Is "Common Sense" a Valid Source for Atheist Moral Norms?

[inocente]

Strong by today’s standards perhaps, but a word fitting in the context.

No offense but I think rampant racialist would be more accurate. And so either Mr Joyce’s moral training didn’t remove his racialism, or worse it gave him his racialism. Either way, his opinions are discredited by his own words.

 

[tonyrey]

Many of the Old Testament stories emanate from traditional (word of mouth) myths but these stories were altered by the sacred writers to their own purposes. See forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6106993&highlight=inductive#post6106993

Which is the downfall of those who adhere to the Sola Scriptura mentality. No wonder there are hundreds of Christian sects and unaffiliated individuals who rely on their own interpretation of the Bible…

 

[Clevus]

No offense but I think rampant racialist would be more accurate. And so either Mr Joyce’s moral training didn’t remove his racialism, or worse it gave him his racialism. Either way, his opinions are discredited by his own words.

None taken. I don’t get that from this post. If racism is evident, these are the most generous racists there are who are contributing. These groups are spoken of in glowing terms, and their contributions to man’s development made evident, and nothing is hidden. Racists have no interest in positive advancement of man has a collective.

 

[a_priori]

In a mechanical universe, ethics can be nothing more than an arbitrary social contract. The stars are silent. We’re told that Earth is nothing special and that people are nothing special in an evolutionary sense. Yet somehow it’s ok for the lion to kill the gazelle but not ok for the strong man to kill the weak man.

“You might as well suggest, it’s been said, that numbers emerge from biscuits or ethics from rhubarb.” -Colin McGinn

 

[robsully]

In a mechanical universe, ethics can be nothing more than an arbitrary social contract. The stars are silent. We’re told that Earth is nothing special and that people are nothing special in an evolutionary sense. Yet somehow it’s ok for the lion to kill the gazelle but not ok for the strong man to kill the weak man.

“You might as well suggest, it’s been said, that numbers emerge from biscuits or ethics from rhubarb.” -Colin McGinn

Yes, I find that today’s moral norms quite restricting (dietary speaking). I can hardly wait until it is ethically acceptable to head down to the market and pick some Asian, Mexican or a side of North American. 'Til then I guess I’ll stay Vegan.
Good grief

 

[a_priori]

Yes, I find that today’s moral norms quite restricting (dietary speaking). I can hardly wait until it is ethically acceptable to head down to the market and pick some Asian, Mexican or a side of North American. 'Til then I guess I’ll stay Vegan.
Good grief

Point missed. Perhaps on purpose. Good grief indeed.

 

[Peter_J]

Spotted on another thread:

“Curiously, 21 percent of Catholics break with their church when it comes to biblical fundamentalism, with 21 percent saying they believe the Bible is “to be taken literally, word for word.”” - americamagazine.org/content/dispatches/drop-faith-participation-reported-younger-catholics

Yeah, I admit that’s a little surprising.

I hope this won’t sound like a cop out, but I wonder if those Catholics ever really thought through what it means to take everything in the bible literally.

 

[Peter_J]

And as a non-Catholic, it makes me wonder to what extent I should take any poster as representative.

I know I for one cannot claim to represent however many thousands of Catholic posters are on this forum!

But I am curious, just supposing that I did represent them all, how would that help you?

 

[inocente]

I know I for one cannot claim to represent however many thousands of Catholic posters are on this forum!

But I am curious, just supposing that I did represent them all, how would that help you?

Then please stay just as you are.

Some posters inform me that I am what they call a Protestant, and apparently there are 420 thousand Protestant sects (the number keeps going up), all of which think differently. It’s mayhem I tells thee.

Whereas, they reckon, all Catholics march in step. Well, all True Catholics at any rate. But 1 in 5 say the bible is the actual word of God, 2 in 5 that it’s inspired by God and error-free, 1 in 5 that it’s inspired but contains errors, and 1 in 5 that it’s not inspired by God. That’s quite a spread of views just on one question. Throw in differences on other questions and … it’s mayhem I tells thee.

 

[Peter_J]

Then please stay just as you are.

Okay, but only for a few minutes because then I’ll have to scratch my leg which is itchy.

But that being said, it doesn’t seem much like you answered my question so I’ll tell you my own answer to it: if I could represent all the thousands of Catholic posters here, that wouldn’t help you very much because there are also one billion other Catholics who aren’t on this forum.

You can see, hopefully, why I encourage readers to be more interested in what the Catholic Church says than in what someone like me posts anonymously (Peter Jericho isn’t my real name btw) on the internet.

 

[inocente]

Okay, but only for a few minutes because then I’ll have to scratch my leg which is itchy.

But that being said, it doesn’t seem much like you answered my question so I’ll tell you my own answer to it: if I could represent all the thousands of Catholic posters here, that wouldn’t help you very much because there are also one billion other Catholics who aren’t on this forum.

You can see, hopefully, why I encourage readers to be more interested in what the Catholic Church says than in what someone like me posts anonymously (Peter Jericho isn’t my real name btw) on the internet.

I live in a majority Catholic country, so I know that in real life it’s patently silly to imagine an entire population agree on anything let alone everything.

But there are posters who tell me they represent all the Catholic posters here, and all the other Catholics in the world too, and that I must accept that whatever they tell me is true for all Catholics at all times and in all places. And sometimes I’ll check what the Church really says, and ask how come vatican.va doesn’t say what they tell me, because it’s a fair bet that it won’t. There seems to be a strong correlation between claiming to represent all Catholics, and being out of step with Church teaching.

You can see, hopefully, why I encourage you to stay as you are. See your doctor re itches.

 

[Vonsalza]

Whereas, they reckon, all Catholics march in step. Well, all True Catholics at any rate. But 1 in 5 say the bible is the actual word of God, 2 in 5 that it’s inspired by God and error-free, 1 in 5 that it’s inspired but contains errors, and 1 in 5 that it’s not inspired by God. That’s quite a spread of views just on one question. Throw in differences on other questions and … it’s mayhem I tells thee.

If Catholicism was bibliocentric, then this would be a problem. However, as Catholicism rightfully reserves authoritative translation to its episcopate, it’s not. The faithful do not submit directly to scripture, they submit to the living Church established by Christ and His apostles, who wrote NT of the bible.
We focus on the source - Christ’s Church; not just one of the Church’s many products - the NT. This is a rational thing to do, as the Church both predated the NT and canonized it.

I live in a majority Catholic country, so I know that in real life it’s patently silly to imagine an entire population agree on anything let alone everything.

Probably why the Church doesn’t exist as a sum-function of the attitudes of the laity. When something becomes part of the Magisterium, a “Catholic” that continues in dissent is known as “wrong”.

When an evangelical Baptist suddenly disagrees with with free moral agency, they don’t have to be wrong. They just become a “reformed” Baptist.

The “mayhem” of relative, personal revelation, as you rightly pointed out.

---

As this doesn’t have much to do with the ad populum fallacy of “common sense” as it pertains to atheistic morality, perhaps another thread is in order?

 

[inocente]

If Catholicism was bibliocentric, then this would be a problem. However, as Catholicism rightfully reserves authoritative translation to its episcopate, it’s not. The faithful do not submit directly to scripture, they submit to the living Church established by Christ and His apostles, who wrote NT of the bible.
We focus on the source - Christ’s Church; not just one of the Church’s many products - the NT. This is a rational thing to do, as the Church both predated the NT and canonized it.

There are posters who tell me they represent all the Catholics in the world.

Probably why the Church doesn’t exist as a sum-function of the attitudes of the laity.

I’d have thought the reason is the Holy Spirit. I stand corrected.

As this doesn’t have much to do with the ad populum fallacy of “common sense” as it pertains to atheistic morality, perhaps another thread is in order?

Most Catholics I know use common sense. They use it because they are human and according to Aquinas it is part of their human nature.

They do by nature things required by the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Romans 2).

I’ve never met any Catholic who makes moral decisions using symbolic logic. Or who just blindly follows rules. And many decide to buy the condoms on display in every supermarket here. And most approve equal marriage.

Sorry to be the bearer of so much reality.

 

[Peter_J]

But there are posters who tell me they represent all the Catholic posters here, and all the other Catholics in the world too

Oh I see, I didn’t realize that about them. Must be nice.

 

[Peter_J]

(Just saying. )

 

[Vonsalza]

There are posters who tell me they represent all the Catholics in the world.

If they’re not the Pope Ex-Cathedra, an official representative for the College of Bishops or something along those lines, then they do not.

That doesn’t mean they’re right or wrong. It just means that they do not personally rep all the Catholics in the world.

I’d have thought the reason is the Holy Spirit. I stand corrected.

Welcome back to the Church.
Holy Spirit =/= sum opinion of the broader laity

Most Catholics I know use common sense. They use it because they are human and according to Aquinas it is part of their human nature.

They do by nature things required by the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. (Romans 2).

As we’ve exhaustively shown, “common sense” is the alignment of attitudes and beliefs by those that already hold them in common. Thus when we disagree on something that others may feel is “common sense”, we cannot appeal to “common sense” to settle the dispute because it is the very thing undergoing scrutiny.

And for the umpteenth time, you can’t use Aquinas in a dispute with an atheist. First, he’s a Catholic theologian. Second, his “natural law” appeals to the self-evident metaphysical - which is rejected by a materialist approach. Additionally, as the metaphysical assumes the existence of underlying, driving deity, which an atheist also rejects, “natural law” cannot be used.

I’m sure we agree an atheist would likely find Romans 2 equally questionable.

 

[inocente]

As we’ve exhaustively shown, “common sense” is the alignment of attitudes and beliefs by those that already hold them in common. Thus when we disagree on something that others may feel is “common sense”, we cannot appeal to “common sense” to settle the dispute because it is the very thing undergoing scrutiny.

And yet everyone does, Catholic or otherwise. We find it impossible to understand how anyone could have thought slavery or child labor or only educating boys, etc., was moral. In 200 years time, people will look back at us and find it impossible to understand some of our morality.

There is a very strong emotional content to morality. The Samaritan feels pity. We can’t consciously calculate pity, we feel it. Just as we feel anger at injustice. The feelings well up from our unconscious - “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts”.

You may not like the messiness and may feel you have a better mousetrap. But Catholic or otherwise, atheist or otherwise, we’re not computers so you can’t amputate our feelings of common sense. After all, lacking or suppressing those emotions is a mental disorder - psychopathy.

*And for the umpteenth time, you can’t use Aquinas in a dispute with an atheist. First, he’s a Catholic theologian. Second, his “natural law” appeals to the self-evident metaphysical - which is rejected by a materialist approach. Additionally, as the metaphysical assumes the existence of underlying, driving deity, which an atheist also rejects, “natural law” cannot be used.

I’m sure we agree an atheist would likely find Romans 2 equally questionable.*

Nope, first Aquinas was a philosopher. He believed God is rational and so his natural law doesn’t need to appeal to divinity, it’s just as rational as any of the secular natural law systems you keep overlooking. Just as disputable, but not inferior in logic.

Your assertion that metaphysics relies on a deity is … just weird. We’ve been over this before. You’re wrong, everyone else is right. As per usual. You must be used to it by now. Nothing to see here, move along please.

I’m sure we agree an atheist would likely find Romans 2 equally questionable.

I think those verses (Romans 2:14-15) tally quite well with current theories. Part of our nature is to be motivated to be moral, and there are emotional and rational contents we sometimes have to wrestle to reconcile.

 

[Vonsalza]

We find it impossible to understand how anyone could have thought slavery or child labor or only educating boys, etc., was moral.

There are those on the planet that still think so. They obviously don’t hold our values.

But Catholic or otherwise, atheist or otherwise, we’re not computers so you can’t amputate our feelings of common sense.

Nor would I want to. It’s just completely useless in a debate.

If you want to allude to the fact that when you toss a ball in the air it will come back down, don’t allude to it as “common sense”. Allude to it as “evidence for gravity”.

Nope, first Aquinas was a philosopher. He believed God is rational and so his natural law doesn’t need to appeal to divinity…
Your assertion that metaphysics relies on a deity is … just weird. We’ve been over this before. You’re wrong, everyone else is right. As per usual.

Oh?

plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-law-ethics/#NatLawDivPro
While our main focus will be on the status of the natural law as constituting the principles of practical rationality, we should consider for a moment at least the importance within Aquinas’s view of the claim that the natural law is an aspect of divine providence. The fundamental thesis affirmed here by Aquinas is that the natural law is a participation in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). The eternal law, for Aquinas, is that rational plan by which all creation is ordered (ST IaIIae 91, 1); the natural law is the way that the human being “participates” in the eternal law (ST IaIIae 91, 2). While nonrational beings have a share in the eternal law only by being determined by it — their action nonfreely results from their determinate natures, natures the existence of which results from God’s will in accordance with God’s eternal plan — rational beings like us are able to grasp our share in the eternal law and freely act on it (ST IaIIae 91, 2).​

On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being. It is also clear that the paradigmatic natural law view rules out a deism on which there is a divine being but that divine being has no interest in human matters.

Rebutted in full… An atheist cannot refer to classic natural law, Aquinas, or a book written by Paul of Tarsus for the Christian instruction of the faithful in Rome. The precepts of these do not align with the materialism by which an atheist denies God.

This isn’t the first time I’ve cited these. As such, your continued denial is proof-positive that you can lead a Spanish donkey to the water, but you cannot make him drink.

 

[inocente]

As such, your continued denial is proof-positive that you can lead a Spanish donkey to the water, but you cannot make him drink.

Racist slur.

 

[Vonsalza]

Racist slur.

Tragically absurd.

However, despite this barefaced and failed attempt at a red herring to steer the focus away from your weak rhetoric, these facts remain:

“Common sense”, when used in an argument, is a perfect example of the ad populum fallacy. While the construct may still have use, such use exists outside the context of debate - particularly apologetics.

Aquinas’ “Natural Law” exists because of “God’s will in accordance with his eternal plan”, per the text. Thus, your claim that “[Aquinas] believed God is rational and so his natural law doesn’t need to appeal to divinity” is absolutely, demonstrably false.

Next, you claim that “Your (Vonsalza’s) assertion that metaphysics relies on a deity is … just weird” is also flatly refuted by the text. “On the side of metaphysics, it is clear that the natural law view is incompatible with atheism: one cannot have a theory of divine providence without a divine being.”
As it relates to morality (the purpose of this thread), there is no metaphysical morality without a divine driver. Unless, of course, the Philosophy Department at Stanford has it wrong and a Spanish Baptist commenter on a Catholic forum has it right.

If you want to cry “racism” when your arguments are flatly refuted, knock yourself out. You alone bear the consequences for that childish behavior.