Morality Without Religion?

[john_doran]

fix:

Yes, that is correct and if Catholics need help they can get it, how much further off the mark are non Catholics, particularly atheists?

depends on the particular catholic and atheist.

 

[fix]

john doran:

depends on the particular catholic and atheist.

The particular Catholic is never off the mark if he is loyal to the Church. The atheist is almost always off the mark.

This is the point. Catholics know the natural moral law and discern it with Church help. Atheists stumble along often thinking they are correct when they are in error.

 

[fix]

AnAtheist:

And how do we determine, what the “objective” truth is? Empirically? Falsification?
As the Catholic defines the objective truth by some circular reasoning, I guess it is not falsifiable, is it?.

**God is Truth

** [216](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/216.htm’) God’s truth is his wisdom, which commands the whole created order and governs the world.33 God, who alone made heaven and earth, can alone impart true knowledge of every created thing in relation to himself.34

Is that, how you define “relative morality” - everybody has a private opinion?
I understand “relative morality” a bit different. It acknowledges that morality is due to social interaction, and *where *and *when *that society takes or took place. Morality is imposed by the environment - education, laws, media, … and, yes, religion.

As I said, atheists are moral relativists. That is a perfect example of Nazi Germany.

 

[barsapp]

john doran:

interesting. i would say that exactly the opposite is quite clearly true.

Objective morality, objective moral truth, means the acknowledgment of an outer rule (for example: natural law). These rules exist before, and are above, any state organization.

According to the atheist ideology, morality is only a part of social order, thus the State (Leviathan in Hobbes words) can impose whatever rules considered valuable to achieve whatever social goal. According to this theory, there is no natural law, there is no human nature, and so what is right and wrong comes out as an inner state decision. There is no outside rule of morality to recognize, respect and follow. As you may know, relativism ends in totalitarianism. You can check some good examples before mentioned. May be you can now understand why the first task of any totalitarian regime is to reduce to ashes (literally and figuratively) the Church.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

*you misunderstand what i mean by minimally well-ordered. i would say that, almost until they declared war on the world, nazi germany was at least as well-ordered a polity as was pre-civil war america. or britain. or france. or spain. or japan.
*
But we were talking about public morals, not polity.

Germany was thoroughly corrupted by Hitler long before the war started … as soon as he took over the state by force … as soon as he started rounding up the usual suspects … etc. These were not nice things to do even if Hitler got the trains to run on time … or was that Mussolini?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

first, what do you mean by “religious state”? i mean an ostensible theocracy, and not just a state with a leader or leaders who are openly religious. what matters is the process of and theory behind lawmaking, not the beliefs of the executive. unless, of course, the beliefs of the executive determine policy, as in an absolute monarchy.

You still haven’t given me the examples of the two states I requested for purposes of comparison.

Why are you evading the question?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Here is the web site with a photo of Hitler admiring a bust of the atheist Nietzsche when the Nietzsche Archives were dedicated.

Scroll down for the larger image.

virtusens.de/walther/hitler1.jpg

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

And here is a photo of Hitler fawning before Nietzsche’s sister at the dedication.

Scroll down to the last photo.

Interesting to me, anyway, as proof that Hitler, like Nietzsche, had no use for Christianity.

You may have to press Ctrl while you click?

images.search.yahoo.com/search/images/view?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3F_adv_prop%3Dimages%26imgsz%3Dall%26imgc%3D%26vf%3Dphoto%26va%3Dnietzsche%2Bhitler%26fr%3DFP-tab-web-t-286%26ei%3DUTF-8&h=397&w=575&imgcurl=www.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia%2Felis1933.jpg&imgurl=www.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia%2Felis1933.jpg&size=68.5kB&name=elis1933.jpg&rcurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia.htm&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mv.helsinki.fi%2Fhome%2Fakajas%2Ftekstit%2Felisabet%2Fkuvia.htm&p=nietzsche+hitler&type=jpeg&no=7&tt=9&ei=UTF-8

 

[AnAtheist]

fix:

As I said, atheists are moral relativists.

So you agree to my definition?

That is a perfect example of Nazi Germany.

You have no idea what Nazi Germany was like. It was not like “interracial marriage is genrally immoral, but - hey - if two individuals think that is ok for them, why not?” (example for moral relativism); no it was more like, “what, you married a non-Arian, that is totally unexceptable, it is irresponsible towards our race, go to the next concentration camp” (example of moral absolutism).

Pls see my answer to barsapp’s post below too.

 

[AnAtheist]

barsapp:

Objective morality, objective moral truth, means the acknowledgment of an outer rule (for example: natural law). These rules exist before, and are above, any state organization.

What if two people ackmowledge two different outer rules? How do you determine what is the right one? Btw, the Nazis ackowledged an outer rule, they had their own natural law.

According to the atheist ideology, morality is only a part of social order,

There is no such thing as “atheist ideology”. An atheist biologist may argue parts of the morality are due to evolutionary processes, an atheist sociologist may argue morality is a part of society, the truth is a combination of both (imo).

thus the State (Leviathan in Hobbes words) can impose whatever rules considered valuable to achieve whatever social goal.

No, it can’t. The state does not equal the society. If the majority of the people generally disagree with the imposed order, it will rebel.

As you may know, relativism ends in totalitarianism.

Interesting, I’d say the exact opposite. A great deal of absolutism is required to build up a totalitarian state. The very nature of a totalitarian state is to impose absolute standards for each and everybody.

 

[AnAtheist]

Some numbers:

USA (God’s own country), 86% Christians acknowledging an absolute morality, all numbers per 100000 citizens:
6.32 murders
34.20 rapes
357.94 serious assaults
169.02 violent thefts

Japan, 80% Buddhists, not believing in a personal god, but believing that every individual has to figure out the way into Nirvana by oneself (now if that’s not relativism, then what is?):
0.58 murders
1.48 rapes
15.40 serious assaults
2.71 violent thefts

(answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=3231)

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

You still haven’t given me the examples of the two states I requested for purposes of comparison.

Why are you evading the question?

because there’s no point giving an answer to a question unless i understand what the question means to you…

but whatever.

i would rather live in japan (an atheist state) than in iran (a theocratic state). but i would rather live in the US than in japan, and in Canada rather than the US.

more abstractly, i would rather live in a constitutional democracy that has a lot of moral problems, where i am maximally free to make my own way, than in any kind of perfectionist state where such freedom is largely curtailed, but where there’s significantly fewer moral issues.

here’s a question for you: is a government atheist or theist if it’s executive branch is composed largely of christian believers, but neither its judicial nor its legislative branch are theists?

what about a government where the executive is atheist, but the judiciary and the legislature are theists?

or a state where the majority of each branch are theists, but the laws are enacted by a procedure that operates as if there is no god, and excludes all reference to religious moral value?

 

[fix]

AnAtheist:

So you agree to my definition?

I agree that atheists are moral relativists.

You have no idea what Nazi Germany was like. It was not like “interracial marriage is genrally immoral, but - hey - if two individuals think that is ok for them, why not?” (example for moral relativism); no it was more like, “what, you married a non-Arian, that is totally unexceptable, it is irresponsible towards our race, go to the next concentration camp” (example of moral absolutism).

Pls see my answer to barsapp’s post below too.

Your example is not moral absolutism, but moral relativism. Those that accept there is only one truth accept that certain things are always evil and may never be done. Hitler, and friends, rejected that understanding and made themselves little gods who were the final arbiter of truth.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

But we were talking about public morals, not polity.

Germany was thoroughly corrupted by Hitler long before the war started … as soon as he took over the state by force … as soon as he started rounding up the usual suspects … etc. These were not nice things to do even if Hitler got the trains to run on time … or was that Mussolini?

ok, so how much deviation from moral top-dead-centre is permissible to you before a state is no longer at least minimally well-ordered?

has there ever been a state like that? i mean, haven’t all governments throughout history included some kind of fairly significant moral turpitude? whether it’s racial or sexual or religious discrimination, and whether it’s actually written into the laws or just a function of public life, i would be hard-pressed to come up wth an example of a government that wasn’t at least as morally bad as germany in the 20’s and 30’s…

you know, i suspect that we don’t and won’t ever agree even on the rudiments of this issue, such as what counts as an atheistic or theistic state, or what counts as “politically moral depravity”, or “well-ordered”…

so maybe we ought simply to move on…

 

[john_doran]

fix:

Your example is not moral absolutism, but moral relativism. Those that accept there is only one truth accept that certain things are always evil and may never be done. Hitler, and friends, rejected that understanding and made themselves little gods who were the final arbiter of truth.

you misunderstand his post: it’s precisely because hitler apotheosized himself that his regime involved moral absolutes - namely, anything that was contrary to what he wanted was wrong, for everyone everywhere.

hitler accepted that there was only one truth: his truth.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

There is no such thing as “atheist ideology”.

“Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weigh upon the masses who are crushed by continuous toil for others, by poverty and loneliness…Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism.” V.I. Lenin, Religion

“A state from which religion is banished can never be well regulated.” Pope Leo XIII

Seems that in modern times the Russians finally decided to agree with Leo XIII

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

*USA (God’s own country), 86% Christians acknowledging an absolute morality, all numbers per 100000 citizens:
6.32 murders
34.20 rapes
357.94 serious assaults
169.02 violent thefts

Japan, 80% Buddhists, not believing in a personal god, but believing that every individual has to figure out the way into Nirvana by oneself (now if that’s not relativism, then what is?):
0.58 murders
1.48 rapes
15.40 serious assaults
2.71 violent thefts*

So I guess you’d rather raise your children in Japan than in the U.S.A. Seems you’ve conveniently forgotten about Pearl Harbor. Seems you’ve conveniently forgotten about the ruthless atrocities against Christians committed by the atheist governments of Russia, Germany and China.

But now that you’ve used statistics, I’m allowed to also, right?

Go into any prison. Find out the total prison population. Find out the number of prisoners who go to chapel versus the number who never go to chapel and who never went to chapel for many years before they went to prison…

Then draw your own conclusion as to the merits of morality without God.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

here’s a question for you: is a government atheist or theist if it’s executive branch is composed largely of christian believers, but neither its judicial nor its legislative branch are theists?

*what about a government where the executive is atheist, but the judiciary and the legislature are theists?

or a state where the majority of each branch are theists, but the laws are enacted by a procedure that operates as if there is no god, and excludes all reference to religious moral value?*

Obviously we have a culture war going on and it will all shake out with the votes of the people as to which party is going to prevail. Very largely one party has been taken over by atheists (the euphemism is “secularists”) and that party is presently out of power in almost every every department of government and will continue to lose power as it continues to be obvious about aligning itself with the atheistic left.

 

[kim_wilson]

My husband is a moral atheist. However, his morals seem to becoming more and more Catholic. Guess that’s my influence. As long as there is religion, a moral atheist will be influenced by it, whether he is aware of this influence on his moral beliefs or not.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

KIM

My husband is a moral atheist. However, his morals seem to becoming more and more Catholic. Guess that’s my influence.

Atheists are drawn to God in many ways. I’ll join you in prayer for his conversion.

God bless.