Morality without God?

[Bradski]

So food exists because you want it? Interesting belief system.

Hey, take it up with PR. it was her idea:

We want food. Food exists.

 

[PRmerger]

Hey, take it up with PR. it was her idea:

Yep. And I borrowed it from CS Lewis.

If I may respond for Peter, he is saying, as per your “God exists only because we want him to exist, but he doesn’t really exist” paradigm: really? Does food only exist because we want it to exist, but it doesn’t really exist?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does a Catholic maintain an open mind about the teachings of the church? It appears to me not to be the case. It also appears to me that you are not in a position to pick and choose what constitutes morality. It has already been decided on your behalf.

Not having to work it out yourself seems to be the easier option.

You are correct in both respects because

1. Ethical truths are not dependent upon me as an individual, therefore I am not at liberty to concoct my own beliefs and follow them.

2)** As part of my formation as an ethical and free moral being I have a responsibility to freely** work out for myself the nature of moral truth. It is me as an agent with free will that must freely choose to be a moral and free agent. No one can “make me” be moral, it is something I must choose (freely) to become.

I may have an obligation to love others, but that does not preclude that I must do so of my own free will.

What is your point?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Yep. And I borrowed it from CS Lewis.

If I may respond for Peter, he is saying, as per your “God exists only because we want him to exist, but he doesn’t really exist” paradigm: really? Does food only exist because we want it to exist, but it doesn’t really exist?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Does a Catholic maintain an open mind about the teachings of the church? It appears to me not to be the case. It also appears to me that you are not in a position to pick and choose what constitutes morality. It has already been decided on your behalf.

Not having to work it out yourself seems to be the easier option.

I am, likewise, not at liberty to make up stuff about biology, chemistry or physics. These have already been decided, by reality, on my behalf. Neither do I “work these out for myself” except in the sense of coming to know the truth for myself.

That a body of scientific knowledge is found in a textbook does not mean that, therefore, there is no need for me to “work it out” for myself. Likewise, the Church having formulated a body of knowledge on religious and moral truth does not mean that it is no longer my responsibility to “work it out” myself.

Being open minded does not mean that I am at liberty to pick and choose what constitutes reality, but it does mean I can freely choose to pursue the truth about these matters or to ignore/deny the truth for the sake of thinking myself correct.

If Catholic teaching is true and constitutes an accurate construct of ultimate reality, that does not mean reality has been “decided.” It means that a body of knowlege about faith and morals has been made available. My liberty to maintain an open mind in attempting to understand that body of knowledge remains intact despite the fact that knowledge pre-existed me. I have no problem accepting the fact that truth about faith and morals has preceded me, just as I have no problem accepting that valid human understanding of chemistry or physics has.

Having an open mind does not entail I am at liberty to dictate to reality what comprises the essence of truth, it only means I have the responsibility to freely conform my mind to the truth, but not to force the truth to conform to my mind. Big difference.

 

[Tyrion]

I am, likewise, not at liberty to make up stuff about biology, chemistry or physics. These have already been decided, by reality, on my behalf. Neither do I “work these out for myself” except in the sense of coming to know the truth for myself.

It’s just like a Calculus student, Bradski. We don’t get to choose what’s a truth and what’s not. We grapple with coming to an understanding of the truth.

What a bunch of “doubleplusungood” answers… Science deals with what IS, ethics deals with how one ought to behave. Theology does not deal with reality, which can be independetly observed, investigated and VERIFIED.

If you do not accept calculus based upon what the teacher says, you can build up your own structure based upon the AXIOMS - and you will get the same answer.

If you do not accept physics and chemistry, do your own OBSERVATIONS, make your own inferences, do your own PREDICTIONS, and verify if your results reflect REALITY!

There is nothing DOGMATIC about science. Anything and everything can be doubted, quite unlike in theology, where you MUST accept what other people say. The sad thing is that those other people cannot PROVE what they say… it is all “you MUST take my word for it”… just like a lousy parent, whose only argument is “BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!”. Shame, shame… :tsktsk:

 

[Michael1966]

Except that this (your?) position presupposes the only source of ethical truth is that which is subjective to the individual making the determination and that the only difference between a theist and an atheist, regarding moral thinking, is that a theist is merely making an “error” by projecting their subjective moral thinking outwards onto God, whereas the more “sincere” atheist does no such thing.

I think perhaps you’ve made a rather sweeping and mistaken supposition about my own presuppositions

But yes, an atheist would obviously assume that we have placed our morals in the mouth of God. But where I would go from there would very much depend on the atheist and what their argument for morality is. I think it a mistake to say they haven’t got any - because if we listen to them then some certainly have, which either may come from philosophical grounds, such as those proposed by the philosopher Alain de Botton, or the biological grounds suggested by people such as Frans de Waal. Where I think we make a mistake is in simply saying “atheists can’t ground morality in any reasoned argument” because I think that is to ignore thoughtful atheists who have engaged in this area.

I, of course, still see the grounding of morality in God, but there are other arguments put forward which I think are sometimes dismissed too lightly.

God bless +

 

[davidv]

What a bunch of “doubleplusungood” answers… Science deals with what IS, ethics deals with how one ought to behave. Theology does not deal with reality, which can be independetly observed, investigated and VERIFIED.

Where is the logical argument in this? Where is your evidence that theology does not deal with reality? Why is verification is a valid criteria for judging what is real?

If you do not accept calculus based upon what the teacher says, you can build up your own structure based upon the AXIOMS - and you will get the same answer.

What are the axioms of theology?

If you do not accept physics and chemistry, do your own OBSERVATIONS, make your own inferences, do your own PREDICTIONS, and verify if your results reflect REALITY!

There is nothing DOGMATIC about science.

Really? What is not dogmatic about the axioms of science?

Anything and everything can be doubted, quite unlike in theology, where you MUST accept what other people say. The sad thing is that those other people cannot PROVE what they say… it is all “you MUST take my word for it”… just like a lousy parent, whose only argument is “BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!”. Shame, shame… :tsktsk:

No, no, no…

Nice strawman. Most of theology is accessible by reason.

 

[PRmerger]

[Theology does not deal with reality, which can be independetly observed, investigated and VERIFIED.

This is an example of begging the question, Tyrion.

Unless you can offer some empirical evidence that demonstrates that theology does not deal with reality, and that all reality can be “observed, investigated and verified” then what you are proclaiming is, amusingly, a statement of faith.
[/quote]

 

[PRmerger]

If you do not accept calculus based upon what the teacher says, you can build up your own structure based upon the AXIOMS - and you will get the same answer.

Exactly like theology, Tyrion.

Fides quaerens intellectum.

As Cardinal Newman said, "“Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, for a man may be annoyed that he cannot work out a mathematical problem, without doubting that it admits an answer.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is nothing DOGMATIC about science. Anything and everything can be doubted, quite unlike in theology, where you MUST accept what other people say. The sad thing is that those other people cannot PROVE what they say… it is all “you MUST take my word for it”… just like a lousy parent, whose only argument is “BECAUSE I SAID SO!!!”. Shame, shame… :tsktsk:

Interesting how you, yourself, are resorting to using “shaming” techniques to coerce others into agreeing with you. :tsktsk: Like the “bad parent” you decry, you are insisting we must all agree with you solely because we must take your word for it or risk your belittling ridicule.

Not everything is, or even can be, “doubted” in science. There are some things that science must remain silent about by the nature of its own methods.

The key axiom in science, which serves as a methodological constraint, and not a philosophical license as you claim, is that science has to restrict itself to observable and measurable physical evidence. That is because science is restricted by its own method to physical reality. Science can only cast doubt about physical events and physical entities, it cannot, by its very methodological constraints extend itself beyond the physical to make claims about other realities without making an unsupported assumption that all reality is reducible to physical reality. That is not an axiomatic principle, that is an unfounded and ungrounded leap of logic because there is no way for science to prove or support that step without begging the question about whether physical reality constitutes all reality.

I am glad to have had less DOGMATIC and stifling parents than you have shown yourself to be, the Church being one of them.

 

[Tyrion]

Really? What is not dogmatic about the axioms of science?

The fact that there are NO axioms in science might have eluded you. Only math, logic, and their kind have axioms. In sciences there are basic principles, which are the distillates of observation.

Yet, not even the axioms are beyond scrutiny. The postulates of Euclid were examined and changed, and new vistas of geometry were found. Also, none of the basic principles are set in “stone”. Even so basic principles as the conservation of matter / energy / momentum, etc… WOULD be re-examined, IF there were observations, which would make such revision necessary. The chances of that are infinitesimally small, however.

There are no “dogmas” in science. Dogmas firmly belong to theology, which cannot prove what it says. Theology is not based on observation, it is based on authority - and of course that authority is self-proclaimed.

 

[PRmerger]

There are no “dogmas” in science.

Of course there are.

Dogmas are nothing more than statements of perceived truth.

In fact, you are demonstrating that yourself with your dogmatic proclamations.

Why do you get to proclaim the right to dogmatically define something, but Catholics don’t?

 

[Tyrion]

Not everything is, or even can be, “doubted” in science. There are some things that science must remain silent about by the nature of its own methods.

Another “plusungood” utterance. The methods belong to epistemology, not science itself. The restriction to the physical reality is not a restriction at all. The so-called non-physical “reality” is not only an empty assertion, but even the concept of “non-physical existence” is undefined.

Of course the method employed by science (observation, hypothesis forming, prediction and verification) is the only objective method available to us. What else is there? Why don’t you offer a different method to investigate reality?

 

[PRmerger]

Yet, not even the axioms are beyond scrutiny.

Are you operating under some misapprehension that Catholic dogmas are beyond scrutiny?

Perhaps you need to read the magnificent encylical: Fides et Ratio, Tyrion.

The postulates of Euclid were examined and changed, and new vistas of geometry were found.

Can you give an example of a postulation of Euclid that was changed?

Also, none of the basic principles are set in “stone”.

Is this a basic principle that is set in stone, Tyrion?

 

[PRmerger]

Of course the method employed by science (observation, hypothesis forming, prediction and verification) is the only objective method available to us.

This is a statement of faith, Tyrion. You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard a woman say it…but no one has ever given any empirical proof that science is the “only objective method available to us.” In fact, no one has ever given any empirical evidence that objective measures should be used to define supernatural events. Why should this be the canon?

You only believe it because you believe the person who told you this.

You do not believe it because you have read the studies confirming this.

 

[Tyrion]

Can you give an example of a postulate of Euclid that was changed?

The fifth postulate. It was replaced with to other possibilities and so the Rieman geometry and the Bolyai-Gauss-Lobatchevski geometry were created. You can investigate the details, if you are interested.

Is this a basic principle that is set in stone, Tyrion?

This is not a scientific principle, but an epistemologial concept. And sure enough, it can be questioned… all you need to do is offer a different epistemological method to arrive at valid conclusion about reality… good luck. Whatever you propose will be questioned and examined. Theology cannot offer any method to investigate its claims. As a matter of fact, it proclaims that its assertions are beyond investigation, and must be accepted without “proof”. How can one investigate to assumed “miracles” performed by Jesus? How can one investigate the alleged “immortal soul”?

Sure looks like that you are seriously confused.

1. There are the physical sciences with their basic principles.
2. There are the abstract sciences with their axioms.
3. And there is epistemology, which describes the methods of investigation.
4. Yes, you can present different principles.
5. Yes, you can modify the axioms.
6. And yes, you can offer a different method to investigate reality.

This is a statement of faith, Tyrion. You heard a man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard another man say it, who heard a woman say it…but no one has ever given any empirical proof that science is the “only objective method available to us.”

Getting worse and worse. You are also confused about the concept of “faith”. You cannot apply the method to something it is not applicable. As I said, go ahead and present a different method.

In fact, no one has ever given any empirical evidence that objective measures should be used to define supernatural events.

Who says that there is anything “supernatural”? Can you demonstrate it? What epistemological method are you going to use? Or are you restricted to the “method” of shouting: “because the church said so?”…

 

[PRmerger]

The fifth postulate. It was replaced with to other possibilities and so the Rieman geometry and the Bolyai-Gauss-Lobatchevski geometry were created. You can investigate the details, if you are interested.

I have no interest in this.

I only want to ask: was Euclid’s intial postulation wrong? Or was he correct and it served as entry into another truth of geometry?

 

[PRmerger]

This is not a scientific principle, but an epistemologial concept.

Irrelevant, Tyrion.

The point is that you are making a dogmatic proclamation: “None of the basic principles are set in stone”, yet, paradoxically and amusingly, denying the truth of your dogmatic proclamation.

And sure enough, it can be questioned…

Indeed. This is a very Catholic paradigm you are espousing.

Again, you seem to be operating under some weird misapprehension that Catholicism is against scrutiny.

Where does this view come from?

 

[PRmerger]

Theology cannot offer any method to investigate its claims. As a matter of fact, it proclaims that its assertions are beyond investigation, and must be accepted without “proof”.

This is a curious statement that belies your assertion in your signature that you are “familiar” with theological arguments.

Perhaps you are referring to some bizarre theology but it’s quite clear that you are unfamiliar with Catholic theology.

Is there some Catholic theological manifest, preferably from the Magisterium (that means: teaching office of the Church, Tyrion) that you read that states that Catholic theological “assertions are beyond investigation and must be accepted without proof”?