How would you answer this atheist's question?

[Gorgias]

Jesus emphasised these emotions in his teachings. Be courageous. Be humble. Be charitable.

These aren’t emotions though, are they? They’re virtues put into action. So, yet again: emotions can’t be the source of morality, no?

Again I will ask. Are these emotions - the ones that guide us in our interactions with others, restricted to Christians?

Let’s ask it a different way: can non-Christians act virtuously? Of course; there’s no doubt about it. Yet, that’s a very different question than the one at hand.

 

[Dan123]

Actually, restrictions against obscene speech were part of the law up until relatively recently. So, I think you’re simply making the case that, in the absence of an objective standard, “anything goes” (and often, “anything” itself merely means “anything the ruling class wants”).

All obscene speech or just the speech obscene to particular culturally dominant groups?

Can you give me an objective standard of what is ‘healthy’? Is running healthy, objectively? Is running healthy for all people at all times? What about drinking fruit juice? Intermittent fasting? gluten free diets?

My guess is for most generally accepted “healthy” ideas you can find a group of people who disagree, and you can find a group of people who might actually be harmed by the behavior. It would seem unlikely that we could construct an absolute model of healthiness.

So is “health” therefore “anything goes”? If what’s healthy for me is different than what is healthy for you mean health is subjective and there’s nothing we can possibly learn or reason or employ science to study?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Jesus emphasised these emotions in his teachings. Be courageous. Be humble. Be charitable.

These aren’t emotions though, are they? They’re virtues put into action. So, yet again: emotions can’t be the source of morality, no?

Again I will ask. Are these emotions - the ones that guide us in our interactions with others, restricted to Christians?

Let’s ask it a different way: can non-Christians act virtuously? Of course; there’s no doubt about it. Yet, that’s a very different question than the one at hand.

The emotions to which I refer are those such as shame or guilt or pride. Undoubtedly emotional states that are triggered by, as you rightly say, acts which can be termed virtuous. Such as courage or honour or benevolence. Or by not acting virtuously. Such as being a coward or dishonourable or miserly.

Nobody wants to run into a burning building or stand up to a bully and risk a beating. But the alternative is to be thought a coward. So we often risk personal physical harm to avoid the emotional harm of shame.

And most people try to act virtuously because we feel it’s the right thing to do. And we feel that because not doing it can trigger emotions that we would prefer to avoid. Which of course leads to the question: Can anyone actually act for purely altruistic reasons? Because even if there appears to be all negatives involved for the person doing the right thing, we generally get a certain amount of self satisfaction from doing it, even if no-one else knows about it.

 

[Gorgias]

The emotions to which I refer are those such as shame or guilt or pride. Undoubtedly emotional states that are triggered by, as you rightly say, acts which can be termed virtuous.

Hmm… I quoted the ‘emotions’ you cited: ‘courage’, ‘humility’, ‘charity’. None of these are emotions.

The emotions to which I refer are those such as shame or guilt or pride.

You know, it strikes me as funny. Contemporary culture lampoons Catholics on a number of perceived faults. One of these is the so-called “Catholic guilt” – that we do things only out of a source of guilt. And you’re suggesting that’s precisely from whence morality flows? Hmm… not buying it.

Nobody wants to run into a burning building or stand up to a bully and risk a beating. But the alternative is to be thought a coward. So we often risk personal physical harm to avoid the emotional harm of shame.

Actually, “shame culture” is a real thing, but it’s not normatively been associated with modern western culture. And, in fact, when we do see it in operation – in “honor killings” and such – we decry it. So, I’m not sure I can get on board with you on this point, either!

And most people try to act virtuously because we feel it’s the right thing to do.

There we go! Now that’s an assertion of morality! “The right thing to do” – if we want to examine standards of morality, this is where we start!

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The emotions to which I refer are those such as shame or guilt or pride. Undoubtedly emotional states that are triggered by, as you rightly say, acts which can be termed virtuous.

Hmm… I quoted the ‘emotions’ you cited: ‘courage’, ‘humility’, ‘charity’. None of these are emotions.

The emotions to which I refer are those such as shame or guilt or pride.

You know, it strikes me as funny. Contemporary culture lampoons Catholics on a number of perceived faults. One of these is the so-called “Catholic guilt” – that we do things only out of a source of guilt. And you’re suggesting that’s precisely from whence morality flows? Hmm… not buying it.

Fair enough.

But do you try to avoid shame? To avoid guilty feelings? To avoid being thought of as miserly or untrustworthy? I assume that you do. And that guides a lot of your actions. You try to avoid doing something that would generally be considered shameful for example.

People will actually take their own lives because they can’t face the shame of others knowing what they may have done. It’s an extremely powerful emotion. As are the others I mentioned.

Couple these emotions with a sense of empathy and you have the basis for a moral code. You can say all of this is ‘written on our hearts’ if you like.

 

[Gorgias]

But do you try to avoid shame? To avoid guilty feelings? To avoid being thought of as miserly or untrustworthy? I assume that you do. And that guides a lot of your actions. You try to avoid doing something that would generally be considered shameful for example.

Sure, but that’s not the font of a system of morality. That’s just a reflection of how well (or poorly!) one’s conscience is formed!

 

[goout]

One time an atheist asked me if I would kill a child if God commanded me to. Obviously I just said it was an absurd question. There’s no reason to answer it since God would not command me to do that. But he kept telling me to answer and I didn’t really know what to say. Of course my immediate reaction was no. Duh. Obviously not. But then I remembered the Abraham and Isaac story. So maybe it wouldn’t be that obvious of an answer? What would you respond to this atheist’s question?

I would respond that it’s not within God’s nature to ask someone to kill a child.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But do you try to avoid shame? To avoid guilty feelings? To avoid being thought of as miserly or untrustworthy? I assume that you do. And that guides a lot of your actions. You try to avoid doing something that would generally be considered shameful for example.

Sure, but that’s not the font of a system of morality. That’s just a reflection of how well (or poorly!) one’s conscience is formed!

Your conscience is simply telling you not to do something because it is shameful. Because it is cowardly. It processes the emotions and tells you what you should do.

Yet again, if you want to say it’s God given then be my guest.

 

[Freddy]

rose.gold:

One time an atheist asked me if I would kill a child if God commanded me to. Obviously I just said it was an absurd question. There’s no reason to answer it since God would not command me to do that. But he kept telling me to answer and I didn’t really know what to say. Of course my immediate reaction was no. Duh. Obviously not. But then I remembered the Abraham and Isaac story. So maybe it wouldn’t be that obvious of an answer? What would you respond to this atheist’s question?

I would respond that it’s not within God’s nature to ask someone to kill a child.

Yet we will have people on the forum who believed that He killed them Himself on ocassion. I fail to see the difference.

 

[Eric_Hyom]

Couple these emotions with a sense of empathy and you have the basis for a moral code.

The moral code and the commandments hang and depend on the greatest commandments. We can do nothing greater than love God and love our neighbours as we love ourselves. We are asked to love and pray for our enemies, this goes beyond most people’s comfort zone.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself? How did Jesus hold out his hands on the cross and love the man who was holding the hammer and nails?

We know that Jesus prayed on the cross, ‘Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.’ If Jesus died for you, me and everyone else, that has to mean he loves each and everyone of us as he loves himself.

 

[rosejmj]

Well, how did Abraham know God was commanding him to kill his son? In this case it’s a hypothetical so I don’t see how knowing it’s from God makes any difference especially if he’s asking the Christian who believes in God to respond based on his beliefs in God, not the atheist’s beliefs in God. if you believe in the Bible and the God of the Bible, it’s happened more than once so it’s definitely possible.The atheist probably has issues with the God in the Bible especially and is trying to get a better idea of how one can believe in him

 

[rosejmj]

If you can’t know if it’s God commanding it then there is obviously a problem… either God doesn’t really exist and that’s why you’ll never be able to actually hear anything from him “for sure” or he is pretty impersonal and if so it probably wouldn’t matter to him if people believed in him

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Couple these emotions with a sense of empathy and you have the basis for a moral code.

The moral code and the commandments hang and depend on the greatest commandments. We can do nothing greater than love God and love our neighbours as we love ourselves. We are asked to love and pray for our enemies, this goes beyond most people’s comfort zone.

When Jesus spent his time on Earth, he would have lived by the greatest commandments, he could do nothing greater. But how did Jesus love all his neighbours as he loves himself?

Empathy leads to the Golden Rule (which predates Christianity). Jesus was emphasising that we should follow it. Excellent advice.

 

[Freddy]

If you can’t know if it’s God commanding it then there is obviously a problem… either God doesn’t really exist and that’s why you’ll never be able to actually hear anything from him “for sure” or he is pretty impersonal and if so it probably wouldn’t matter to him if people believed in him

I’m pretty certain that we can have personal testimony from many on this forum that they believe that God has talked to them in some way. What if they received a command telling them to do something that they considered to be wrong?

My point was that if God gives you a command that youn think is immoral then you have three choices:

1. He hasn’t talked to you.
2. He has and what He has commanded is immoral.
3. He has and although it seems immoral to you, it cannot be.

Which would you choose?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The “gotcha” lies in that the atheist doesn’t even believe in God, but is trying to tangle you up in an extreme hypothetical.

It’s a different tone than two theists discussing the Sacrifice of Isaac and trying to parse through the threads of this story (which there is a tremendous amount to unpack and why people discuss it to this very day).

 

[Freddy]

The “gotcha” lies in that the atheist doesn’t even believe in God, but is trying to tangle you up in an extreme hypothetical.

It’s a different tone than two theists discussing the Sacrifice of Isaac and trying to parse through the threads of this story (which there is a tremendous amount to unpack and why people discuss it to this very day).

It’s the same question: What would someone do if they thought God had commanded them to kill someone’s child. In Abraham’s case, his own child.

 

[goout]

Yet we will have people on the forum who believed that He killed them Himself on ocassion. I fail to see the difference.

So one of these points of view is incorrect, obviously. The universe of Catholics who “believe that God killed children himself” is extremely small, and umm…extreme. You might be living in a fishbowl of your own making here. But of course, the atheist point of view needs that fishbowl for it’s relevance, so…

And you can’t possibly “fail to see the difference”. You can’t possibly be that morally numb.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Yet we will have people on the forum who believed that He killed them Himself on ocassion. I fail to see the difference.

So one of these points of view is incorrect, obviously. The universe of Catholics who “believe that God killed children himself” is extremely small, and umm…extreme. You might be living in a fishbowl of your own making here. But of course, the atheist point of view needs that fishbowl for it’s relevance, so…

And you can’t possibly “fail to see the difference”. You can’t possibly be that morally numb.

The post immediately above yours notes that discussions have been going on for years as to the problem of God commanding a father to kill his son. Not whether it happened but how are we to understand it.

And I have been involved with a long debate with quite a few forum members recently as to why God was justified in killing children in Soddom and Gomorrah. Not a debate as to whether it happened. But how God was justified in doing it.

Needless to say that I don’t believe either event took place. But you need to bring your point up with those whom you suggest hold what you term ‘extremist’ views with the forum members themselves. This is the ‘Catholic fishbowl’ in which I swim.

And no, I really don’t see any difference worth discussing between someone who orders a person killed and someone who actually does the killing.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

When I was a child, I was taught that if somebody thought they had heard from Jesus or Mary, like a vision or locution, they had to reality check it against the commandments and Church teaching.
So, if I had a vision telling me to kill somebody (assuming I wasn’t in a psychotic state), I would dismiss that command as not coming from God.

So, for me, right now in the 2000s, the answer is “no” because God wouldn’t tell me to do such a thing.

But Abraham lived in a culture where child sacrifice to gods was an accepted practice, where the Ten Commandments weren’t written yet, or the Torah laws.
So, in that context, it would not be unreasonable for me to sacrifice my child. It wouldn’t seem “wrong” or “sinful”. It might be difficult for other reasons, but not moral reasons.

 

[Freddy]

When I was a child, I was taught that if somebody thought they had heard from Jesus or Mary, like a vision or locution, they had to reality check it against the commandments and Church teaching.
So, if I had a vision telling me to kill somebody (assuming I wasn’t in a psychotic state), I would dismiss that command as not coming from God.

So, for me, right now in the 2000s, the answer is “no” because God wouldn’t tell me to do such a thing.

But Abraham lived in a culture where child sacrifice to gods was an accepted practice, where the Ten Commandments weren’t written yet, or the Torah laws.
So, in that context, it would not be unreasonable for me to sacrifice my child. It wouldn’t seem “wrong” or “sinful”. It might be difficult for other reasons, but not moral reasons.

Are you saying that if God gave the command to kill someone in Abraham’s time it would be morally acceptable, but if He gave exactly the same command now it would be immoral?

It seems that you are saying that God’s moral standing is relative to the times.