “people like me”? And why would “people like me” have any authority over me?

This may be the same case with your own theistic morality – you’re just not aware of it as such.

You believe it comes from God, whereas it may come from human beings who merely proclaim it to be so.

Theists are human beings who claim they know that God exists, and what God’s morality is.

If they are wrong, their own morality is a social construct, regardless of what they claim. Their own religion – and concept of God – is one of the more interesting creations of the human mind.

You may not agree, but your own theism exists on the same shaky ground, so long as it is you speaking for your God, and not your God speaking for himself.

 

[PRmerger]

This may be the same case with your own theistic morality – you’re just not aware of it as such.

You believe it comes from God, whereas it may come from human beings who merely proclaim it to be so.

Theists are human beings who claim they know that God exists, and what God’s morality is.

If they are wrong, their own morality is a social construct, regardless of what they claim. Their own religion – and concept of God – is one of the more interesting creations of the human mind.

You may not agree, but your own theism exists on the same shaky ground, so long as it is you speaking for your God, and not your God speaking for himself.

That’s why we claim that our faith is superior to our reason, Portofino. We have faith in the people that proclaim God’s Revelation to us.

Of course, you do this as well. You live a lot of your life–the majority of it, I propose–based on faith.

You’re just not aware of it as such.