Morality Poll

[Bradski]

In Carrol’s argument, you’ll see that one decides to believe something because they accept the proof to be appealing to their standards.

That’s not correct. You cannot decide to believe something any more than you can decide not to believe something. What you actually do is decide to accept or reject evidence for whatever reason and that will lead you to either believing or not.

You cannot, for example, say to yourself: ‘I will believe in God’ without someone presenting some evidence for God’s potential existence (or perhaps receiving direct revelation from God). If you decide to accept the evidence (or accept that the revelation was genuine), you will automatically believe. Similarly, if you decide to reject the evidence, then again, you have no choice in the matter. You cannot believe.

You can, of course, decide to ignore the evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe – but then you are being perverse. I get that thrown at me sometimes when people accuse me of wilfully disbelieving in God. That is impossible. If I accepted the evidence for God’s existence (‘It’s all around you!’) then I would believe. I don’t, so I’m not.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

That’s not correct. You cannot decide to believe something any more than you can decide not to believe something. What you actually do is decide to accept or reject evidence for whatever reason and that will lead you to either believing or not.

You cannot, for example, say to yourself: ‘I will believe in God’ without someone presenting some evidence for God’s potential existence (or perhaps receiving direct revelation from God). If you decide to accept the evidence (or accept that the revelation was genuine), you will automatically believe. Similarly, if you decide to reject the evidence, then again, you have no choice in the matter. You cannot believe.

You can, of course, decide to ignore the evidence because it contradicts what you want to believe – but then you are being perverse. I get that thrown at me sometimes when people accuse me of wilfully disbelieving in God. That is impossible. If I accepted the evidence for God’s existence (‘It’s all around you!’) then I would believe. I don’t, so I’m not.

ManRay, I’ll answer you more fully tomorrow. I couldn’t resist checking the forum again, haha… In any case, there is a supernatural quality to Christian faith that is not present in ordinary belief. This is what makes it rational (without this supernatural element, believing in God would be irrational). So there are two elements to Christian faith. The first is the experience that I am calling “faith,” which then gives one the grounds to believe.

To Bradski, what I said is still correct. Here’s why:

“If you decide to accept the evidence (or accept that the revelation was genuine), you will automatically believe.”

You have merely pushed what I call believing one step back, to accepting the evidence. This is actually exactly what I said in:

“In Carrol’s argument, you’ll see that one decides to believe something because they accept the proof to be appealing to their standards.”

You decide to accept evidence, and then you automatically believe.

 

[Bradski]

To Bradski, what I said is still correct. Here’s why…
You decide to accept evidence, and then you automatically believe.

Then apologies for misinterpreting your meaning. I guess we’re on the same page in this regard.

It’s just that I had a debate with someone else on another forum not so long back and she was insistent that one could choose to believe or not irrespective of the evidence.

 

[Robert_Caritas]

I would first like to quote this sentence: “This is what makes it rational (without this supernatural element, believing in God would be irrational).” to “This is what makes it rational (without knowledge a supernatural element, believing in God would be irrational).”

The first sentence could imply the grave error that if we don’t feel faith then believing in God is irrational. It is not because we have not had experience of something that it does not exist, and I am sorely sorry to have implied such a thing about our Lord.

Then apologies for misinterpreting your meaning. I guess we’re on the same page in this regard.

It’s just that I had a debate with someone else on another forum not so long back and she was insistent that one could choose to believe or not irrespective of the evidence.

Good to hear that. I think I know what that other person meant, and your’s and mine’s shared position on evidence can give some truth to it. A person can effectively decide to reject evidence, and so reject the beliefs that they lead to.

Since you are debating with people of faith, you should also be aware that we probably won’t be able to always explain away intricate theological problems (which atheists often pose). Though these questions do have answers, in many situations it is better to just not try to find them too much, as they are often of little relevance to what is really important (serving Jesus-Christ and being a humble and charitable person), and it is very easy to make mistakes when reasoning them out. And if one makes such a mistake – instead of having just the burden of a difficult question, one finds oneself with the greater burden of having a difficult question and a delusional belief (the mistaken answer).

 

[Bradski]

Since you are debating with people of faith, you should also be aware that we probably won’t be able to always explain away intricate theological problems (which atheists often pose). Though these questions do have answers, in many situations it is better to just not try to find them too much, as they are often of little relevance to what is really important (serving Jesus-Christ and being a humble and charitable person), and it is very easy to make mistakes when reasoning them out. And if one makes such a mistake – instead of having just the burden of a difficult question, one finds oneself with the greater burden of having a difficult question and a delusional belief (the mistaken answer).

I don’t think that I could disagree with you more on this. I’m not really sure that I do a good job of being humble and charitable and part of the reason I post on forums such as this is to try to find out why.

I know what I feel and I’m confident in what I believe but I never used to spend a lot of time asking why. So I’m looking for the difficult questions to test myself. To see, in fact, if I’m being honest with myself.

If some of my beliefs eventually turn out to be delusional, then I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. If they turn out to be correct then I’ll be that much stronger for it. But I don’t see many Christians taking that chance.

 

[clem456]

Hey…you sound Jewish…I most certainly hold you in high esteem. I always seem to get at the core tenets of a persons position when I pick and prod. It’s served me well - Just look at these discussions!! Momma would be proud!!! Maybe I was having a moment of weakness, and wanted to make sure that I wasn’t losing the intellectual fight against my two selves…just kidding…cmon…dance with me.

How can you claim to bring out the core tenets of a philosophy you have clearly demonstrated you don’t understand? You are not getting these discussions because you are engaging in good faith, you are getting them because you and another poster are wildly in error about what Catholicism is. Wildly slinging around misrepresentations of a philosophy you know nothing about is not exactly starting a discussion. And hence, there is not much real discussion going on here, because you talking about something you don’t understand and evidently are closed to understanding.

Since you seem to not want to read the catechism to understand Catholicism, I would suggest another reading, this one by CS Lewis, called “Is Theology Poetry?”. It’s short, about 30 pages, and is part of an anthology called “The Weight of Glory”. It is a logical picking apart of objections to theism,specifically Chritianity.
One point he makes in the essay:
He points out a core difference between Atheism and Theism: one admits the existence only what it can observe and empirically prove with science.
The other admits that belief in a creator is justified, requiring faith. You might notice, the world of faith contains and accepts the world of science, but the world of science does not accept and contain the world of faith. If it recognizes faith at all, it categorizes it as a quaint expression of the imagination and emotions.
Interesting…which philosophy is closed off? Which philosophy is rigidly fundamentalist (since Christians are accused of this frequently, and you have demonstrated it well here).

 

[clem456]

I don’t think that I could disagree with you more on this. I’m not really sure that I do a good job of being humble and charitable and part of the reason I post on forums such as this is to try to find out why.

I know what I feel and I’m confident in what I believe but I never used to spend a lot of time asking why. So I’m looking for the difficult questions to test myself. To see, in fact, if I’m being honest with myself.

If some of my beliefs eventually turn out to be delusional, then I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it. If they turn out to be correct then I’ll be that much stronger for it. But I don’t see many Christians taking that chance.

You say Christians are not taking chances? If you come to understand what Christianity really is, you will see that it is the ultimate challenge to human beings. One of the key principles is death to self in service of others. That is challenging. Death to self. It’s not a life of comfort and certainty, although there are things to be certain of. It’s a life of constant conversion and leaving the old self behind. It’s not a religion of “arrival”, as in “I have arrived at the answers”. I’m not saying that some of us don’t act that way, but it is a deception. Constant conversion.

He said:

3 “Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

This is not a religion for the self satisfied and self justified, or for the comfortable. It’s about detachment and sacrifice. If you are “looking for the difficult questions to test myself”, this is the way.

 

[sophion]

What religion do you ascribe to that condones murder based on scripture?

i’m not saying that you should still go out there and kill infidels.

Who’s debating that people were killed?
You were the one divining that God condones murder based on your reading of the passage. You. No one else.

No one else??? my friend, there are lots of christians out there who had become apologists for genocide because they see this as it is:

**“put to death men and women, children and infants” **

while some christians would rather say its not literal BUT COULD NOT REALLY GIVE ANY OTHER MEANING to this. just closed their eyes and pretend the passage wasnt there.

what about you? tell me what this is besides the “interpretation” that god ordered infants to be killed.

 

[ManRay]

I think I’ve done a fabulous job. I’ve read the catechism. I don’t think you understand anything you read. You seem to be wildly in error about what reality is. Wildly slinging around misrepresentations of philosophy is not exactly starting a discussion…and on and on, and on.

See - I can do that too.

Thanx for your time though.

How can you claim to bring out the core tenets of a philosophy you have clearly demonstrated you don’t understand? You are not getting these discussions because you are engaging in good faith, you are getting them because you and another poster are wildly in error about what Catholicism is. Wildly slinging around misrepresentations of a philosophy you know nothing about is not exactly starting a discussion. And hence, there is not much real discussion going on here, because you talking about something you don’t understand and evidently are closed to understanding.

Since you seem to not want to read the catechism to understand Catholicism, I would suggest another reading, this one by CS Lewis, called “Is Theology Poetry?”. It’s short, about 30 pages, and is part of an anthology called “The Weight of Glory”. It is a logical picking apart of objections to theism,specifically Chritianity.
One point he makes in the essay:
He points out a core difference between Atheism and Theism: one admits the existence only what it can observe and empirically prove with science.
The other admits that belief in a creator is justified, requiring faith. You might notice, the world of faith contains and accepts the world of science, but the world of science does not accept and contain the world of faith. If it recognizes faith at all, it categorizes it as a quaint expression of the imagination and emotions.
Interesting…which philosophy is closed off? Which philosophy is rigidly fundamentalist (since Christians are accused of this frequently, and you have demonstrated it well here).

 

[sophion]

There is only one God, and Christianity has the fullness of truth regarding Him.

that is your opinion. to each his own i guess.

and uh, which brand of christianity is that? and what about the rest of them?

this is crazy.

 

[sophion]

God’s will was to kill these people, so it was good to do it.

there’s one example of an “apologist for genocide”

 

[clem456]

i’m not saying that you should still go out there and kill infidels.

No one else??? my friend, there are lots of christians out there who had become apologists for genocide because they see this as it is:

"put to death men and women, children and infants"

Specifically, which Christians are you referring to, that believe genocide is acceptable in God’s eyes? Specifically please, it’s a serious charge.
On this thread YOU are the only one, who reads this passage as God condoning murder. You are alone in your fundamentalism.

while some christians would rather say its not literal BUT COULD NOT REALLY GIVE ANY OTHER MEANING to this. just closed their eyes and pretend the passage wasnt there.

what about you? tell me what this is besides the “interpretation” that god ordered infants to be killed

.

It’s the story of the Jewish people, what they did, how they behaved, their relationship with God, how they lived that relationship, how they strayed, how God remained faithful. The story is composed of different types of literature: history, poetry etc etc. The Jewish people had an imperfect understanding of God, as we do today. In those times, God was seen as having motivations that we do not necessary apply to Him in our culture.

Please read the Cathechism IF you want to begin to understand the Catholic reading of scripture. You have been challenged a couple of times to learn something about that which you are disputing. Are you going to bargain in good faith or not?

 

[sophion]

Specifically, which Christians are you referring to, that believe genocide is acceptable in God’s eyes? Specifically please, it’s a serious charge.
On this thread YOU are the only one, who reads this passage as God condoning murder. You are alone.

you should have read the post right above yours:

God’s will was to kill these people, so it was good to do it.

---

It’s the story of the Jewish people, what they did, how they behaved, their relationship with God, how they lived that relationship, how they strayed, how God remained faithful. The story is composed of different types of literature: history, poetry etc etc. The Jewish people had an imperfect understanding of God, as we do today. In those times, God was seen as having motivations that we do not necessary apply to Him in our culture.

Please read the Cathechism IF you want to begin to understand the Catholic reading of scripture. You have been challenged a couple of times to learn something about that which you are disputing. Are you going to bargain in good faith or not?

so what do you think? did this story happen or not? did the israelites massacre entire peoples including their infants believing it was ordered by god?

 

[clem456]

you should have read the post right above you

:

Well you got me there. Another poster does believe that God actually told the Israelits to kill children. Good for you.

---

so what do you think? did this story happen or not? did the israelites massacre entire peoples including their infants believing it was ordered by god?

Yes according to the text it did happen that the Israelites engaged in battle and killed children.
That is not the point.
The point is, you reject religion because people are evil.
While at the same time, you cannot see that belief in atheism is responsible for the most horrendous mass murders in history, yet you will cozy up to it, while rejecting faith because of select Biblical verses. Can you say hypocrisy? Can you say blind fundamental Atheism?

 

[sophion]

Well you got me there. Another poster does believe that God actually told the Israelits to kill children. Good for you.

Yes according to the text it did happen that the Israelites engaged in battle and killed children.

i dont get it. you were surprised that a christian believed god ordered children killed, and then you admit the story really did happen.

That is not the point.
The point is, you reject religion because people are evil.

please dont jump into conclusions. getting out of religion was a long process for me. that story is just one of many factors.

While at the same time, you cannot see that belief in atheism is responsible for the most horrendous mass murders in history, yet you will cozy up to it, while rejecting faith because of select Biblical verses. Can you say hypocrisy? Can you say blind fundamental Atheism?

i know communists killed far more people in a relatively short time. whether or not it was atheism that caused is another matter.
im not an atheist.

 

[sophion]

My point here is that the “Prohibition for Murder” cannot be an “Absolute Morality”. Not even by religious standards. Even in Islam Mohammad went so far as have a nursing mother of many young children killed because she composed poetry that was insulting to him. He tortured and killed jews. He murdered prisoners of war, including teenage boys. Suicide bombers kill people believing its a guaranteed ticket to heaven.

Practically these are some grounds for killing people:

1. Assassinating the leader of a rogue nation.
2. Killing an unborn child if its the only way to save the sick mother.
3. Killing the innocent passengers of a hijacked aircraft by shooting it down before it hits the target. If there is no other way to save both in time.

---

so is there a specific moral law that will work absolutely all the time?

 

[shoe]

Do you believe an absolute morality can be achieved only through God?
Why or why not?

Since moral laws make it possible for people in every culture around the world to realize within themselves the difference between good and bad, for example, people everywhere understand abusing children is wrong, an absolute and universal moral standard that transcends humanity must therefore exist necessarily. And common sense indicates that such a moral code that is absolute and universal in nature requires a moral Lawgiver with the power to establish these objective moral truths within each individual. The moral code of right and wrong is so fashioned into the human makeup that people intuitively know when they have done right and are convicted by their conscience when they have missed the mark. I believe this inherent ability to know right from wrong that all human beings possess argues against the atheistic evolutionary worldview that states nothing plus no-one plus chance plus slime equals human morality.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

that is your opinion. to each his own i guess.

and uh, which brand of christianity is that? and what about the rest of them?

this is crazy.

I think perhaps you aren’t quiet realizing what objectivity and subjectivity mean. Something does not magically become subjective just because people disagree on the answer. Answers to questions are subjective when they depend on the person - does chocolate ice cream or strawberry ice cream taste better, for example - but they are still objective even when many people disagree if the answer does not actually depend on the people involved. God exists or does not whether I think He does or does not, so this is not a subjective matter. It could be a matter that lots of people are wrong about, but it is still very much objective - God does not exist for me and not exist for you. Such a statement would be meaningless.

Of course people disagree with me about religion, and of course I know this, and of course they would answer your question about objective morality differently. But I’m not them. There is no reason for me to pretend that I’m not correct just because others disagree. Again, the fact that many people disagree on a question does not make the answer to that question subjective.

Catholicism is right or it’s wrong. The answer is yes or no. Whatever the answer is, it is objective - it would make no sense to say that Catholicism is right for some and right for others. Since I firmly believe that it is right, of course I will speak as though it were right when you ask about what is objectively true. Catholicism is objectively true, and hence things which flow from it are objectively true.

And if you disagree, you are objectively wrong. I do not say this to be rude, but because if anyone really believes anything to actually be true, then they necessarily believe that anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong. This is clear. I cannot believe that “A” is true without thinking that “not A” is false.

So your argument that morality based on ideas upon which people disagree, such as religion, is subjective is just not correct. Such ideas of morality might simply be false if the ideas they are based upon is false, but then they are objectively false and simply wrong. Not subjective.

So I say again: Morality comes from God. The question of God’s existence, or of which religion most accurately portrays Him, is objective. You may feel free to attack this idea based on God not existing or God not being as we think He is. But claiming that this is subjective and hence doesn’t answer your question at all is simply wrong.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

My point here is that the “Prohibition for Murder” cannot be an “Absolute Morality”…

Practically these are some grounds for killing people:

---

so is there a specific moral law that will work absolutely all the time?

Yes. Murder is bad. You still don’t distinguish between murder and killing (and by your examples, think that killing is justified when it is not). What you proposed were grounds for killing. If they were truly grounds for killing, which some aren’t, then such killings would not be murder. A better direction for you to come from is “what is murder?”

The answer you would probably get is “killing that is not justified.” The next question would be “what justifies killing?” And that would be a long and complicated answer, but the fact that it would be long and complicated does not mean that it does not exist.

But I can give you a partial answer, one thing that is certainly and always true. It is not supposed to be a complete answer, mind you, only a (unless I mess up) loophole free absolute statement. And if I accidentally leave off some clause and leave a loophole, then the statement will be able to be expanded to close it by adding “and when X loophole doesn’t apply”.

Here we go: “It is always wrong to kill someone who you have never seen or heard of before, who is not noticeably doing anything at all other than just sitting there and who will not to your knowledge ever cause anything bad to happen by just sitting there, who’s future plans you have no idea about, who no one has instructed you to kill or even mentioned to you at all in any way, who you don’t think you are justified in killing, and who you have absolutely no motivation to kill whatsoever except perhaps a desire that did not spring from any source that you have been able to identify at all beyond a sudden feeling of ‘I want to kill that guy’.”

I think I’ve closed all loopholes. That should be an absolute statement. My point is, every time you point out an “exception” to a rule, you are not in fact showing that there is no rule, only that the rule needed to be stated more clearly in order to be precise. But rules can be complicated. Which is why we say that murder is unjustified killing, give a few guidelines to determine when killing is justified, and say figure it out yourself and avoid killing at all when possible, because unjustified killing is really bad and we don’t want to do it by accident.

Even when there is an absolute rule, it is not always easy or even necessary to state it with absolute clarity - not easy because there are a wide range of possible actions, not necessary because we’re not stupid and can generally get by by reasoning off a few principles. More precise statements are good because they narrow down the amount of ways you could mess up in your reasoning, but there is only so much time in the world and not all of it can be used to explain exactly under what conditions you can give someone a dirty look.

 

[sophion]

Catholicism is objectively true, and hence things which flow from it are objectively true.

how is catholicism objectively true?

Yes. Murder is bad. You still don’t distinguish between murder and killing (and by your examples, think that killing is justified when it is not).

someone here defined murder as killing the innocent. i agree. what about you?