Morality Without Religion?

[john_doran]

fix:

As it stands, those that are atheists, may or may not come to right conclusions about moral decisions.

sure, i guess. but the same can be said for everyone, catholics included. popes included. none of us is impeccable, remember.

fix:

The natural moral law is clouded to many from habitual sin, strong societal influences and a failure to take the time to seek out the truth.

here’s what the church says, again:

“For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.” (emphasis mine)

but whatever. i’m not seeing your point: everyone’s judgment is compromised by original sin, not just atheists. atheists, in the shadow of adam’s sin, disbelieve in god; i, in my own darkness, often see quite well what to do, but choose nevertheless not to do it…

the question is whether or not it’s possible for atheists to have an objective morality, and whether or not it’s possible (yes, gilbert, not necessary) for institutionalized atheism to maintain a politically moral stability.

the only objections to the suggestion that it is possible are based on weaknesses not peculiar to atheists…

fix:

An argument can be made we are in moral chaos currently.

sure. and last time i checked, bush and his entourage weren’t atheists.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

Do I hear you correctly?

Are you saying that as a Catholic you believe there was no need for Christ to come into the world to lead us safely down the right Way because atheists are capable of finding the right way all by themselves?

Are you saying that if all religion disappeared from the world, it would be just fine with you so far as the morals of that brave new world would be concerned because they would be no worse off than the world is with religion?

Just rhetorical questions here:

Questions asked; waiting for answers.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doren

sure. and last time i checked, bush and his entourage weren’t atheists.

Ah, at last the plot thickens.

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

John Doran

Do I hear you correctly?

Are you saying that as a Catholic you believe there was no need for Christ to come into the world to lead us safely down the right Way because atheists are capable of finding the right way all by themselves?

no, that is not what i am saying.

i am saying a few things:

1. atheists are capable of understanding the natural law, a law which is a function of human reason;
2. the only morality required for an at least minimally well-ordered state is the natural law of reason;
3. therefore atheists are capable of organizing an at least minimally well-ordered state.

these three propositions answer your original post.

i have also explicitly stated that atheists (A) do not have access to revealed morality, nor (B) are they capable of always making the right moral judgment, since making the right moral judgment often requires access to revealed morality.

i have said nothing about redemption or salvation history - this was a thread about philosophical and political morality.

i’m not sure how to be more explicit.
Gilbert Keith:

Are you saying that if all religion disappeared from the world, it would be just fine with you so far as the morals of that brave new world would be concerned because they would be no worse off than the world is with religion?

no, i am not saying that; why would i? you asked a question only about the ability for atheists to have an objective morality, which is utterly different than the queston, “would the world be as well off without religion as it is with it?”…

i do believe that there are religious states that are worse to live in than some areligious states, and vice versa, a position which is not incompatible in the ***least ***with my catholicism

 

[john_doran]

Gilbert Keith:

John Doren

sure. and last time i checked, bush and his entourage weren’t atheists.

Ah, at last the plot thickens.

right. maybe it george bush sr. on the grassy knoll…

 

[barsapp]

Some clear conclusions shown throughout the posts here:

There are no morals without God.

Atheism, being the ideology that denies the existence of God, refuses any objective morality.

Thus, the will of the Leviathan defines morality. Relativism dictatorship is established. Final outcome: society’s self-destruction. Current situation: self-destruction in progress.

Atheism in theory: Hobbes, Nietzche, Marx, Freud. Atheism in practice: Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Roe vs. Wade.

 

[fix]

john doran:

sure, i guess. but the same can be said for everyone, catholics included. popes included. none of us is impeccable, remember.

Let’s be careful to define our parameters. As a “system” Catholicism always comes to the right conclusion regarding moral imperatives, individuals may fail, but the Church does not.

As a “system” atheism can’t come to the right moral conclusions in each case, or most cases probably.

here’s what the church says, again:

“For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.” (emphasis mine)

The Catholic has the help of the Church to teach him these things and help him.

That such a law exists does not mean it is accepted or obeyed.

The atheist may grasp this, but often does not. You seem to be drawing the difference between obeying the law and not obeying the law and saying this is true for both Catholics and atheists. That is true, but my position is that the atheist may not even accept it as the CCC says:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12

but whatever. i’m not seeing your point: everyone’s judgment is compromised by original sin, not just atheists. atheists, in the shadow of adam’s sin, disbelieve in god; i, in my own darkness, often see quite well what to do, but choose nevertheless not to do it…

The Catholic has a sure guide, the atheist does not.

the question is whether or not it’s possible for atheists to have an objective morality, and whether or not it’s possible (yes, gilbert, not necessary) for institutionalized atheism to maintain a politically moral stability.

In an abstract sense, it would seem it is possible for a group of atheists to all understand the natural moral law and set up a system that reflects that law.

Can you give me an example of one?

the only objections to the suggestion that it is possible are based on weaknesses not peculiar to atheists…

Possible, perhaps, but only in theory as far as I have seen.

sure. and last time i checked, bush and his entourage weren’t atheists.

I am no partisan, but I see no reason to blame Bush for all the moral chaos. He probaly gets it more right, or as right, as the self proclaimed atheists.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

i do believe that there are religious states that are worse to live in than some areligious states,

This is not an adequate response.

For one thing, there are few religious states left … most being admixtures of religion and irreligion … even the United States comes under that category so far as the killing of 40 plus million of the unborn is concerned … allowed by a judiciary patently secular in its orientation and on social issues getting to be more so year after year.

So please give me two states you would like to compare. Which state is clearly Catholic and which state is clearly areligious.

Remember please … all religions are not equal in their merits. Presumably you prefer the Catholic/Christian faith.

 

[AnAtheist]

fix:

As a “system” Catholicism always comes to the right conclusion regarding moral imperatives, individuals may fail, but the Church does not.

That is the reason, why I fear religion and want a strict separation of state and religion. This self-rightousness entitles religous people to do anything. If the system orders, it is ok to follow it anywhere, it is always right. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes:

The Catholic has a sure guide, the atheist does not.

Nazis had a sure guide too. You know, that was in fact Hitler’s title, “The Guide” (guide = Führer).

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

*3) therefore atheists are capable of organizing an at least minimally well-ordered state.
*

You mean like Nazi Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Mao’s China?

Could you give me better examples of atheists organizing at least minimally well-ordered states?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

John Doran

*you asked a question only about the ability for atheists to have an objective morality, which is utterly different than the queston, “would the world be as well off without religion as it is with it?”…
*
Well, I don’t get your point. How can you cut off the question of objective morality from whether the world would be as well off with religion as without it?

If you go back to post #1 in this thread you will see that I am very much on track. Ben Franklin asserts the necessary (objective) correlation between religion and a world better off with it than without it. So do other founding fathers repeat that theme in post # 15.

 

[fix]

AnAtheist:

That is the reason, why I fear religion and want a strict separation of state and religion. This self-rightousness entitles religous people to do anything. If the system orders, it is ok to follow it anywhere, it is always right. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes:

Nazis had a sure guide too. You know, that was in fact Hitler’s title, “The Guide” (guide = Führer).

Actually, you have it backwards. If you can prove to a Catholic that his understanding of truth conflicts with the objective truth he will change his beliefs to conform to the objective truth.

The atheist, or relativist, is rigid because their understanding of truth is relative and basically comes down to private opinions or feelings, thus never has a reason to conform himself to the objective moral truth.

And again, even if he hits on the truth once in a while, it is not consistent and is always hit or miss.

 

[john_doran]

barsapp:

Some clear conclusions shown throughout the posts here:

There are no morals without God.

Atheism, being the ideology that denies the existence of God, refuses any objective morality.

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

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

AnAtheist

That is the reason, why I fear religion and want a strict separation of state and religion.

If you go back to posts #1 and #15 you will see that the founding fathers had no such fear. They did not fear religion. They did not fear God. What they feared was one Church requiring all the other Churches to submit to their authority. To avoid that kind of tension, they separated Church and State, not religion and state, so that no taxpayer would have to support any Church to which he did not belong.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

An Atheist

That is the reason, why I fear religion and want a strict separation of state and religion. This self-rightousness entitles religous people to do anything. If the system orders, it is ok to follow it anywhere, it is always right. What does that remind me of? Oh, yes:

Quote:
*The Catholic has a sure guide, the atheist does not. *

Nazis had a sure guide too. You know, that was in fact Hitler’s title, “The Guide” (guide = Führer).

Ah, you miss the point entirely. The Catholic faith only claims to be a sure guide in faith and morals. Hitler claimed to be a sure guide in EVERYTHING!

 

[john_doran]

fix:

Let’s be careful to define our parameters. As a “system” Catholicism always comes to the right conclusion regarding moral imperatives, individuals may fail, but the Church does not.

we’re not talking about the Church. we’re talking about individual (un)believers.

fix:

As a “system” atheism can’t come to the right moral conclusions in each case, or most cases probably.

well, i disagree, at least when we’re talking about most political cases.

fix:

The atheist may grasp this, but often does not. You seem to be drawing the difference between obeying the law and not obeying the law and saying this is true for both Catholics and atheists. That is true, but my position is that the atheist may not even accept it as the CCC says:

1960 The precepts of natural law are not perceived by everyone clearly and immediately. In the present situation sinful man needs grace and revelation so moral and religious truths may be known "by everyone with facility, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error."12

ah, but that passage says nothing about atheists in particular - it makes a statement about everyone.

fix:

In an abstract sense, it would seem it is possible for a group of atheists to all understand the natural moral law and set up a system that reflects that law.

that’s all i’m saying.

 

[fix]

john doran:

ah, but that passage says nothing about atheists in particular - it makes a statement about everyone.

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

 

[john_doran]

i do believe that there are religious states that are worse to live in than some areligious states,

This is not an adequate response.

what do you mean? adequate to whom? for what?
Gilbert Keith:

So please give me two states you would like to compare. Which state is clearly Catholic and which state is clearly areligious.

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.

 

[AnAtheist]

fix:

If you can prove to a Catholic that his understanding of truth conflicts with the objective truth he will change his beliefs to conform to the objective truth.

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?.

The atheist, or relativist, is rigid because their understanding of truth is relative and basically comes down to private opinions or feelings, thus never has a reason to conform himself to the objective moral truth.

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.

 

[john_doran]

3) therefore atheists are capable of organizing an at least minimally well-ordered state.

You mean like Nazi Germany under Hitler, the Soviet Union under Stalin, or Mao’s China?

Could you give me better examples of atheists organizing at least minimally well-ordered states?

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.

“minimally well-ordered” does not mean “without moral defect”; if that were true, then i would say that it’s impossible for any government to exercise legitimate control over its citizenry.