C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
What “advancements” are Catholics specifically holding back?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
C
Cyril
Guest
Immortality research specifically anti aging.
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
How exactly are Catholics specifically holding that back? Furthermore, what benefit does it provide?
C
Cyril
Guest
They hear stem cells and not dieing as a crime in and of itself.
The benefits is not wasting half our lives dying by inches with needing constant medication and treatment aas this that or the other thing breaks down. Right now we spend the majority of medical aid on the average person on the last 30 years of life. Wouldn’t it be great to trade palliative care for yearly injections to not die of old age?
The benefits is not wasting half our lives dying by inches with needing constant medication and treatment aas this that or the other thing breaks down. Right now we spend the majority of medical aid on the average person on the last 30 years of life. Wouldn’t it be great to trade palliative care for yearly injections to not die of old age?
Last edited:
C
CaptainPrudeman
Guest
And when have Catholics, as a group, worked to stop all stem cell research and not just the inherently sinful embryonic stem cell research?
C
Cantankersaurus
Guest
The point is, even if we do shrug off advancements, and even if our votes are half-informed, these have nothing to do with our belief in heaven. You seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and I’m not sure why.
For the record, we oppose embryonic stem cell research because it involves taking innocent human lives. It’s a moot point today though, because it hasn’t yielded any useful results at all. We don’t oppose stem cell research in general, and of course there’s nothing wrong with medical advancements that lengthen life expectancies. As regards immortality… we’ll cross that bridge if we get there!
For the record, we oppose embryonic stem cell research because it involves taking innocent human lives. It’s a moot point today though, because it hasn’t yielded any useful results at all. We don’t oppose stem cell research in general, and of course there’s nothing wrong with medical advancements that lengthen life expectancies. As regards immortality… we’ll cross that bridge if we get there!
O
opop
Guest
So you agree that there is objective moral rules. But what, according to you, gives them objectivity? Explaining them by natural selection doesn’t work. Indeed, if it were true that the rule do not harm children for your pleasure has become a rule simply because it was beneficial for my ancestors, then I could still ask : Why do I have to abide by this rule? Indeed, when I ask what gives this rule objectivity, I am not asking what makes me believe this rule is true. I am asking what gives the obligation to abide by this rule. And if the rule was a pure psycho-biological product of evolution, then there would be no such obligation. And the laws of men are not sufficient either, because I could find a way to harm children for my pleasure without being caught. A lot of criminal enjoyed their crimes without being caught during their lives. So what gives us the right to say that, even if they enjoyed it without bad consequences for them, they ought to not have done it? The only rational anwser is that there is a life after death where they can be in some way punished. Indeed, in order for an evil act to be objectively evil, this act must be evil for everyone. If a man can completly get away with murder, then we must admit that this murder was not evil for him, and therefore was not objectively evil at all. Therefore, if there was no such after death punishment, then there would really be no rational reason why a man ought to abstain himself from comitting crimes if he enjoys it and is sure to never be caught. There could certainly be sometimes reasons why it is more beneficial for him to not commit those crimes, but no reason why it is necessary for him to not commit those crimes.And some acts are objectively immoral. And we don’t need reference to the deity of your choice to reach that conclusion. If you can’t give reasons or think that it’s impossible to give reasons why torturing children for fun is bad without referencing God, then you have a serious problem. Other acts, from factory farming to torturing a terrorist to obtain the whereabouts of a bomb…well, your mileage may vary.
Empathy is also of course not a sufficient reason for explainig moral obligation. What could give me the obligation to act according to my empathy? I can act in spite of my empathy, and even shut up my empathy with enough training.
Now about God:
It is certainly true that we can be good without believing in God. But we can’t be good without God. Why? Because objective morality requires a criteria of good in order to be objective. Which means that there must be something that is the ultimate end of every rational being. Indeed, if there was no such common end for every rational being, then what is good for you may not be good for me, i.e. morality would be subjective. In order to have objective morality then, happiness (which is the common good for everyone), must be found in the same object by everyone. Which is way the Church teaches that the ultimate end of every rational being is the contemplation of God himself, who is the ultimate criteria of good, the ultimate source of good for everyone.
O
opop
Guest
It seems to me that you notion of “subjective” is a bit confused. There is a difference between choosing to believe something, and choosing something to be true. In the last case, you act as if truth depends on you mind and choice. In the first case, you simply choose to give your trust to something or someone, without beliving that truth itself depends on you. I give you an example: you have two kids and one of the two broke a glass and each one gives the fault to the other. Let’s admit that, for some reason, you know that one tells the truth and not the other, but you don’t know which one. You don’t have a definitive proof, so based on some clues and your experience with you kids, you must decide which one you will believe. So you decide to believe the one who appears to you as the most trustworthy. Did you decide that he is innocent? Did you make him innocent? In an improper way of speaking we could say yes, but not in a proper way of speaking. In fact, you hope that you chose to believe the innocent one, while at the sime time knowing that you may be wrong. Because you perfectly know that the truth about who’s innocent is objective, and doesn’t depend on your mind or you choice.The other type of Catholic is the one that has chosen Catholicism as the way to live his or her life. He or she may have had a belief in God to start but hey, this is the religion for me! And if you ask them why, they will tell you that what the church teaches is true. Which is playing a little fast and loose with the truth of what actually happened. Which is that they personally decided that what the church teaches is true. Which is about as subjective as you can possible get. So in order to deny that fact, it is also compulsory for them to claim emphatically that morality is objective.
It is the same case with someone who chooses to become catholic. The act of believing certainly depends on his choice, but that doesn’t mean that he chooses what is true. He instead chooses to believe a doctrine that, he hopes, is the true one. He perfectly knows before and after making the choice to believe, that truth doesn’t depend on his mind.
So there is nothing contradictory or strange with a catholic convert who says that moral truths are objective.
D
Delphinus
Guest
In my experience, being a Christian in order to be a good person is like learning how to fly because you want to buy an airplane. It’s necessary to own a plane in order to fly (yes, you can pick this analogy apart, but you know what I mean!) just as it’s necessary to have a life marked by morality in order to be a follower of God, but you can buy a plane (be a good person) and not know how to fly. God made us good (since as Catholics we reject the idea of total depravity) so being good in some areas, even most, is our nature. No, being a Christian is about loving and knowing an infinitely loving, present, and living God and inviting Him into every part of our lives and build a relationship with Him that will last an eternity.
Seriously saying “I’m a good person, i don’t need God” is like saying “I’m a good person, I don’t need food!”
We are made for God. He made us for everlasting life with Him. Without God, we cannot sustain immortality, just as without food we cannot sustain day-to-day life.
Seriously saying “I’m a good person, i don’t need God” is like saying “I’m a good person, I don’t need food!”
We are made for God. He made us for everlasting life with Him. Without God, we cannot sustain immortality, just as without food we cannot sustain day-to-day life.
T
thomaskasaki
Guest
Which begs then the question “What is your understanding of God, and why is it wrong?” (The “you” here being the person who is asking that question in the OP, not you.)
B
Bradskii
Guest
Objective aspects of morality (torturing children is bad) does not imply compulsion. On the assumption that you nelieve that God has given us free will, then that should be obvious.
And if you suggest that it is wrong because God will punish you for it, then you are going to need a direct line to God to check on all aspects of morality. You are effectively saying that you don’t know if something is wrong or not - you need to check with the Big Guy first. If you could’t articulate a reason without reference to God then we have a serious problem.
And empathy certainly plays a part in reaching a decision about whether it is wrong (And don’t confuse empathy with a warm fuzzy feeling. It is only the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. You can be a sadist and have empathy for your victim. In fact, it may enhance his enjoyment of the pain he inflicts). If you know someone is in pain and you understand their pain then you might be less inclined to inflict it (unless you are the aforementioned sadist). And reciprocal altruism plays a part in that you realise that if you were arbitrarily to torture someone else’s child then others might decide to reciprocate.
And are you saying that you are a Catholic because you HOPE that what they teach is correct? Then you presumably have come to the personal decision that what they teach is worth believing in. It would make no sense to think otherwise. Now whether what they teach IS actually true is totally irrelevant. You have still chosen Catholicism over, for example, Hinduism. I have chosen secular humanism because I hope that it will result in a better world.
None of us really knows. But we all make individual decisions.
And if you suggest that it is wrong because God will punish you for it, then you are going to need a direct line to God to check on all aspects of morality. You are effectively saying that you don’t know if something is wrong or not - you need to check with the Big Guy first. If you could’t articulate a reason without reference to God then we have a serious problem.
And empathy certainly plays a part in reaching a decision about whether it is wrong (And don’t confuse empathy with a warm fuzzy feeling. It is only the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. You can be a sadist and have empathy for your victim. In fact, it may enhance his enjoyment of the pain he inflicts). If you know someone is in pain and you understand their pain then you might be less inclined to inflict it (unless you are the aforementioned sadist). And reciprocal altruism plays a part in that you realise that if you were arbitrarily to torture someone else’s child then others might decide to reciprocate.
And are you saying that you are a Catholic because you HOPE that what they teach is correct? Then you presumably have come to the personal decision that what they teach is worth believing in. It would make no sense to think otherwise. Now whether what they teach IS actually true is totally irrelevant. You have still chosen Catholicism over, for example, Hinduism. I have chosen secular humanism because I hope that it will result in a better world.
None of us really knows. But we all make individual decisions.
B
Brendan_64
Guest
And by what standards is “good” defined? Who sets these standards? And if these standards are set by man, what happens when there are two directly opposing man-made sets of standards?More often than not, when I open up to people about my Catholic faith I hear the above or “I know a lot of really moral people that don’t believe in God” and similar “one doesn’t have to believe in God to be a good person” type responses.
How would you respond to that?
O
opop
Guest
Sorry, but you completly misunderstood almost all what I said.
Sure, we can come up with justifications like : it is necessary for the social order. But that is not an explanation of why it is an obligation. Indeed, something can be an obligation for someone only if it something that he necessarily cares about. For example, if a criminal can get away his whole life with torturing children, and then die peacefully without getting caught, why should he care? He enjoyed his whole life doing what he wanted. So it’s rather good for him, right? Why should he care? In order to say that it was an obligation for him to not do that, we must find a reason that explains why it was wrong to do that, including for him, and not only for a social order that he doesn’t care about. Because, as I said, in order for an evil act to be objectively evil, this act must be evil for everyone. An evil act that is evil only for some people is not objectively evil, much like colour taste.
But why do you speak about compulsion? I never said there was compulsion somewhere. Perhaps you think that when I speak about obligation I speak about compulsion? If this is the case, then let me make my words clearer: by obligation I mean, of course, moral obligation (i.e. moral duty), not compulsion.Objective aspects of morality (torturing children is bad) does not imply compulsion. On the assumption that you nelieve that God has given us free will, then that should be obvious.
I clearly said that one can feel that there are moral obligations, even without believing in God. However, my question was: what makes that a moral obligation is an obligation? We can clearly see that there are moral obligations, but then when it is time to say why they are obligations, then things get far less clear. I defy you to come up with a rational explanation of why not harming children for one’s pleasure is a moral obligation without taking in account punishment after death.And if you suggest that it is wrong because God will punish you for it, then you are going to need a direct line to God to check on all aspects of morality. You are effectively saying that you don’t know if something is wrong or not - you need to check with the Big Guy first. If you could’t articulate a reason without reference to God then we have a serious problem.
.
Sure, we can come up with justifications like : it is necessary for the social order. But that is not an explanation of why it is an obligation. Indeed, something can be an obligation for someone only if it something that he necessarily cares about. For example, if a criminal can get away his whole life with torturing children, and then die peacefully without getting caught, why should he care? He enjoyed his whole life doing what he wanted. So it’s rather good for him, right? Why should he care? In order to say that it was an obligation for him to not do that, we must find a reason that explains why it was wrong to do that, including for him, and not only for a social order that he doesn’t care about. Because, as I said, in order for an evil act to be objectively evil, this act must be evil for everyone. An evil act that is evil only for some people is not objectively evil, much like colour taste.
Last edited:
O
opop
Guest
Of course that empathy plays often a role in how I perceive that something is a moral obligation. But what I am looking for is not how do I perceive that something is a moral obligation?; what I am looking for is rather what makes something a moral obligation? And empathy is certainly not the answer. Because the fact that I feel empathy for someone does not give me an obligation to not hurt him. I could decide to hurt this person, in spite of my empathy (precisely as sadists do). There is no way to deduce an objective moral duty from empathy. Empathy helps people fulfilling their moral obligations. It doesn’t give them those obligations.And empathy certainly plays a part in reaching a decision about whether it is wrong (And don’t confuse empathy with a warm fuzzy feeling. It is only the ability to understand what someone else is feeling. You can be a sadist and have empathy for your victim. In fact, it may enhance his enjoyment of the pain he inflicts). If you know someone is in pain and you understand their pain then you might be less inclined to inflict it (unless you are the aforementioned sadist). And reciprocal altruism plays a part in that you realise that if you were arbitrarily to torture someone else’s child then others might decide to reciprocate.
Of course that I choose to believe. I am not denying that. What I was saying is that there is a big difference between choosing to believe something and choosing what is true. In the first case you simply try to conform your mind to the truth, because you know the the truth doesn’t depend on you and is above you. In the second case, you try to conform the truth to your mind, as if the truth depends on your decision. Those are two really distinct attitudes. Read again my previous message for more explanations.And are you saying that you are a Catholic because you HOPE that what they teach is correct? Then you presumably have come to the personal decision that what they teach is worth believing in. It would make no sense to think otherwise. Now whether what they teach IS actually true is totally irrelevant. You have still chosen Catholicism over, for example, Hinduism. I have chosen secular humanism because I hope that it will result in a better world.
.
B
Bradskii
Guest
So there is a moral oblgation simply because there is a guaranteed punishment?
V
Victorygirl
Guest
Actually I think the person said “moral” not “good.”
K
kill051
Guest
Yes, that attitude can be quite offputting. And to be fair, that is not the attitude of the Catholic Church. She readily admits that parts of the truth can be found in several other religions beside Christianity. The kicker is, the other religions possess only parts of the truth, like a jigsaw puzzle that can never be completed because some of the pieces have been lost. The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth in Scripture, Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium. Please do not take our word for it. Research this for yourself as fully as you can, then return and let us know how you feel.Protestants feel the same way though. Whose is right and who is wrong? I’ve been apparently brainwashed by my church. Fed lies. I don’t think proclaiming we’re right and others are wrong. I’ve seen that attitude among Protestants
J
Jump4Joy
Guest
I was turned off by the idea that all Buddhists, Hindus, etc strong headed to hell because they aren’t believers. Some denominations think Catholics are the Antichrist
V
Victorygirl
Guest
<<How do you define ‘good’ without God? Who, other than God, defines ‘goodness’?>>
I am talking to an atheist. I am sure they would say there is no God so He doesn’t define it either.
I am talking to an atheist. I am sure they would say there is no God so He doesn’t define it either.
Last edited:
O
opop
Guest
Indeed. I would even almost say that it is true by definition. Because, what is a moral obligation? It is an objectively good act that needs to be wanted (or an objectively evil act that needs to not be wanted, for example in the case of murder). But who does need it? That is the important question. If it is truly an objectively evil act, then it means that to not want it is needed by everyone. That is precisely why it is objective. Something is objectively the case only if it is the case for everyone. And a moral obligation dictates an objective and imperative need for something to be wanted (or not wanted).So there is a moral oblgation simply because there is a guaranteed punishment?
However, if a criminal could get away with murder without being caught, then it would mean that the imperative need for not wanting muder is not objective (since the criminal could enjoy his muder with no need to abstain from it). In other words, it would mean that the abstention of murder is not an objective moral obligation. Therefore, the only way for it to be objective is the existence of an after life punishment for those who didn’t get what they deserved during life.
Of course, you may be tempted to answer by saying that if one abstains from murder only in order to not be punished, then it is not really a ideal way to behave. However, I never said that the fear of punishment must be the motivation for our actions. I only said that the fact that there is a punishment after death is required in order to have objective moral obligations. But what makes our moral obligations objective doesn’t have to be what makes our moral obligations lovable. What makes our moral obligations lovable, is the fact that objective moral evil is against finality, and objevtice moral good is in accordance with finality (i. e. : in accordance with the order of the universe). So, although you can fulfil your moral obligations only by fear of punishment while remaining within the limits of morality, it is more perfect and more saint to fulfil your obligations by a genuine care for the order of the universe.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.