Morality without God?

[Leela]

Is your claim that they were innocent? Justice requires action. The fact God acted means he was justified.

Hi Buffalo,

There must have been infants and pregnant women that were killed in the flood? Babies and the unborn certainly were innocent. Is God pro-life?

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

There must have been infants and pregnant women that were killed in the flood? Babies and the unborn certainly were innocent. Is God pro-life?

Best,
Leela

Why do you think all children are innocent? Children indoctrinated into evil are not innocent.

From a macro point of view we do not know how God handled their souls. We look at death and dying from a human perspective. Perhaps God took their human life away and held them until Jesus opened the gates of heaven. We can only speculate. However, we should not focus on this from our own limited perspective.

And yes - God is pro-eternal life.

 

[Leela]

Leela,
I am intrigued by your comments. I find it interesting that someone who “might” call themselves an athesist is on this site at all. I can identify, but am curious about your reasons for joining the site.
Thanks:thumbsup:

Hi Kathamm,

I think that dogmatic belief has become a huge liability in this post-9/11 world. I’d like to enbcourage a taste for evidence in support of our core beliefs and a view of morality as concerned with human flourishing instead of with angerring gods.

There is a war of ideas going on in the US where scientific knowlege has become suspect as biased or irrelevant.To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience.

The distinction between science and religion is not a matter of excluding our ethical intuitions and non-ordinary states of consciousness from our conversation about the world; it is a matter of our being rigorous about what is reasonable to conclude on their basis. We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality.

I am hopeful that the necessary transformation in our thinking will come about as our scientific understanding of ourselves matures. When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous and divisive, and only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Why do you think all children are innocent? Children indoctrinated into evil are not innocent.

From a macro point of view we do not know how God handled their souls. We look at death and dying from a human perspective. Perhaps God took their human life away and held them until Jesus opened the gates of heaven. We can only speculate. However, we should not focus on this from our own limited perspective.

And yes - God is pro-eternal life.

Hi Buffalo,

Are you suggesting that the infants and the unborn who died in the flood did something evil?

Best,
Leela

 

[DustinM]

Sigh
If someone lacks a belief in Zeus, what religion are they?

Anyways…

To anyone interesting in how morality relates to evolution: Morality has a survival advantage. It could have been evolved, as those animals (or even tribes) that don’t have morality are more likely to kill each other off. (Imagine tribe A fighting against tribe B. A allows for inter-tribal murder and B does not. B is more likely to have greater numbers, so they are more likely to survive the war with A. This is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)
We’ve seen time and time again that humans survive better when we work together.
If morality is tied so strongly to survival rates, I don’t see how evolution is out of the picture.
As someone who believes that God works through evolution, I personally have no problem with this.

 

[bobcat]

Does anyone study moral relativism. This concept really goes back to the Garden of Eden, but lets talk about modern times and relate it to the 60’s. This is the time when moral absolutism started getting hammered. I’ll explain.
The cardinal virtues to discuss are wisdom, courage and self-control. Wisdom is knowing the truth, especially the moral truth the truth about the good to be done. Courage means the will choosing the good even when it hurts, the will following the reason instead of the desire when reason says X is good and desires say X doesn’t feel good when it gives pain instead of pleasure. And self control means not following passion when passion says X is fun and reason says it is evil. It is also called Temperance or tempering the feelings or desires, controlling the desires, moderating them.

Self control is the least popular one, the one that gets all the bad press from the media. The psychologists called it and still do, repression, but it is al,most the essence of civilization. If reaon does not rule passion then passion will rule reason and then comes rationalization

 

[buffalo]

When we find reliable ways to make human beings more loving, less fearful, and genuinely enraptured by the fact of our appearance in the cosmos, we will have no need for divisive religious myths. Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous and divisive, and only then will we stand a chance of healing the deepest and most dangerous fractures in our world.

Best,
Leela

Reliable ways - give them a pill and remove free-will?

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

Are you suggesting that the infants and the unborn who died in the flood did something evil?

Best,
Leela

They could propagate evil.

 

[buffalo]

Sigh
If someone lacks a belief in Zeus, what religion are they?

Anyways…

To anyone interesting in how morality relates to evolution: Morality has a survival advantage. It could have been evolved, as those animals (or even tribes) that don’t have morality are more likely to kill each other off. (Imagine tribe A fighting against tribe B. A allows for inter-tribal murder and B does not. B is more likely to have greater numbers, so they are more likely to survive the war with A. This is an oversimplification, but you get the idea.)
We’ve seen time and time again that humans survive better when we work together.
If morality is tied so strongly to survival rates, I don’t see how evolution is out of the picture.
As someone who believes that God works through evolution, I personally have no problem with this.

What is the driving force to make moral choice to survive? Why should I care what goes on after I die?

It can be argued that child killing in the past was done to make survival easier for the parents. Laziness is a huge factor.

 

[crowonsnow]

Does anyone study moral relativism. This concept really goes back to the Garden of Eden, but lets talk about modern times and relate it to the 60’s. This is the time when moral absolutism started getting hammered. I’ll explain.
The cardinal virtues to discuss are wisdom, courage and self-control. Wisdom is knowing the truth, especially the moral truth the truth about the good to be done. Courage means the will choosing the good even when it hurts, the will following the reason instead of the desire when reason says X is good and desires say X doesn’t feel good when it gives pain instead of pleasure. And self control means not following passion when passion says X is fun and reason says it is evil. It is also called Temperance or tempering the feelings or desires, controlling the desires, moderating them.

Self control is the least popular one, the one that gets all the bad press from the media. The psychologists called it and still do, repression, but it is al,most the essence of civilization. If reaon does not rule passion then passion will rule reason and then comes rationalization

Self control is one of my favorite subjects. Kudos!

In the final analogy it all boils down to what a person wants. A person is catholic for a reason. You can’t just be catholic for the sake of being catholic, because your parents were catholic, etc. I guess maybe you can be but that sure is a shallow form of faith.

Believing in gods or being catholic is a means to accomplish something. The goal dictates whether the quest is moral. If you’re leaving a lot of dead humans in your wake, that’s hardly a moral quest and evidences an immoral goal. Many religious persons advocate and take this path. Religion therefore holds no moral high ground.

 

[Leela]

Reliable ways - give them a pill and remove free-will?

Hi Buffalo,

I doubt we are talking about a pill that makes people behave morally. I’m saying that if we can agree that morality is concerned with human flourishing, then there are objective moral truths to be discovered about how to increase human flourishing and decrease suffering. Certainly among these truths is that cruelty is wrong and that forcing women to wear burkas is not conducive to human flourishing.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

I doubt we are talking about a pill that makes people behave morally. I’m saying that if we can agree that morality is concerned with human flourishing, then there are objective moral truths to be discovered about how to increase human flourishing and decrease suffering. Certainly among these truths is that cruelty is wrong and that forcing women to wear burkas is not conducive to human flourishing.

Best,
Leela

Morality is the prescription for eternal life. One can be moral, live on an island and achieve it regardless of what else is happening on the earth. Now morality has additional benefits. It allows me to move from the island onto the mainland and be safe, work together, spread the Gospel, etc.

 

[buffalo]

Self control is one of my favorite subjects. Kudos!

In the final analogy it all boils down to what a person wants. A person is catholic for a reason. You can’t just be catholic for the sake of being catholic, because your parents were catholic, etc. I guess maybe you can be but that sure is a shallow form of faith.

Believing in gods or being catholic is a means to accomplish something. The goal dictates whether the quest is moral. If you’re leaving a lot of dead humans in your wake, that’s hardly a moral quest and evidences an immoral goal. Many religious persons advocate and take this path. Religion therefore holds no moral high ground.

Spreading the Gospel is an immoral goal? Religion, which means binding oneself to God, holds the highest moral ground. Mans practice of it can leave much to be desired. This is a failure of man not a failure of religion.

 

[bobcat]

I agree Crowonsnow. It is good to know someone is on the same path.

 

[Leela]

Morality is the prescription for eternal life.

Hi Buffalo,

I suppose you believe that prescription is contained in the Bible? Others read the same book and come to different conclusions about what is moral. Many many others are reading different ancient books and coming to different conclusions. How can we decide which view of morality is correct?

If we can agree that morality is concerned with human flourishing, then we can study morality as we would study anything else. If not, we’ll continue to fight over which of our holy books is the proper basis for morality.

Best,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Hi Buffalo,

I suppose you believe that prescription is contained in the Bible? Others read the same book and come to different conclusions about what is moral. Many many others are reading different ancient books and coming to different conclusions. How can we decide which view of morality is correct?

If we can agree that morality is concerned with human flourishing, then we can study morality as we would study anything else. If not, we’ll continue to fight over which of our holy books is the proper basis for morality.

Best,
Leela

We cannot independendly do it. Trying to do so is why we have over 30,000 Protestant denominations and only One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

How does one go about pcking the “right” religion?

Let’s discuss some criteria.

What do you look for?

 

[Fran65]

I’d like to enbcourage a taste for evidence in support of our core beliefs and a view of morality as concerned with human flourishing instead of with angerring gods.

Well, at least you are honest. A person who does not believe in God seeks converts…(I know you don’t like the term atheist)

There is a war of ideas going on in the US where scientific knowlege has become suspect as biased or irrelevant.To win this war of ideas, scientists and other rational people will need to find new ways of talking about ethics and spiritual experience.

I’m not sure who you have been talking to; but scientific knowledge is neither irrelevant nor suspect and it is certainly not the case in the UK.

We must find ways of meeting our emotional needs that do not require the abject embrace of the preposterous. We must learn to invoke the power of ritual and to mark those transitions in every human life that demand profundity — birth, marriage, death, etc. — without lying to ourselves about the nature of reality…

I am stunned that you know the nature of reality!

Only then will the practice of raising our children to believe that they are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu be broadly recognized as the ludicrous and divisive,

In those poorly chosen adjectives Leela, you have destroyed your credibility as someone who is interested in serious discussion. You are not Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens. We are not your anonymous ‘reading public’. You are writing on a Catholic discussion site to people with whom you were having a discussion about morality and God. This sort of rhetoric has no place here.

Just a couple of rules from the Forum Rules:

• Do not view the discussion area as a vehicle for single-mindedly promoting an agenda.
• Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

 

[Leela]

Hi Fran,

I’m not sure who you have been talking to; but scientific knowledge is neither irrelevant nor suspect and it is certainly not the case in the UK.

Unfortunately, the situation is quite different in the US. You’ve probably heard of George W Bush?

I am stunned that you know the nature of reality!

I never said I did. I just think we all need to stop pretending to know things that we don’t actually know? I think this certainty (faith) about things for which we have no evidence (or ambiguous evidence at best) is a serious threat to civilization. Islamic fundamentalism is really scary to me as I’m sure it is to you, but I am further discomforted by the fact that the ones demostrating the most moral clarity on the issue are Christian Fundamentalists like Bush. I don’t think the answer is to fight one mythic vision with another. I think we need to rid ourselves of dogmatic beliefs rather than mount another crusade?

In those poorly chosen adjectives Leela, you have destroyed your credibility as someone who is interested in serious discussion. …This sort of rhetoric has no place here.

I appologize for offending you. That is not my intent.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Why did you take that as a “no”?

Isn’t it verifiably insane to expect an infant to speak before he can speak?

Are you saying you’re quite obviously insane?

Hi Cats,

It was a joke to illustrate a point. I’m not actually insane,…

I know you’re only partially and manageably insane, being a so-called atheist. It’s not an atypical condition these days.

I just think it is as insane to expect a baby to have beliefs of any kind as it is to expect the baby to articulate any beliefs. I’m saying I can’t imagine what a belief is outside of language.

Why is it people always consider language as divorced from personhood? Oh, I forgot,… it’s harder to kill persons than to kill non-persons! Of course!

Beliefs are not “phonemes/symbols and grammar”. Beliefs are operative assumptions. They are those things which we can supposedly count on to be mostly predictable, for which we have an internal model which (hopefully) functions usefully.

That does not require language. Language is an interpersonal and (secondarily) organizational TOOL which our beliefs use.

Language does not form belief. Belief forms language.

To me beliefs are intellectual patterns which can’t develop without social patterns while a baby at birth is purely biological and not at all social let alone intellectual. It will quickly develop some social patterns but is a long way from having any ideas.

From the point of conception, the baby, the new person, is “counting on” things not-him. His “allowance” of those things to be his support are his beliefs. When one of these beliefs is “thrown into contrast”, by being threatened, and shown to not be completely “reliable”, FAITH is introduced by the HOPE that that BELIEF (the model of the thing which WAS supporting him but which is not now there) is still true but somehow being “interfered with” by some “evil force”.

This is not intellection, but first “emotional-ection” (!?) and then only intellectualized when an intellect semi-capable of dealing with it is has been formed.

God is unlearned. Atheists are made. Personhood precedes intellectual-hood.

One can’t be an atheist if one is not a “hyper-intellectual”.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Atheism isn’t a religion because it’s “not learning how to sew”. It is a religion because it has positive (posited) beliefs as to how reality works.

“Not learning how to sew” is not a hobby. A hobby is doing something that is “hobby-like”.

Atheism is a religion because it it “religion-like”. Catholicism is likewise a religion because it is “religion-like”.

What is it that you think all atheists positively assert about how the world actually is?

That the world is only a complex machine, of some sort, which it is best to know as much about as possible, so that I (the atheist) can be most prepared to deal with it’s machinations

:shamrock2: .