Morality without God?

[Leela]

Hi Davidv,

The commandment condemns “murder” not “killing”, so I stand by my statement.

But murder isn’t itself an act. It is the act of killing under certain circumstances. Again, this may just be a misunderstanding due to semantics. To me, murder is wrong by its definition since murder is wrong killing.

Who should I trust on this matter, the Church, or you?

I would hope that you would not accept anything uncritically on anyone’s say-so including my own. I wasn’t saying that you need to see it my way. I was just saying how I see it. I think I could convince you of my view under the premise that morality is concerned with human flourishing and can be studied rationally, but not if we see morality in fundamentally different ways.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
It seems to me that masturbation and homosexuality are two that the Church considers immoral in and of themselves. I don’t jold these to be immoral or ny acts in and of themselves.*

Atheists often are in the position of finding it difficult to find anything that is immoral in and of itself. By the same token, if that is granted for the sake of argument, then its corollary must also be granted: there can be no acts that are intrinsically moral in and of themselves.

In other words, protecting the innocent cannot be intrinsically moral. Safeguarding the environment cannot be intrinsically moral. Teaching the young to read and write cannot be intrinsically moral. Seeking economic justice cannot be intrinsically moral. Etc.

Do you think that none of these things are intrinsically moral just because *nothing *is intrinsically moral or immoral?

Be careful how you answer.

Hi Charlemagne,

I’ve been taking the issue to be about whether a specific physical action can be said to be wrong in general.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I said previously, "In my opinion, it seems that religion gives people bad reasons to behave well, when good reasons are actually available. "

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
But, you’ve said that the WHY’s about “behaving well” aren’t important! You claim that beliefs are irrelevant, and only “behaving well” is important!

Which is it? Can you please make up your mind!

I never said that the reasons for good behavior are unimportant or that beliefs are irrelevent. In fact, my position has always been the opposite.

I’ve consistently said that moral behavior is about human suffering and human flourishing and that beliefs that are not subject to revision in the face of new evidence and argument are problematic.

Truth is not subject to revision.

If you think that “truths” are subject to revision, then what you describe as “truths” aren’t in fact truths.

To not be able to tell the difference between truth and non-truth is a very serious and hazardous condition.

To you, what is the purpose of suffering? Why does it exist?

What does “human flourishing” mean, to you?

To not know the meaning of suffering, or that “human flourishing” is not a truth but an enslavement if taken FOR a truth, is to be in serious danger of proliferating evil through “good intent”.

I never said that beliefs in general are irrelevent. I’ve just claimed that a belief in God is not necessary for morality.

Without God one can’t tell truth from non-truth, and one often confuses “what works” with truth.

That is the way that evil creates it’s “boom and bust” cycle of the consequences of sin which maximizes human suffering and minimizes human “flourishing” through history.

Those who provide the means for evil to proliferate by their (sometimes conscious but far more likely unconscious) non-understanding of what God means, what religion means, what belief is and isn’t, and why those things are irreplaceable, is why the Catholic (Christian) mission is not a “co-exist and be quiet” one but rather an evangelical proclaiming-the-good-news one.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I differ from positivists in holding that values are not outside of the experience that logical positivism limits itself to. In fact, they are the essence of this experience. Values are more empirical, in fact, than subjects or objects. Any person of any philosophic persuasion who sits on a hot stove will verify without any intellectual argument whatsoever that he is in an undeniably low-quality situation: that the value of his predicament is negative.

But this situation (sitting on a hot stove) is a high-quality (positive value) one if the goal is to get the results of sitting on said stove with said backside!

If there are other motivations, or default motivations, for getting into this situation, then those will have their own valuations of this situation.

Once again, no experience has only one valuation.

We always have the choice of how we wish to valuate any situation. This is why God is important.

To not believe in God one must have reason to do so. That reason is to do as we wish instead of as we should.

This low quality is not just a vague, woolly-headed, crypto-religious, metaphysical abstraction. It is an experience. It is not a judgment about an experience.

Wrong again. There is no “mechanism” which assigns value to any experience other than our beliefs. They do not happen automatically.

Robot world does not exist, regardless of how much we might want it to so as to minimize our “frustrated wishes”, for human persons.

We have a culturally inherited blind spot here. Our culture teaches us to think it is the hot stove that directly causes the oaths. It teaches that the low values are a property of the person uttering the oaths. Not so.

The value is between the stove and the oaths.

This is similar to the “love the sinner and hate the sin” situation, except that it calls the sin more real than the sinner.

It’s error is that while it does see a distinction between the sinner and the sin, it call the sinner unreal and calls the sin true reality.

This is the old gnostic “matter is evil” and “utterly unworldly-ness is the only good” dualism, in “scientific disguise”.

Gnosticism is nearly infinite in it’s capacity for transmogrifying itself into “whatever works” (a scalar non-truth “engineering” valuation) to suck in the “emotionally frustrated” hyper-intellectual.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

That’s an interesting question and boils down to what you mean by “the Church.” I see people using this phrase a lot.

Although it likely goes unrecognized by yourself, what you no doubt refer to as “the Church" is none other than yourself. For there would be no church if not for your empowering one by your support. That’s my take anyway.

So I would say that you’ve made a personal decision and have decided to support/empower/authorize an institution that is essentially of your own making.

For all practical purposes, you are “the church.”

That explains why you’re a non-Catholic very well indeed!

If it’s “all about you” for you, then it’s “all about me” for me, right?

:shamrock2:

 

[davidv]

Hi Davidv,

But murder isn’t itself an act. It is the act of killing under certain circumstances. Again, this may just be a misunderstanding due to semantics. To me, murder is wrong by its definition since murder is wrong killing.

{snip}

If you don’t murder an act, I have no idea how to proceed with this discussion.
Have a nice day.

 

[Leela]

Hi cats,

Truth is not subject to revision.

If you think that “truths” are subject to revision, then what you describe as “truths” aren’t in fact truths.

Truth is truth and not subject to revision, but our ideas about what is true should be. If history teaches us anything it is that we should never feel too comfortable claiming to be in possession of the truth, and we should always hold our idea in such a way that they are open to revision in the face of new evidence and arguments.

To you, what is the purpose of suffering? Why does it exist?

What does “human flourishing” mean, to you?

See Letter to a Christian Nation thread for “human flourishing.” As for suffering, I expect that you are lookingt for the stock answer for the purpose of anything from the perspective of a Catholic. Suffering exists like everything else to glorify God?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

As to the point of lying to the Nazis about whether there is a Jewish person present, you can consider the great good which is a part of morality.

Hi Bobcat,

Are you saying that lying could be justified?

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

That explains why you’re a non-Catholic very well indeed!

If it’s “all about you” for you, then it’s “all about me” for me, right?

:shamrock2:

Hi Cats,

Do you think that atheists love their children any less?

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
Truth is truth and not subject to revision, but our ideas about what is true should be. If history teaches us anything it is that we should never feel too comfortable claiming to be in possession of the truth, and we should always hold our idea in such a way that they are open to revision in the face of new evidence and arguments.*

Am I too comfortable in possessing the truth that if I leap from the Empire State Building, I’m not going to be comfortable when I land?

 

[Leela]

Leela
*
Truth is truth and not subject to revision, but our ideas about what is true should be. If history teaches us anything it is that we should never feel too comfortable claiming to be in possession of the truth*, and we should always hold our idea in such a way that they are open to revision in the face of new evidence and arguments.

Am I too comfortable in possessing the truth that if I leap from the Empire State Building, I’m not going to be comfortable when I land?

Hi Charlemagne,

I don’t think so. I hope this isn’t something you are likely to try? If not, what is your point?

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If not, what is your point?

I should think the point is fairly obvious. There are some things that we should accept as absolutely true, such as the principle of gravitation. The point you had made earlier was that we should not get too comfortable with the truth. That is a sneering skeptical attitude that might get you into rather uncomfortable downward motion after leaning carelessly over the edge of the Empire State Building roof.

 

[Leela]

If not, what is your point?

I should think the point is fairly obvious. There are some things that we should accept as absolutely true, such as the principle of gravitation. The point you had made earlier was that we should not get too comfortable with the truth. That is a sneering skeptical attitude that might get you into rather uncomfortable downward motion after leaning carelessly over the edge of the Empire State Building roof.

Sneering? I’m not saying that we should expect to be proven wrong, I’m just saying that we need to be open to new evidence and argument. If someone claimed that they can fly, I’d be open to seeing her demonstrate. Do you see something wrong with that position?

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If someone claimed that they can fly, I’d be open to seeing her demonstrate. Do you see something wrong with that position?

Yes. I’d give her a sedative and put her to bed.

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
Truth is not subject to revision.

If you think that “truths” are subject to revision, then what you describe as “truths” aren’t in fact truths.

Truth is truth and not subject to revision, but our ideas about what is true should be.

This is our impasse.

I believe that truth can be known. You do not.

One either believes in revelation, or not. I do. You don’t.

While “what works” (scientific quasi-truth) can be known through non-revelatory means, actual truth is never known by scientific, non-revelatory, means.

Scientific quasi-truth, “what works”, is the only “truth” that one without “the Church” can know (consciously), and they therefore assume that it is sufficient for “right living” (secular “salvation”) as there is nothing else to consider.

But to invoke your upcoming “example of history”, when humans base their morality on anything but God qua God, instead of “god qua ‘that which gives me political advantage’”, which is the only source of revealed truth, which is the only actual truth that isn’t “what works” quasi-truth, massive suffering due to enslavement by “masters of quasi-truth” prevails.

If history teaches us anything it is that we should never feel too comfortable claiming to be in possession of the truth, and we should always hold our idea in such a way that they are open to revision in the face of new evidence and arguments.

Your reading of history is pure scientistic materialist propaganda.

Best of luck getting over that. It took me ages.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
To you, what is the purpose of suffering? Why does it exist?

What does “human flourishing” mean, to you?

See Letter to a Christian Nation thread for “human flourishing.”

As for suffering, I expect that you are lookingt for the stock answer for the purpose of anything from the perspective of a Catholic.

Suffering exists like everything else to glorify God?

Suffering exists to be relieved by men.

Suffering that cannot be relieved by others must be relieved by acceptance, by one’s self.

What glorifies God is the relief of suffering by men, and part of that is the acceptance of unrelieveable suffering by those who suffer.

So, you are partially correct, though you most likely didn’t know why.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatsAndDogs View Post
That explains why you’re a non-Catholic very well indeed!

If it’s “all about you” for you, then it’s “all about me” for me, right?

Do you think that atheists love their children any less?

As part of the Church, though very distantly in communion with her, even atheists have access to hearing portions (the LOUD portions) of natural law (given us by God), and love of their children is most often quite hearable and obeyable by even atheists.

Though, most atheists don’t hear the part about not killing their children if they’re not born yet if their god-let of “convenience” becomes offended.

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

If someone claimed that they can fly, I’d be open to seeing her demonstrate. Do you see something wrong with that position?

Yes. I’d give her a sedative and put her to bed.

Hi Charlemagne,

I have sympathy with that view, but I am also open to the possibility that humans have capabilities that have not yet been demonstarted but some day may be.

The difference between beleiving in God and believing in gravity is that gravity is based on evidence while belief in God is not. It is possible to imagine evidence that would convince us that gravity works differently than we believe, but people hold their belief in God as impervious to their own powers of doubt. While it is easy to imagine evidence that gravity doesn’t function like we think that would require us to rethink our understanding of gravity, there is no conceivable evidence that would be convincing to most believers that God doesn’t exist. I think that such a lack of openness to new evidence and arguments in reevaluating beliefs is a problem. Science has been so successful because the pencil is mightier than the pen.

Best,
Leela

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Science has been so successful because the pencil is mightier than the pen.

Should we therefore destroy and ban all pens and ink?

The pencil is more useful for doing the sub-science called “science” (quasi-truth).

The pen is more permanent and legible for doing the super-science of true religion (actual truth).

:shamrock2:

 

[Leela]

This is our impasse.

I believe that truth can be known. You do not.

One either believes in revelation, or not. I do. You don’t.

This quote from Einstein describes how I understand our relationship with truth.

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears the ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He wll never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility of the meaning of such a comparison.”

Try to think of what it would mean to directly compare a mental construct like “force equals mass times acceleration” to reality itself. You should hear the sound of one hand clapping. Einstein “cannot even understand the meaning of such a comparison,” but those who subscribe to Scientism think they can. To me, Scientism is confusing scientific models of reality with reality itself.

Your conception of truth sounds to me like that of the scientistic materialist that you criticize. You think that your words about reality correspond to reality itself. You keep trying to lump me in with scientistic materialists, but from my perspective, you have far more in common with them philosophically than I do.

You started with all the scientistic assumptions about reality, encountered all the philosophical problems with that position, and posited a God as a solution to those philosophical problems. Now when you encounter another person who does not believe in God, you assume that that person is a scientistic materialist like you were and needs to solve his philosphical problems in the same way you did.

But there are other solutions to the problems of scientism. I followed a different path from yours. I went back to the root of the problem and chose not to buy into the assumptions of scientism in favor of a more radical empiricism and pragmatism that does not exclude values and morals from rationality as materialism does.

Best,
Leela