Morality without God?

[PRmerger]

[As I said, go ahead and present a different method.

The different method is this, Tyrion:* fides quaerens intellectum.*

Citing the great Pascal: 2 error: to exclude reason, to exclude all but reason.

Fides et ratio.

Now, unless you can come up with some empirical evidence that philosophy and theology cannot give us a knowledge of reality, then you are operating under a FAITH ALONE paradigm.

You keep accepting on FAITH ALONE that science alone is the only standard we have for evaluating the world.

[SIGN]You base this only on the fact that you heard someone say it.[/SIGN]

Peculiar paradigm given your demand for evidence for all things religious.

You seem pretty dogmatic, Tyrion. Just saying.
[/quote]

 

[Peter_Plato]

In sciences there are basic principles, which are the distillates of observation.

This is a somewhat arbitrary application of the word “axiom” in distinction from principle. In math, logic and philosophy, an axiom is a starting point that must be assumed to proceed. The “basic” or identifiable quality of an axiom is that there does not exist a proof from which, as a claim, the axiom can logically follow. It must be presumed in order to proceed.

Basic principles are the guidelines which are used to guide or superintend a process (logic, science, etc.) and are implicit in the methodology of that process.

You are quite correct that science claims to not rely on axioms. However, that is only true if science restricts itself to making conclusions by following those methodological principles. Your unstated assumption or axiomatic belief, on the other hand, which you correctly point out is not one made by science proper, is, however, implicit in the way you criticize theological claims.

The axiom you attempt to covertly apply, despite your denial, is that all non-physical realities are subject to the methods of science for validation. That position is only tenable after invoking an axiomatic belief that reality must be purely physical in nature. This is an axiom because it cannot be demonstrated or verified by methods of science that must, in principle, only deal with physically detectible and measurable entities or “facts.”

Theology, ethics and other endeavours could very well have their own principles of verification that need not be subject to scientific methodologies for verification because theological or ethical claims are not essentially claims about nature. They may be verified by consistency, efficacy, revelation, historical support, personal experience, meaningfulness, explanatory power, or a number of other means.

Of course, if you wish to take it as axiomatic that all reality is and can only be physical in nature, then you are constrained, by that starting point to discuss only matters of physical reality that can be verified by scientific principles. Anything you have to say about non-physical possibilities is to extend yourself beyond your own self-imposed limitations.

There is no reason to think the rest of us need to abide by your dogmatic guiding principles built upon a materialistic assumption.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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”?

There is no objectively verifiable means by which I can know my “self” as self, yet of all things the most certain to me is that I (a totally unverifiable entity) do exist. I “investigate” through my own consciousness, not a scientific tool, I grant you, but I do not feel compelled to think that I should or could be so examined.

You may dismiss this as pure illusion. So be it. I find no reason to dismiss my own conscious existence as a trivial matter. In fact, the reality of consciousness, is for me even more startling and meaningful than all of the objective reality around me. How am “I,” as a subjective me, even possible in a physical world? Science cannot answer that. In fact, science tends to ignore or sidestep the question. I have reason to consider other options.

 

[Bradski]

What is your point?

You and I would agree on almost all aspects of morality. We were both told what was considered right and wrong as we were growing up. And we almost certainly worked out ourselves that what we were told was correct.

That is, it is generally wrong to kill, lie, steal etc. And there are logical and empirical reasons why this is so. You could use those reasons to reach the same conclusions as I have. And you could treat those aspects of morality as God-given. That is, they are correct whether one could reach them independently or not.

So let’s look at something about which we disagree. Contraception. Whether one considers it moral to use it or not is a personal view and I don’t believe that anyone can logically say that it is wrong in the same way that you could say stealing is wrong.

That it is a religious position is undeniable. And it is a position you have to accept. Whether it is right or wrong. Just like stealing or killing, but then, everyone can reach those positions independently. So you know what you are being told in those cases is true anyway.

But not with contraception. The majority of Catholics run through the reasons as to why it could be immoral and decide, independently, that the church is wrong.

My point is that you are told what is right and wrong and decide that almost everything you are told is correct, by reaching an independent decision. You are going through the same process as I go through.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Everyone could come to that understanding if sex was not so pleasurable. We could understand that nature intended for sex to cause reproduction. There is an underlying belief that we can overcome nature through reason and science, that we do not have to submit to the natural law.

 

[Bradski]

Everyone could come to that understanding if sex was not so pleasurable. We could understand that nature intended for sex to cause reproduction. There is an underlying belief that we can overcome nature through reason and science, that we do not have to submit to the natural law.

I tend to agree. We have overcome nature. It quite often ‘natural’ to have more offspring than the species or the environment could cope with because it’s a given that some of them will die before maturity.

Now we have a choice. It seems perverse not to take that opportunity of controlling our own fertility.

Oh, we could stop having sex, of course.

 

[InJesusItrust]

As a disabled person, I see a fundamental link between contraception, abortion, euthanasia and eugenics. To control your fertility to not breed deformed children really means that people are devaluing the disabled. Rather than demanding that society value all people for their humanity, the Darwinian mindset allows people to devalue people based on functional attributes. We buy into this mentality and demand the ability to kill ourselves, rather than realizing social attitudes and hatred of weakness give us this desire. People agree to kill us because they agree our lives are less valuable.

Contraception also creates a mentality where children are viewed as burdens, rather than gifts.

Catholic teaching is on the mark for discerning morality.

 

[Bradski]

This might be a pretty obvious thing to say, but I’ll say it anyway…

If you use contraception and it works as it should, then there would generallly be no requirement for abortions.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Circumventing the issues I raised, you did not acknowledge how these are all related, nor how they lead to inhumane attitudes. You ask why contraception is wrong without appealing to religion, and I just told you. If sex was not behind the issue–pleasing and unrestrained–I think that any rational person would accept it.

 

[PRmerger]

If you use contraception and it works as it should, then there would generallly be no requirement for abortions.

Perhaps you are talking about condoms here? Which works, what…85% of the time?

As far as oral contraceptives and the IUD, they work to abort the new life that’s been already created.

From the package insert of the Nuva-Ring

“Combination hormonal contraceptives act by suppression of
gonadotropins. Although the primary effect of this action is inhibition of ovulation, other alterations include changes in the cervical
mucus (which increase the difficulty of sperm entry into the uterus)
and the endometrium (which reduce the likelihood of implantation)”

 

[Peter_Plato]

So let’s look at something about which we disagree. Contraception. Whether one considers it moral to use it or not is a personal view and I don’t believe that anyone can logically say that it is wrong in the same way that you could say stealing is wrong.

That it is a religious position is undeniable. And it is a position you have to accept. Whether it is right or wrong. Just like stealing or killing, but then, everyone can reach those positions independently. So you know what you are being told in those cases is true anyway.

But not with contraception. The majority of Catholics run through the reasons as to why it could be immoral and decide, independently, that the church is wrong.

My point is that you are told what is right and wrong and decide that almost everything you are told is correct, by reaching an independent decision. You are going through the same process as I go through.

My suspicion is that the majority of Catholics who arrive at a dissenting position from Church teaching arrive at that determination not by reason, but, rather by motive. Their motive becomes their predominant reason.

As a scientific fact, a new human life begins at conception. The prime moral principle is that we ought not with willful intent destroy an innocent human life. Clearly, the moral principle together with the scientific fact entails that contraception is wrong.

Catholics who live in a modern secular culture subscribe to many of its presumptions about “making a life for oneself” often at the expense of the lives and well-being of others. The expression “it’s a dog eat dog world” appropriately captures this way of thinking. The less vocal or more powerless the victims, the easier to justify “eating” them - the unborn are certainly the most vulnerable to this mentality.

The conflict, then is between the ethical clarity of a moral truth and how that will be compromised by making a “life” for oneself. Obviously, many have chosen to dump the moral principle for the sake of their own comfort and security.

That does not argue against the truth of Church moral teaching but, instead, for the truth of
the Church’s teaching concerning original sin and the sinful condition that we find ourselves in. Sin has always been considered the “easy” option. Contraception choices that individual’s make show that teaching to be true, as well.

It is not surprising that in a culture that sees no problem with the abortion of even full term babies that contraception would be viewed as unproblematic. Both only point out the fact that we have become desensitized to moral truth and prefer to make it up on the fly to support our choices rather than to make choices based upon sound moral thinking.

The fact that you use a greater evil (abortion) to argue in favor of a perceived lesser one (contraception) demonstrates that you are not arguing from a sound moral perspective but from one that merely seeks to rationalize a behaviour.

 

[Linux]

As a scientific fact, a new human life begins at conception. The prime moral principle is that we ought not with willful intent destroy an innocent human life. Clearly, the moral principle together with the scientific fact entails that contraception is wrong.

It is not a scientific fact that a “person” begins at conception. The genetic materials are present at conception for the biological construction of a Living person. The construction begins at conception, but it is not evident that person-hood begins at conception as Catholics understand the word. From a secular standpoint a foetus is potentially a person; that’s as far as the evidence leads. I don’t see the point of distorting facts to suite a Catholic concept of person-hood. It will only win distrust of your position.

 

[Bradski]

Perhaps you are talking about condoms here? Which works, what…85% of the time?

What has the success rate of condoms have to do with whether contraception should be used or not? Even if we accept your figure of 85%, that means that 85% of the time people are not getting pregnant who otherwise might well have done so. If someone doesn’t get pregnant than they don’t need an abortion.

And let’s do a hypothetical and see where it gets us…

If there was a contracpetive barrier method that was 100% effective, would the church ban it? Yes it would.

What would be the reason for that? Because sex is only to be undertaken with the intention of having children?

Maybe the new Pope will see some sense in this and allow barrier methods. And what happens then? Does it become morally acceptable? You don’t think that it is now. Is that your call or the churches? If the church says it’s OK, then you should disagree to maintain your position.

 

[Bradski]

The fact that you use a greater evil (abortion) to argue in favor of a perceived lesser one (contraception) demonstrates that you are not arguing from a sound moral perspective but from one that merely seeks to rationalize a behaviour.

But there is no moral problem with using contraception. Let’s just keep it to barrier methods and tell me what the problem is?

I’m using abortion as part of the argument because that’s what a lot of women want when they have an unwanted pregnancy. I can’t believe I have to type this out, but…that’s the reason for contraception. To prevent unwanted pregnancies.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It is not a scientific fact that a “person” begins at conception. The genetic materials are present at conception for the biological construction of a Living person. The construction begins at conception, but it is not evident that person-hood begins at conception as Catholics understand the word. From a secular standpoint a foetus is potentially a person; that’s as far as the evidence leads. I don’t see the point of distorting facts to suite a Catholic concept of person-hood. It will only win distrust of your position.

It was you that claimed “personhood” to be the relevant factor. I said “human life” was. The indeterminacy of personhood argues against using that as a morally relevant feature. Human life is clearly defined.

In fact, personhood is impossible to determine for a fact so how can secular moral arguments hope to base an ethical position on such a nebulous determination?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Linux

It is not a scientific fact that a “person” begins at conception.

It is a scientific fact that a human being begins at conception. So far as being counted in the census, no. But so far as having all the rights to fulfill human and personal destiny, yes.

A human being in the womb, lacking consciousness, cannot plead for his or her life.

A sleeping human being also cannot plead for his or her life.

It is profoundly wicked to kill either one.

Peter Kreeft on abortion: From “How to Win the Culture War” p. 16
“I know a doctor who spent two years in the Congo winning the confidence of a dying tribe who would not trust outsiders (black or white) and who were dying because of their bad diet. He was a ditetician, and he saved their lives. Once they knew this, they trusted him totally and asked all sorts of questions about his life in the West. They believed all the amazing things he told them, like flying to the moon and destroying whole cities with one bomb, but there were two things they literally could not believe. One was that in the West there are atheists … people who believe in no gods at all. (“Are these people blind and eaf? Have they never seen a leaf or heard a waterfall?”) The other was that in one nation alone (America) over a million mothers each year pay doctors to kill their babies before they are born. Their reaction to this was to giggle, which was their embarassed way of trying to be polite, assuming it was a joke. They simply had no holding place in their minds for this concept, and they expected every day that the doctor would tell them the point of the joke.”

Here is proof that the “natural law” of the Catholic Church is followed universally except by people who have lost their common sense.

 

[PRmerger]

What has the success rate of condoms have to do with whether contraception should be used or not?

Nothing, really. I was just adding that point for emphasis. Condoms don’t really work that great.

Even if we accept your figure of 85%, that means that 85% of the time people are not getting pregnant who otherwise might well have done so. If someone doesn’t get pregnant than they don’t need an abortion.

True, that.

And let’s do a hypothetical and see where it gets us…

If there was a contracpetive barrier method that was 100% effective, would the church ban it? Yes it would.

You are correct.

What would be the reason for that? Because sex is only to be undertaken with the intention of having children?

No, Bradski. You’re forgetting about the part where sex is also supposed to be to unite the couple as ONE.

Maybe the new Pope will see some sense in this and allow barrier methods.

Perhaps. If it’s for medical reasons (such as preventing the spread of HIV)

And what happens then? Does it become morally acceptable? You don’t think that it is now. Is that your call or the churches? If the church says it’s OK, then you should disagree to maintain your position.

Well, since we’re talking hypotheticals, with something that’s NEVER going to happen, I will hypothetically answer: if the Church says that [A] is licit, then, yes, I would say that A is moral.

It’s like parents telling a child, “You may drive when you are 16” and then telling another child, “You may drive when you are 18.” Nothing wrong with that, is there?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m using abortion as part of the argument because that’s what a lot of women want when they have an unwanted pregnancy. I can’t believe I have to type this out, but…that’s the reason for contraception. To prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Yes, you see that it’s impossible to talk about contraception without abortion entering into the picture.

Contraception is the theory. Abortion is the practice.

They are bedfellows.

One inevitably leads to the other. :sad_yes:

 

[PRmerger]

This might be a pretty obvious thing to say, but I’ll say it anyway…

If you use contraception and it works as it should, then there would generallly be no requirement for abortions.

Just so we’re clear: the only contraception that wouldn’t cause abortions (since the Pill can cause an abortion of the human life at its earliest stage) would be condoms.

 

[Bradski]

It’s like parents telling a child, “You may drive when you are 16” and then telling another child, “You may drive when you are 18.” Nothing wrong with that, is there?

No, it’s not like that at all. If the legal age for driving was 18, you’d tell your child that she wouldn’t be allowed to drive until she was that age and that you agreed completely with the law as it stood. You’d say that there are rock solid reasons for making it that age. Then the law is changed overnight and she can drive when she’s 16.

Nothing has changed except someone has decided to drop it a couple of years. Are you immediately convinced that there is now no reason to allow her behind the wheel at 16? What happens to all your arguments backing up the age limit being 18? Are they now simply forgotten?

If the church says something is wrong, then you use the same arguments as the church to justify your acceptance of the position. You are telling me you know it’s wrong as well as the church saying it is so. But if the church were to change its position then you are telling me that you would simply change your mind as well.

Don’t you see that I am not therefore convinced that you, personally, really believe that it’s correct. You are simply repeating the church’s line. PR is not trying to tell me something is wrong. PR is simply telling me that the church believes it to be wrong. You may as well quote the relevant catechism and be done with it.