Morality without God?

[Tyrion]

Empirical evidence, please, for your faith-filled assertion that “there is only ONE method”. Thanks.

I never said that every claim needs to be empirically verified in order to be acceptable. So your demand is ridiculous. The claims pertaining to the objective reality are the ones which need empirical verification. The propositions of mathematics, logic and epistemology as well as the subjective claims about reality need not be and cannot be empirically verified. But since this is way over your head, I will not waste more time to alleviate your ignorance.

 

[Sair]

Atheists who claim that their morality is based on some moral code higher than their feelings are basing their morality on a lie and/or they’re fooling themselves, just like atheists might think theists do for basing their morality on an imaginary guy in the sky.

I said earlier that atheists have never built a successful society (I don’t count Communism or Nazism).

Atheist morality is the morality of the culture they inhabit minus the harder teachings, usually sex, marriage, and the care of undesirables.

Theists build their morality on feelings as well - it’s just that their feelings are directed towards the imaginary guy in the sky that they believe is a real person who will see everything they do or don’t do and reward and punish them accordingly. Or perhaps, if they are simply a bit more empathetic, they respond the presence of this belief within their faith communities.

 

[Sair]

There is nothing wrong with doubting, Tyrion. That’s quite acceptable.

When you say, “I won’t believe until there is empirical proof” well, then that is irrational.

Not to mention it’s contradictory. Because, of course, if you subscribe to “I won’t believe until there is empirical proof” but you don’t have empirical proof that this paradigm is true, then you are not subscribing to your own paradigm.

Empirical evidence and ‘proof’ are quite different things.

If everyone suspended belief until there was proof, even to the relatively generous legal standard of beyond reasonable doubt, we would never do anything for fear of being mistaken.

The problem with all supernatural claims is that evidence is considered largely irrelevant to belief.

 

[Sair]

Peter

**This kind of “atheism” applied to ethics means that there is no right or wrong in me making a determination that, for example, gaining power over others and consolidating that power by building up a security network of thugs could be in my best interest and that “others” who I deem outside of my network are dispensable or of no value. **

Right. In a godless world the thug’s morality has as much validity as anyone else’s if he asserts that might is right and he has all the might he needs. The only person who can dispute this effectively is the thug down the street whose gang is planning a takeover.

Because, goodness knows, there’s absolutely no evidence that the “might=right” approach has actual negative outcomes for real sentient beings…and if it does, well, who cares as long as the mighty are able to maintain their hold over the ignorant and powerless masses?

Sounds rather like the approach adopted by the Catholic Church for much of its history, come to think of it…pre-Enlightenment, of course…

 

[Sair]

Empirical evidence, please, for your faith-filled assertion that “there is only ONE method”. Thanks.

But if you’re a Roman Catholic, then by definition you believe there is only one method for approaching the truth, and that is to adhere to each and every doctrine prescribed by the Catholic Church! Empirical evidence, please…

 

[Sair]

I said earlier that atheists have never built a successful society (I don’t count Communism or Nazism).

That’s good, because Nazism, in particular, and rabid communism bear far more resemblance to religious faith than they do to atheism. Both invest in a faith-based view of reality and exhibit a reluctance to acknowledge actual evidence.

Atheist morality is the morality of the culture they inhabit minus the harder teachings, usually sex, marriage, and the care of undesirables.

And yet you’ll notice that most religious faiths have their share of ‘undesirables’ who are left on the fringes without community support… Or if such support is offered, it comes at the cost of rejecting whatever characteristics are deemed undesirable for the faith community, like homosexuality. “Of course we’ll accept you, as long as you deny everything you are…”

 

[Sair]

my :twocents:

you are arguing about “soul”;
understand that the concept describes something as real to me
as the wetness i feel, just having come in from a winter storm

ppl ask for a sign
problem is that it is everywhere - there is one miracle
consider that it is our understanding of the world,
what defines us and gets us by day by day,
that is actually blocking your ability to discern it
we exist as a mental “framework” in which we fit “data”
problem is that new information tends to be reduced to things we understand
and can be grossly distorted in order to maintain the integrity of this “structure”
again, the problem is making contact with things that are new,
especially when what we are looking for is something that encompasses all

i would suggest trying again with prayer, sticking with it, sorting out what assumptions might make it feel odd - see where it takes you.
another approach you might want to look into if you don’t yet trust Catholicism/Christian approaches (the Church offers a very rational system that describes and is a means by which we relate to the One true Spirit that is the Ground of all Being) is something like Zen - if you buy my idea that your own thoughts and perspectives are limiting your ability to grow in knowledge - look into koans - they are paradoxical statements or questions used in meditation where the effort to “solve” it exhausts the analytic intellect and egoistic will, opening one’s mind to what is real. You may find your soul, which is who you are; your actual being here right now.

When you invest belief in the Christian God or any supernatural being, you cut yourself off from the genuine experience of community with nature that is our birthright as natural beings. You look beyond the natural, seeking enlightenment where it cannot be found.

When we fight against nature, whether for control or for a sense of superiority, we deny ourselves. If we seek to transcend nature, we may well find ourselves floundering, trying to overcome the world rather than embrace it and live within it.

Find what limits you the least, and go with it…

 

[Peter_Plato]

When you invest belief in the Christian God or any supernatural being, you cut yourself off from the genuine experience of community with nature that is our birthright as natural beings. You look beyond the natural, seeking enlightenment where it cannot be found.

When we fight against nature, whether for control or for a sense of superiority, we deny ourselves. If we seek to transcend nature, we may well find ourselves floundering, trying to overcome the world rather than embrace it and live within it.

Find what limits you the least, and go with it…

All of this above strikes me as quite ironic, but, even more so, despite all your talk of the supernatural, it is a flight into the higher reaches of fantasy that not even the most religious person would dare to take.

You conveniently ignore that it is modern science and secularism that seeks with its whole endowment to “transcend nature.” What is technology all about except overcoming the limitations set upon human beings by nature? Lest you forget you have advocated for things like birth control, IVF and same sex liaisons. All of which are direct forays into the task of throwing off nature, as are all technological developments. It is interesting and even more disturbingly amusing, actually, that you can state things like the following without a trace of cognitive dissonance.

*When we fight against nature, whether for control or for a sense of superiority, we deny ourselves. If we seek to transcend nature, we may well find ourselves floundering, trying to overcome the world rather than embrace it and live within it.
*

Yet, you have no qualms about “controlling” reproduction and allowing individuals to engage in sexual acts that “overcome” or ignore the purpose for the equipment they have endowed by nature. Science is all about trying to “overcome the world,” whereas religion is about having faith in the purpose of God expressed in and through nature. That is why, by the way, that most Catholic posters on this site appeal to the “natural moral order” which you have dismissed as “indeterminable” in a number of instances.

I suggest you read The Abolition of Man to refocus your perspective on the real issues in question.

 

[PRmerger]

I never said that every claim needs to be empirically verified in order to be acceptable. So your demand is ridiculous.

Then you are, amusingly, proclaiming a faith-filled doctrine. You have no studies that back up your assertion.

That’s fine, of course. Faith-filled is absolutely kosher here on a Catholic forum.

 

[PRmerger]

The problem with all supernatural claims is that evidence is considered largely irrelevant to belief.

This comment sounds like you have never been exposed to Catholic theology

Perhaps your objection is to fideism, but that is something that is rejected by the Catholic Church, so you are consonant with Catholics on that objection.

 

[PRmerger]

But if you’re a Roman Catholic, then by definition you believe there is only one method for approaching the truth, and that is to adhere to each and every doctrine prescribed by the Catholic Church! Empirical evidence, please…

Again, your proclamation of what Catholicism teaches is quite uninformed.

You are arguing against fideism, which is rejected by the CC.

As the great encyclical Fides et Ratio (that is, Faith and Reason) proclaims: we have “the conviction that there is a profound and indissoluble unity between the knowledge of reason and the knowledge of faith.”

Amen!

 

[gentle_atheist]

Then why was Galileo convicted of heresy?

 

[Peter_Plato]

But if you’re a Roman Catholic, then by definition you believe there is only one method for approaching the truth, and that is to adhere to each and every doctrine prescribed by the Catholic Church! Empirical evidence, please…

Actually, the Catholic position is that there is one Truth, that aspects of that truth can be found and verified by empirical evidence, but that those which are beyond the scope of the empirical have been provided to us through revelation by the loving God who is responsible for all that exists. The reason, ultimately, that some of the basic “facts” of existence must be provided to us is because creation itself is not logically necessary, and therefore not susceptible to “proof,” but contingent upon providential creativity and intent.

Empirical evidence is fine, as far as its reach allows, but to insist on empirical evidence to address every aspect of truth is to make, even Tyrion admits, an unwarranted demand.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then why was Galileo convicted of heresy?

To put it succinctly because he attempted to push science beyond its “natural” limitations into areas where it has no warrant to make assertions. Science deals, by it own definition of methods, with strictly physical and quantifiable entities. It cannot make definitive claims about the supernatural without assuming the absolute primacy of the natural.

Your question is off topic, however try: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=752119

 

[Aloysium]

When you invest belief in the Christian God or any supernatural being, you cut yourself off from the genuine experience of community with nature that is our birthright as natural beings. You look beyond the natural, seeking enlightenment where it cannot be found.

When we fight against nature, whether for control or for a sense of superiority, we deny ourselves. If we seek to transcend nature, we may well find ourselves floundering, trying to overcome the world rather than embrace it and live within it.

Find what limits you the least, and go with it…

you are mistaken

at any rate, i am thinking that it is possible for an atheist to have a moral code given that there is a conscience

it is clear that ppl who have been uprooted from their culture or whose cultures have been crushed still have a sense of what is right and wrong

This might not be the case with perhaps even the majority of atheists however,
like the ones involved in the bus advertisments a few years back, which i believe was supported by Richard Dawkins:
“There’s probably no God; now stop worrying and enjoy your life.”

This is where it gets scary; why would someone be worried about God when He has your best interests at heart.
I see it as a message to ignore one’s conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Bradski

**Don’t you ever simply make your own mind up about things? Do you always need guidance? **

Not always. Many aspects of our religion have an appeal to reason and/or common sense. As for example that killing one’s unborn child is heartless and cruel. But when in a quandary, one consults Scriptures and the Church. Certainly with respect to the mysteries of faith, one does not create the truth out of one’s own head.

Reading lots of Aquinas will disabuse anyone of the idea that religion is for people who can’t add two and two to get four without running to the Church for help.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Sair

Because, goodness knows, there’s absolutely no evidence that the “might=right” approach has actual negative outcomes for real sentient beings…and if it does, well, who cares as long as the mighty are able to maintain their hold over the ignorant and powerless masses?

More than anyone else the Catholic Church saved Western Civilization from thugs down the street.

Cardinal Stephen Langton engineered King John’s submission to the Magna Carta. King John was a thug.

The popes of the Middle Ages successfully encouraged resistance to the sweep of the Muslim invaders (thugs) of Europe.

The case of Galileo notwithstanding, the Church was hardly a thug with respect to the advance of science throughout the Renaissance.

To this day, the Vatican hires its own astronomer, and it was a Catholic priest (George LeMaitre) who led Einstein and others to discover the Big Bang.

 

[Bradski]

Not always.

That’s fine. I didn’t ask if you did it all the time. Just whether you did it or not.

Now, let’s assume that the moral quandry you find yourself in is not covered by anything on which the Catholic church has made a pronouncement. The answer doesn’t appear in scripture. In short, you have no external guidance.

Then what choice do you have except for you yourself to make the decision on what the correct course of action should be?

Yes, I’m sure you can pray, but it goes without saying that someone facing the same problem might do the exactly the same and come up with a decision that is totally opposite to yours.

Apart from the ten commandments (or however many you think there may be), there are countless ocassions when you have to make decisions on morality yourself. And they can’t be divinely led because other Catholics will have different views. Unless you want to suggest that you are always right.

So what’s the difference between you making a decision and me making one if neither relies on religion/Chrisitanity/Catholicism/God/Scriptures etc.

 

[Hamlet123]

Well, his god may be bigger than yours.

But aren’t we looking at this in too simplistic terms? The examples everyone uses for morality are all ones to which everyone would agree. But what about the more esoteric ones.

There are plenty of moral quandaries which would divide any group of Christians. If there is no clear cut answer, no scripture on which to base a decision, no guidance from the Vatican, then what does your average Catholic do? Pray?

I’d guess so. But I’d bet there would be many moral decisions that Catholic A, after checking with the Almighty, would make that would be directly in opposition to Catholic B who went through the same process.

Don’t you ever simply make your own mind up about things? Do you always need guidance?

Before “making my own mind up” one must develop his mind. If he develops a poor conscience you can bit your bottom Marxist he will make poor decision that will hurt himself and others.

 

[Bradski]

Before “making my own mind up” one must develop his mind. If he develops a poor conscience you can bit your bottom Marxist he will make poor decision that will hurt himself and others.

Well, let’s assume that two people have well developed minds, shall we? How do they each reach a decision on a moral problem if there is no external help available and how do you decide which of them is correct if they decide on opposing actions.