Morally justifiable pain, suffering and torture

[ateista]

I would define blind faith as faith, in it’s broadest sense, as a belief that has no valid foundation. It is not unreasonable to believe in something that has some valid foundation yet falls short of irrevocable evidence. That is what I was suggesting in terms of faith and reason. Belief in something that there is to some extent a reasonable foundation for is not blind faith but it requires a degree of faith as it cannot be irrevocably proven.

Up until this point I agree with you completely. This is my definition as well.

The existence of God, the soul and what Aquinas described as the ‘higher truths,’ such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, cannot be believed by human reasoning alone as they require faith. They are not however beliefs that have absolutely no foundation.

Here we differ.

There is any amount of writings on the human experience of God which is in a sense ‘evidence.’

Yes, it is evidence. Not direct evidence, but circumstantial. But circumstantial evidence can be very inaccurate and can be misleading. When there is no direct evidence, and one must render judgment on circumstantial evidence only, usually it is required that the evidence be overwhelming.

What is considered reliable and overwhelming evidence is personal. One person may find the presented evidence sufficient, others may find it lacking. Personally I find all the testimonial evidence in favor of God insufficent. To put it bluntly, I see them as “wishful thinking”.

I agree with you that not all scientists or atheists are extremists.

I am glad. Indeed no group of people has “first dibs” on extremism. And extremism in any form is bad and dangerous.

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

Extremism, or misproportions, what is extreme is a question itself… In any case, I think there is a good bet we are right, if we happen to be, then it is dangerous not to at least consider the possibility, and look into our faith, which you seem to be doing… If someone has no proof, but says with reasonable evidenciary support, and many witnesses, that there is dangerous animals in an area, or the like, you, by reason, would be obliged to watch for them, it is likewise with what we say- that certain illogical acts, destroy the connection with logic- ending in “damnation”- eternity in an ugly sanatorium with fire.

The question lies in our motives- so maybe study the saints the ultimate is this, are Catholics and their fellows sane, if so, then are we in a position to be rational, if so, then, who is most sane, if us, then become of our flocks

Remember, hades is all the more harmful than harm to the temperory lives of animals (not discounting existence after dying)

 

[minkymurph]

Here we differ.

Yes, I would expect you to.

Yes, it is evidence. Not direct evidence, but circumstantial. But circumstantial evidence can be very inaccurate and can be misleading. When there is no direct evidence, and one must render judgment on circumstantial evidence only, usually it is required that the evidence be overwhelming.

This is exactly what Aquinas writes about. Why we believe when evidence is not overwhelming. Belief in the absence of irrevocable evidence requires faith.

What is considered reliable and overwhelming evidence is personal. One person may find the presented evidence sufficient, others may find it lacking. Personally I find all the testimonial evidence in favor of God insufficent. To put it bluntly, I see them as “wishful thinking”.

]

I agree with you that there is such a thing as ‘personal evidence.’ In my personal opinion, there are many reasons for that. I can’t really go into it all here but I believe God reveals himself to us in a personal way as he touches us as individuals as well as communitites of believers. There is nothing wrong with personal opinions or personal experience of God as it happens but we need to very aware of the fact that it is personal and not necessarily for everyone. God is infinite and therefore, there is an infinite number of things he can be to us but it is perhaps for us because it is what we need. What we need to be wary of is creating God in our own image and I’m sure I don’t need to tell you about that. Even the most objective of us can be guilty of portraying an image of God that is one we like; a God that will do what we want and a God that perhaps agrees with us. This is what I would call the wishful thinking you speak of. This is why I believe that in order to know the truth of God, one must strive to know the person of God. I can recall having a deep theological discussion with a Priest on the Gospel of Luke and after I’d finished my theological analysis of certain passages, he smiled at me and said, ‘read it again and think about what it tells you of Christ as person.’ When I adopted this approach, I began to change my mind about a few things. Incidently, can anyone tell me how to quote properly? I can get the box round the text now but I can’t break it up into boxes to put comments into different parts of a post. The mysteries of the computer!

 

[ateista]

If someone has no proof, but says with reasonable evidenciary support, and many witnesses, that there is dangerous animals in an area, or the like, you, by reason, would be obliged to watch for them,

There is a huge difference between heeding the advice about dangerous animals in the neighborhood and considering the same “evidentiary” support (hearsay evidence) about - say - a bunch of space aliens ganging up on the neighborhood, and vantonly killing everyone who does not wish to worship them (or giving out life-extending pills to their worshippers). After all I already know that dangerous animals exist, but have no idea if space aliens exist.

it is likewise with what we say- that certain illogical acts, destroy the connection with logic- ending in “damnation”- eternity in an ugly sanatorium with fire.

Since I don’t believe in hell, which would have been “constructed” by a loving, caring and benevolent deity, I will disregard this variant of Pascal’s wager.

The question lies in our motives- so maybe study the saints the ultimate is this, are Catholics and their fellows sane, if so, then are we in a position to be rational, if so, then, who is most sane, if us, then become of our flocks

Sanity is not the question. Sane people can “fool” themselves into believing what they really want to be the “truth”.

 

[ateista]

Incidently, can anyone tell me how to quote properly? I can get the box round the text now but I can’t break it up into boxes to put comments into different parts of a post. The mysteries of the computer!

No big deal. If you want to break up the quoted text, simply copy the ** quote ], ** /quote ] signs, and make sure that each ** quote ]** has a balancing ** /quote ]** behind it. They act like “parentheses” and always must be used in pairs. Make sure that there are no spaces between the brackets “”, “]” and the “quote” and “/quote” text.

Also use the “enter” key to break up your text into paragraphs. Much easier to read.

 

[Shredderbeam]

If the end justifies the means in some situations, why not others? If it is morally permissible to kill one man to save one million, why not two? Or ten? Or 500,000? Where is the line objectively drawn?

 

[minkymurph]

ateista

Thanks for the technological assistance. I suppose I should break my posts up for easy reading. I tend to be careless typing on the computer as I’m always in a hurry. Happened once I had two young kids; one who always seems to want to play games on the computer when I’m using it!

I’ve also found that a University course had an adverse effect on my handwriting due to the fact that your writing at such a rate during lectures and scribbling notes when reading something. My spelling and grammer however has improved but I rely heavily on my spellchecker for polishing essays as I have a learning difficulty. That’s why I find computers difficult as well and unfortuately, my youngest son has been blessed with the same difficulty. The good news is he attended a really good nursery and at 4 is getting the help he needs. Who says the Catholic Church isn’t progressive? Sorry, off the point of the thread again!

 

[ateista]

ateista

Thanks for the technological assistance. I suppose I should break my posts up for easy reading. I tend to be careless typing on the computer as I’m always in a hurry. Happened once I had two young kids; one who always seems to want to play games on the computer when I’m using it!

I’ve also found that a University course had an adverse effect on my handwriting due to the fact that your writing at such a rate during lectures and scribbling notes when reading something. My spelling and grammer however has improved but I rely heavily on my spellchecker for polishing essays as I have a learning difficulty. That’s why I find computers difficult as well and unfortuately, my youngest son has been blessed with the same difficulty. The good news is he attended a really good nursery and at 4 is getting the help he needs. Who says the Catholic Church isn’t progressive? Sorry, off the point of the thread again!

That is ok. This thread as good as dead, anyhow. But I cannot resist and include a very funny little poem for you. Have a good laugh!

SPELL CHECKER

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased to no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

–Sauce unknown

 

[ateista]

If the end justifies the means in some situations, why not others? If it is morally permissible to kill one man to save one million, why not two? Or ten? Or 500,000? Where is the line objectively drawn?

The end NEVER justifies the means. Sometimes the “end” and “means” together form a justifyable sequence, other times they do not.

 

[minkymurph]

That is ok. This thread as good as dead, anyhow. But I cannot resist and include a very funny little poem for you. Have a good laugh!

SPELL CHECKER

Eye halve a spelling chequer
It came with my pea sea
It plainly marques four my revue
Miss steaks eye kin knot sea.

Eye strike a key and type a word
And weight four it two say
Weather eye am wrong oar write
It shows me strait a weigh.

As soon as a mist ache is maid
It nose bee fore two long
And eye can put the error rite
Its rare lea ever wrong.

Eye have run this poem threw it
I am shore your pleased to no
Its letter perfect awl the weigh
My chequer tolled me sew.

–Sauce unknown

Love it!

 

[Marc_Aupiais]

I am not advocating space aliens, which an athiest should know
What I am saying is that the first existence, from which all springs, want us to be like Him, and has set out a gauntlet, either accept truth, and copy me in proportion, or I will destroy my support for you.

This is the gauntlet, you acknowledge reality, do you not?

well, what can exist apart from it, surely, nothing, or it would not exist, in that this is a requirement of existence.

Reality is eternal, all encompassing (all things within it), all knowing (all is known by real beings, and all is real, which is known), and incomparably dominant.

We all mimic this force, knowing our source, and all cultures, at all times, acknowledge deity.

If Reality is aware, then it is capable of setting out a gauntlet as such, and has shown itself, through animals and utter cruelty within the universe to be capable of punishing us or others for not being like it, we ourselves judge by the standard of this Reality- even if not aware, we certainly are, and so, parts of Reality is aware-

You do not doubt your own sanity- then you will not shiver at exploring it, and trying to see it correct of what it is, or false.

Surely, to convert us to “logic”, or the like, you yourself admit that you do not see this as ultimate or always of most beneficial state-

you do so, because you think us disconnected with Reality- yet are mistaken as to our position- if I repeat- reality, through our own judgment shows us the fate of the misproportioned who choose unreality, then how can you say this is aliens, further- what basis do you have-

P.S. Well done at spotting Pascal’s wager- he was an interesting French Catholic Philosopher, but seeing it, and pondering it is not the same. You view is the liberal, small view, not ours, Atheism is new, as with liberalism of every form (not the sort which warrants equal treatment, but enlightenment philosophy).

P.s. I can reduce it to to relative certainty that He exists, and then logic for the rest, the wager is somewhat valid.

I side with Aristotle, and with Aquinas, and Pascal, above a person whose name is not even stated.

 

[Hwe]

Some pain, maybe. But not all. However, it is irrelevant. The existence of pain, which is not necessary for the sufferer is the point. Example: the burning in a wildfire. To be crushed in an earthquake. The existence of such pain contradicts benevolence.

Your saying so is not really convincing. Why don’t you argue your point?

But there is no “grand scheme” of things. There are only individual beings who burn to death. For them the pain is not “necessary”. The argument that one must allow pain for someone who does not benefit from it, even if someone else might - leads nowhere. There is no ethical system which allows a forceful blood transfusion (for example) even if someone else’s life might be saved in the process.

Show me that there is a moral system which allows the infliction of pain on someone, who does not consent in order to allow someone else to gain some unspecified “good” from it. There is no such system to my knowledge. If someone freely consents to be exposed to pain to help someone else - then we have moral justification.

The point is that you cannot have an argument based on natural causes and maintain God’s existence. If we ponder only nature and disregard God, then your points are valid. Nature is value-neutral, neither benevolent nor malevolent. Things just “happen”. But allegedly there is a benevolent deity “out there”, who allows pain and misery - even if it is not necessary for the ones involved. And that is the problem.