B
Bradski
Guest
The End.
- Status
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
**Which begs the question: What on earth was the point in asking the original question? **
The original question asks people who have no religion to provide a basis for morality.
You have yet to provide an answer. All we hear from you is something about the Golden Rule, which you know very well is provided for in most of the world’s major religions in one form or another. In Western Civilization its main source is Christ.“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Where is the great unbeliever in Western Civilization who has said as much without being indebted to the fact that Christ said it first?
**Which begs the question: What on earth was the point in asking the original question? **
The original question asks people who have no religion to provide a basis for morality.
You have yet to provide an answer. All we hear from you is something about the Golden Rule, which you know very well is provided for in most of the world’s major religions in one form or another. In Western Civilization its main source is Christ.“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Where is the great unbeliever in Western Civilization who has said as much without being indebted to the fact that Christ said it first?
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
" Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction." Immanuel Kant
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Jesus Christ
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” Jesus Christ
J
John_Savage
Guest
If morality is something real, having to do with the order of the universe, then it would have to have always been. People at all times in all places have recognized that there’s an order. Some societies have come closer to Christianity than others. Judaism and Christianity have articulated it best, having received revelation.
The break with atheism is in the first part. There’s no moral order to the universe. This isn’t an insult, but a logical consequence. Atheists can claim that there’s a way to order society so that their time on earth is the most pleasant possible.
The break with atheism is in the first part. There’s no moral order to the universe. This isn’t an insult, but a logical consequence. Atheists can claim that there’s a way to order society so that their time on earth is the most pleasant possible.
L
Linux
Guest
If we believe in rational thinking, then we should also believe that our behaviour should reflect our rational thinking. This is to say that our behaviour as persons ought to be rational if we respect rationality.
“Treat people as you would like to be treated”. Is that a “moral truth” or a “pragmatic truth” Bradski?
If its a “moral truth”, then what are the rational grounds for believing that there is such a thing as a “moral truth”?
If its merely a “pragmatic truth”, then how do you deal with the fact that one does not always receive or benefit from reciprocity on the bases of treating people nicely?
It would seem that the golden rule does not always have a pragmatic benefit and can even be a hindrance to living a great life (nice guys finish last; might makes right), and pragmatism is the only rational reason somebody should behave in a particular way or make sacrifices absent the belief that moral truth exists. Otherwise it make no rational sense to make sacrifices if there is no pragmatic benefit.
Do you see what I am getting at?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed, Linux, indeed.
Catholics proclaim that our Christian ethos is supra-rational, not merely rational.
For, truly, how rational is it to give your cloak to the one who has none?
How rational is it to offer your life in sacrifice for another?
Not very. :nope:
E
Eleve
Guest
It’s perfectly rational if you think that morality is a form of practical reason. Aquinas did.
L
Linux
Guest
Personally I don’t know what supra-rational means or what benefit it can give to this discussion. To me choices are either rational or they are not. To live by the golden rule as a moral absolute is only rational if we ought to love each-other as we would love ourselves. It only makes sense if there is such a thing as moral truth. If the fundamental cause of all contingent reality is literally love itself, then it makes sense to say that some human actions are truly selfish and that one ought to make sacrifices in so far as it reflects the nature of love to do so. Otherwise the golden rule is not always rational. There is sometimes a pragmatic bases for treating others as we would like to be treated when we can see that there is a practical benefit, but there is not always a benefit and thus the concept is only applicable relative to the particular situations in which we find ourselves and not absolute like moral truth. A moral truth is true regardless of whether there is a pragmatic benefit or not.
B
Bradski
Guest
You should Google game theory and read up on it.
No it doesn’t. It asks if there can be morality without God. That would be your god unless I’m mistaken. So the question is applicable to Hindus for example, not just atheists. There is an assumption within the question that someone who is not a Christian cannot have any basis for moral behaviour.
We have seen that that is not the case.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Bradski, you are simply wrong. The only valid Catholic response is that there has always existed a Natural Moral Law which could be learned by man by the proper application of his intellect to a reflection upon the various realities of his existence. All cultures and societies recognize the first self evident principle of this Natural Moral Law - do good and avoid evil. Even atheists and animists live according to this law. But man, because of the wounds of original sin, cannot arrive at a complete understanding of this Law.
The point in asking the question was to clarify that a complete understanding of the moral law can only be had through Divine Revelation and clear teaching of the Catholic Church. Which, as you know, is one of the missions of the Church - to convert men to a complete understanding of the moral law.
L
Linux
Guest
If you have an argument then present it.
I disagree. You have no rational basis for virtuous acts such as sacrificing your life.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Use this parallel.
Premise: Things can be natural. Or unnatural.
This is true.
But things can also be supernatural.
So apply that to the concept of “rational”.
There need not be a dichotomy between “rational” or “not rational”.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Bradski
There is an assumption within the question that someone who is not a Christian cannot have any basis for moral behaviour.
That was no intended by the title of this thread unless you wish to read it that way. What’s being asked here is not whether there can be morality without God, but what would be the basis for morality without God. The person who has no religion has to provide a standard by which things are judged right or wrong. He can’t just make one up out of his own head and demand that the world conform to his standard. But since atheism makes no claims concerning morality, the atheist needs to explain where he gets his morality from, and upon what authority if anyone (other than himself).
There is an assumption within the question that someone who is not a Christian cannot have any basis for moral behaviour.
That was no intended by the title of this thread unless you wish to read it that way. What’s being asked here is not whether there can be morality without God, but what would be the basis for morality without God. The person who has no religion has to provide a standard by which things are judged right or wrong. He can’t just make one up out of his own head and demand that the world conform to his standard. But since atheism makes no claims concerning morality, the atheist needs to explain where he gets his morality from, and upon what authority if anyone (other than himself).
E
Eleve
Guest
What basis do Christians have for doing it?
B
Bradski
Guest
Evolutionary game theory explains how altruistic behaviour is beneficial to the individual as well as the group.
And if I have no rational basis for sacrificing my life because I don’t believe in God, that would be applicable to anyone who does not believe in God. Do you hold to that?
But you specifically mean the Christian god. You are not asking if there can be morality without religious belief. So the question you are asking is not just applicable to atheists but to anyone who does not believe in God. That is, anyone who is not a Christian.
L
Linux
Guest
It is evident to me that it is not always beneficial to treat people as I would treat my self. Practical experience.
Yes
P
PRmerger
Guest
Because we recognize the inherent dignity of the human person, based on being made in the image and likeness of God.
B
Bradski
Guest
So as I said above, it would apply to all non-Christians. A belief in a god will not give you a basis for morality but a belief in God will.
There are a lot of people who would disagree with that. Everyone who is not Christian in fact. The atheist and the Hindu and the Buddhist etc.
L
Linux
Guest
So? A mere disagreement is not telling me anything.
B
Bradski
Guest
Indeed not. But I’m often told that umpteen million Christians can’t be wrong. But you are now saying that two thirds of the planet have no basis for moral actions. Seems quite a big call…
And no other person than a Christian can do this? As above, two thirds of the population of the entire world cannot recognise the ‘inherent dignity of the human person’?
- Status