Objective Morality

[inocente]

Well, according to gays in other parts of the world, they’re pushing for a reduction of the age of consent to 14 years old. Their argument is that gay sex causes no harm to such sub-adults.

There are probably some heterosexuals wanting the same. If we go down that road we may as well just give up on the idea of childhood all together and send all the kids back down the mines. Well, that’s my subjective assessment.

Now, the churches might “collect” somewhat less, but, the churches don’t have thieves in control, so virtually all of it gets distributed.

There’s an interesting system in Spain. I can check two boxes on my income tax form, one for the Church and the other for a group of secular organizations. Whichever I check gets an audited proportion of my tax distributed directly, without any government interference. Not sure of the total amounts but the system helps keep government out of a number of areas. Anything similar where you are?

 

[inocente]

I never said that “both men are right” and neither does Paul.

One of the themes of Romans is Paul pulling together the factions in the new church by teaching them through Christ. In chapter 14 he isn’t talking about Mozart or a preference for vanilla ice cream. He says we are right to observe holy days and so on if they are part of our faith, and right not to observe them if not. We sin when we don’t act in faith as we all belong to the Lord. We also hurt each other, e.g., if we judge one other by disparaging the different meanings we find in the Eucharist. This is serious stuff.

Now good buddy, there’s something about your posts that is flagging up. At first I thought you might be playing games or my posts are being displayed in fuzzy font, because you’re just not getting me. But are objective morals a deep part of your faith? If so I’m not sure about the merits of going on.

If you’re OK to continue then I’ll answer your points. But also, the only cogent argument anyone has made for objective morals is that they are all wired into our brains, which to me then denies our reasoning and makes us no better than animals. What’s your view on that and/or the Rom 14 issue?

 

[inocente]

Hmmm. Is that an objective truth or a subjective truth?

Objective of course. I’m only debating the subjective quality of morals, not the Earth going around the Sun.

Surely these do not constitute atheist organizations.

I think they’re not at all interested in anyone’s faith or lack of it. Outside of the church of Richard Dawkins, I’m not sure that an atheist club would make any sense to many atheists.

If I call Hitler a Nazi, the label is very useful in that “Nazi” summons up a host of traits, none of which are flattering.

You know what I meant.

At this point it seems truly useless to talk to you.

You could always step back a little - there’s a reason why debating atheism is banned. And it’s not immediately obvious why not believing in god(s) disqualifies a belief in eternal moral truths, unless certain theists think they’ve cornered the market.

 

[dskysmine]

The inquisition was formed by Catholic monarchs with the explicit motive of enforcing Catholic orthodoxy. (…) acts were a result of his atheism, let alone implying that atheism itself mandates evil acts.

Don’t forget that I didn’t say explicitely say that “because” he was an atheist the conclusion was being “evil”… the problem is that being an atheist allows for anything, and no value is given other than subjective value, which makes the point that atheism is “responsible” for such argumentation.

Of course you can - atheists do just that, with no ill effects

I was talking about religion, not morality, and it is the same as my previous comment, which you asserted was fair.

Of course not - that would be rather self-defeating. That doesn’t mean that any religion is correct in claiming to be the source of morality.

I was making a point in the relationship between religion and morality.

Okay - it’s implicit. It’s not, in itself, a moral stance, which is what I inferred you were saying.

How is it not a moral stance?

That’s another way of putting it, yes. It’s a common theist approach.

And now, an atheist approach as well…

Well actually, he did - by implicity (and subjectively) declaring that morals are a product of religion, further implying that moral (…) Logic and observation shows that there is no causal link between religious belief and morality, other than the smug piousness of theists who claim there is.

How can there be no causal link between religious belief and morality?
Don’t you argue that Christian morality is “bad”?
Maybe you agree with some religion morality? If so, it would make you a follower of that religion… not an atheist.
And, by the way, I think he was pointing the finger at atheism, and not at an atheist.

Well the problem is that they won’t admit to the demonstrable logical fallacies they are committing. If they would only be honest with themselves that would be a start!

You can certainly point to those fallacies instead of just saying things like: “You are dogmatic” or “you are delusional”… etc…

Okay: “How is embracing the scientifically proven truths of the universe; of discarding the demonstrably (…) rather than just praying for things to get better - how is that holding back the progression of the human race?”

Your assertion is based in factual innacuracies. Religious people take real actions and you can witness it in almost every country in the world. I would also like to ask for your evidence to those “demonstrably incorrect ‘history’” you mention about. Religion doesn’t condemn the scientific method… Religion condemns scientific endeavors that don’t value anything, which, per se, is a paradox because scientific endeavor values knowledge, for example, but in the case of “religion vs science” religion only condemns scientific methods using humans as objects and not subjects.

Not at all. The fallacies are well documented and universally accepted. But theists seem to think that (…) And when it is exposed to such analysis, it fails comprehensively. This is not just my opinion!

Please enlighten us what those well documented and universally accepted fallacies are…
I also don’t exempt religious belief from critical analysis, I just probably don’t have the same kind of premises for that critical thinking you have.

Yes, you can judge Catholics against a documented moral code. But because they’re documented, that doesn’t make them objective. They were written by people.

The Bible was certainly written by people, but those “moral codes” were not created by those people, even they assert that.

And it’s a fallacy to imply that individual atheists have their own subjective individual moral code that could be wildly different (…) we all live our lives, was written by God. That clearly doesn’t mean that atheists are any less moral. To imply otherwise is just plain wrong.

That just argues that atheists follow “the pack” not that they use any other reason to follow those moral codes. And, if atheists (or anyone else) follow society’s moral codes, how can you explain for changes in morals in society? Random mutation? lol

If that’s what your ‘reason’ tells you, then your ‘reason’ is badly flawed. Just take a look around you. Open your eyes and look.

I’m looking. What do you want me to see?

You seem to think that I, and other atheists, believe that individual random morals are rife amongst atheists. This is clearly rubbish. Therefore your question is invalid. Hitler’s actions are evil by the standards of modern societally evolved morality - to which atheists subscribe, just like theists do.

You probably didn’t live in the start of the the 20th century. “Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.” Karl Marx.
So it seems that “everyone” thinks their morality is the modern standard for society.
Christian morality never changed in over 2000 years. Not to say that society never influenced Christian people, but the rules were always there for people to see, and still are. Atheism allows for changing of morals. Christianism doesn’t.
And if it is “society” that states if some one is “evil” or not, why had the Allies any right to declare Nazism “evil” if it was not so recognized in Germany? You are just stating what I asked of you: “Might” makes “right”. That is your argument for morality, not mine.

 

[dskysmine]

Just spotted this post.

Did you take the trouble to look into Christian divorce rates, before you posted?

Surprise - they track the national average, just like divorce rates from civil marriages.

Given the supposed Christian morality, and sacredness of Christian marriage, you’d expect Christian divorce rates to be significantly lower than average, wouldn’t you?

How do you explain it?

It is very easy to explain it… People who get divorced (at least in the Catholic Church) are not following their religion’s morality. The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. Don’t forget that my post was a comment on inocence’s “perspective” that homosexuals want to get married to make life long vows. I find it is irrational to marry someone if it isn’t for life. The definition of marriage is that it is a contract for life (for Christians at least), so it seems hypocritical to marry someone and then divorce them.
And by the way, nice conclusion that religion has anything to do with divorce… like that conclusion that atheism has everything to do with evil, right? >_>

 

[dskysmine]

One of the themes of Romans is Paul pulling together the factions in the new church by teaching them through Christ. In chapter 14 he isn’t talking about Mozart or a preference for vanilla ice cream. He says we are right to observe holy days and so on if they are part of our faith, and right not to observe them if not. We sin when we don’t act in faith as we all belong to the Lord. We also hurt each other, e.g., if we judge one other by disparaging the different meanings we find in the Eucharist. This is serious stuff.

Actually I understand it as Paul making a distinction of what is in fact moral and what isn’t. He makes clear distinctions about what is morality when he talks about the OT laws regarding food, which, if read literally would make no sense in Christian faith. The Church speaks of this in similar fashion.

Now good buddy, there’s something about your posts that is flagging up. At first I thought you might be playing games or my posts are being displayed in fuzzy font, because you’re just not getting me. But are objective morals a deep part of your faith? If so I’m not sure about the merits of going on.

I don’t understand how it has to do with merits. Objective morality is the consequence of being a Catholic, not a cause. If I were an atheist I would argue for subjective morality. What seems strange is that you assert that you are a Catholic and morality is subjective. The two don’t seem to work together.

If you’re OK to continue then I’ll answer your points. But also, the only cogent argument anyone has made for objective morals is that they are all wired into our brains, which to me then denies our reasoning and makes us no better than animals. What’s your view on that and/or the Rom 14 issue?

I’m OK to continue. I find it odd that the only cogent argument for objective morals is they being “wired” into brains.
1st- It begs the question of “how” they were wired to our brains.
2nd- It begs the question that if they are wired into our brains “why” don’t we all have the same morality.
3rd- It begs the question of what you find “cogent”.
4rd- It begs the question of what you define as “morality”
If you don’t want to answer to 1 and 2 at least answer to 3 and 4.
It seems to me that our definition of morality is not the same, and that would result in our discussion leading nowhere.

The Rom 14 issue I already expressed above that shows us the difference on morality and personal value. If for example some one sings a praise to mary in the church in the middle of the rosary would it be “bad” if another person is not used to it and finds it “unholy”? It would deppend on the stances of both people. They both may be acting “bad” or “good”, or only one of them. If person A (the singer) sings without thinking it would hurt someone because that person has always did that, then probably person A is not sinning. If person B (the other one) thinks it is “unholy” because she has never prayed the rosary like it (surprise more than jugmental), then it is not at fault. But if person A sings to show her skills even though she knows people there never sing in the middle of the rosary (some do, but for the sake of argument let’s suppose they didn’t at that place), she can be at fault. And if person B “thinks” it is “unholy” because everyone ‘should know’ how to pray the rosary (in a judgmental fashion), she can be at fault. It is the moral action of “pride” (which is “evil”) that changes the action… not the action (or feeling) in itself. But the sin of pride would be objectively evil, no matter the situation.

 

[wanstronian]

Don’t forget that I didn’t say explicitely say that “because” he was an atheist the conclusion was being “evil”… the problem is that being an atheist allows for anything,

Of course it doesn’t - what utter nonsense!

and no value is given other than subjective value, which makes the point that atheism is “responsible” for such argumentation.

That’s your interpretation. Atheist morality isn’t subjective individual morality, it’s a recognition that morality evolves alongside the culture in which it’s embedded. That’s what is meant by subjective - not that an individual atheist can do what he wants and then justify it by saying it fits his personal moral guidelines.

I was talking about religion, not morality, and it is the same as my previous comment, which you asserted was fair.

Let me just make sure I follow - you’re stating that for the theist, morality and religious belief are inseparable? I think that’s understood. For the atheist, morality and religious position are distinct. One does not have to be religious to be moral.

I was making a point in the relationship between religion and morality.

Yes, I know. You’re restating your view that religion sees itself as the source of morality. But as I said, that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

How is it not a moral stance?

I mean, it’s not purely a moral stance. Strictly, it’s not a moral stance at all, it’s a stance on the source of morality, not on the details or content of morality itself.

Similarly, vegetarianism isn’t a list of what you can eat, but a set of principles that in turn define what you can eat. It’s not a great analogy, but hopefully you can see what I mean!

And now, an atheist approach as well…

Sometimes, yes. But mainly, such bluster isn’t required! I know that you’ll take this with a pinch of salt coming from an atheist, but generally atheists are quite careful not to make statements they can’t substantiate - because this is considered one of the main problems with religious apologist arguments, it’s important not to fall into the same trap.

How can there be no causal link between religious belief and morality?

Why should there be a link? The atheist position, which is supported by shifts in morality over time and geographical location, is that morality is a product of culture, and that people simply took the morality of the day and wove it into their religious texts. The only link, therefore, is that religion has poached these moral guidelines and called itself the source of morality.

I can’t prove this, but it seems likely given how morality has changed over time, and also given that atheistic morality is pretty much the same as theistic morality in any given culture. There is certainly no evidence that religion is the source of morality.

Don’t you argue that Christian morality is “bad”?

Not at all. It’s broadly the same morality as the rest of us use, in practice.

Maybe you agree with some religion morality? If so, it would make you a follower of that religion… not an atheist.

No it wouldn’t - that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Even if morality were a product of Religion X, that wouldn’t mean that agreeing with that set of rules made one a follower of that religion. It would just mean that there’s some ideological common ground.

And, by the way, I think he was pointing the finger at atheism, and not at an atheist.

In this case, he seemed to be referring specifically to Madalyn Murray O’Haire.

You can certainly point to those fallacies instead of just saying things like: “You are dogmatic” or “you are delusional”… etc…

And we do, whenever we spot them. The fallacy just gets denied, even though it’s plain to see.

 

[wanstronian]

Your assertion is based in factual innacuracies. Religious people take real actions and you can witness it in almost every country in the world. I would also like to ask for your evidence to those “demonstrably incorrect ‘history’” you mention about.

Biology, physics, astronomy, genealogy and geology destroy Genesis.

Religion doesn’t condemn the scientific method… Religion condemns scientific endeavors that don’t value anything, which, per se, is a paradox because scientific endeavor values knowledge, for example, but in the case of “religion vs science” religion only condemns scientific methods using humans as objects and not subjects.

You lost me near the end there I’m afraid. Religion doesn’t formally condemn scientific endeavour, but it does (depending on the religion) reject certain scientific conclusions in favour of traditional superstitious doctrine. Evolution is the biggest example.

Please enlighten us what those well documented and universally accepted fallacies are…

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or if you genuinely don’t know about them! Being a theist, I can almost believe the latter…

But this is just one reference.

I also don’t exempt religious belief from critical analysis, I just probably don’t have the same kind of premises for that critical thinking you have.

Maybe that’s it. There’s a great quote from Douglas Adams:

As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel, in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.
I’ve put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I’d spent learning history, physics, Latin, math, I’d learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn’t seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments that, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof - just plain wrong. Why was this?
…What astonished me …] was the realization that the arguments in favour of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arugments of something as interpretive and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn’t stand up to it.

From The American Atheist 37, No.1

dskysmine:

The Bible was certainly written by people, but those “moral codes” were not created by those people, even they assert that.

Unfortunately they’re not here to confirm that. Nor, in most cases, were they even alive or present at the events they describe. These people were telling a story, so they ascribe the actions and outcomes to the characters within the story. That’s how stories work.

That just argues that atheists follow “the pack” not that they use any other reason to follow those moral codes.

Not at all, it argues that atheists (and theists) follow a moral code that evolves along with the culture, to benefit that culture.

And, if atheists (or anyone else) follow society’s moral codes, how can you explain for changes in morals in society? Random mutation? lol

As above.

I’m looking. What do you want me to see?

I want you to see the millions of atheists in the world that are living just as morally as you - helping others, remaining faithful to their friend and families, contributing to society, and so on.

You probably didn’t live in the start of the the 20th century. “Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.” Karl Marx.
So it seems that “everyone” thinks their morality is the modern standard for society.

Indeed - and that’s clearly wrong because the moral datum does change over time, and between societies.

Christian morality never changed in over 2000 years.

Are you sure? What about the condoning of slavery, genocide etc.? I know these are cliches in this type of conversation, but for a very good reason. If we were to follow the moral code suggested by the bible, society would take a massive backwards step.

Not to say that society never influenced Christian people, but the rules were always there for people to see, and still are. Atheism allows for changing of morals. Christianism doesn’t.

And yet those morals have changed, have been accepted by concensus, and are practised by theists and atheists alike.

And if it is “society” that states if some one is “evil” or not, why had the Allies any right to declare Nazism “evil” if it was not so recognized in Germany? You are just stating what I asked of you: “Might” makes “right”. That is your argument for morality, not mine.

What makes you think it wasn’t recognised as such in Germany? There’s more to a country’s citizenship than the leaders and policy-setters.

 

[wanstronian]

It is very easy to explain it… People who get divorced (at least in the Catholic Church) are not following their religion’s morality. The Catholic Church does not recognize divorce. Don’t forget that my post was a comment on inocence’s “perspective” that homosexuals want to get married to make life long vows. I find it is irrational to marry someone if it isn’t for life. The definition of marriage is that it is a contract for life (for Christians at least), so it seems hypocritical to marry someone and then divorce them.

Ah, so it’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, is it?

And by the way, nice conclusion that religion has anything to do with divorce… like that conclusion that atheism has everything to do with evil, right? >_>

Never asserted such a conclusion, never suggested such a conclusion, don’t believe such a conclusion. Not sure where you got this idea from. Why would I think that religion is linked to divorce? By what mechanism? If anything, I was suggesting that divorce and religion are completely unrelated.

I was just pointing out that many theists point to a Christian marriage as being more valid than a civil marriage, as the vows are made in sight of God and Christianity is more moral than not-Christianity, blah blah. The statistics don’t seem to support this point of view, that’s all.

 

[JDaniel]

There are probably some heterosexuals wanting the same. If we go down that road we may as well just give up on the idea of childhood all together and send all the kids back down the mines. Well, that’s my subjective assessment.

But, I don’t see hetero’s congregating into parade lines or queuing up at the voter bureaus to get those desires on a ballot. (I can’t even imagine heteros going public with that desire!) So, again, everyone has secret desires. What on earth do you suppose we can do about those? The kids might be safer down in the mines!

There’s an interesting system in Spain. I can check two boxes on my income tax form, one for the Church and the other for a group of secular organizations. Whichever I check gets an audited proportion of my tax distributed directly, without any government interference. Not sure of the total amounts but the system helps keep government out of a number of areas. Anything similar where you are?

No. The only thing we get to click is whether or not we want to donate $2.00 of the government’s money - not ours, mind you - as a political contribution.

God bless,
jd

 

[inocente]

He makes clear distinctions about what is morality when he talks about the OT laws regarding food, which, if read literally would make no sense in Christian faith.

Paul first gets the attention of the two factions, the ex-Jews and the Gentiles, in Romans 1:16. He doesn’t use those terms in chapter 14. The guys that regard some food as unclean are the ex-Jews (there’s a theory that it also includes some of the Gentiles who don’t want to eat meat sacrificed to Mars or Venus, the false gods they used to worship). Likewise, the ex-Jews are the ones who believe in holy days, the Gentiles not so much. Paul says for himself he sees no problems in eating “unclean” meat, but says those who do are also running on faith. It makes perfect sense when read literally as if you were back in that early church. Try it.

What seems strange is that you assert that you are a Catholic and morality is subjective. The two don’t seem to work together.

On the top right-hand corner of my posts it says Baptist. That’s what I typed when I joined, and that’s my faith. If it says Catholic on your computer I’ll post a bug report.

But also … I’ve seen Catholics (or at least that’s what they post as) on CAF arguing whether the Bible is infallible, whether every word must be read literally, whether the Church is correct about some of its moral teaching, whether the Eucharist is explicable by string theory , whether the scientific method should be condemned outright and so on. It seems at times that the only thing all Catholics have in common is a badge.

I find it odd that the only cogent argument for objective morals is they being “wired” into brains.

Me too. I think it was C II who made the argument that it’s all wired into our brains. I certainly didn’t, for I’m saying there are some instincts and the rest is collectively subjective.

Like you, I can’t see how it could all be wired into our brains. But you’re the one arguing for objective morality, so where are the eternal moral truths?

 

[inocente]

But this is just one reference.

I’ve not looked at the whole site yet but that looks like an excellent resource, thanks.

 

[dskysmine]

Of course it doesn’t - what utter nonsense!

Then what does make one atheist more “right” than the other?

That’s your interpretation. Atheist morality isn’t subjective individual morality, it’s a recognition that morality evolves alongside the culture in which it’s embedded. That’s what is meant by subjective - not that an individual atheist can do what he wants and then justify it by saying it fits his personal moral guidelines.

It seems you are reading too much of what an atheist is…
Didn’t you say that atheism is just the lack of belief in God? Your argument “pro-atheist” just assumed that atheists are evolutionists, which “atheism” does not require.

Let me just make sure I follow - you’re stating that for the theist, morality and religious belief are inseparable? I think that’s understood. For the atheist, morality and religious position are distinct. One does not have to be religious to be moral.

The problem is that, like you stated, atheism is a counter-argument. It is the denial of God. It is not the assertion of some utopian world. There are atheists for almost every kind of philosophy.

Yes, I know. You’re restating your view that religion sees itself as the source of morality. But as I said, that doesn’t mean that it’s true.

I didn’t say that religion is the source of morality… I said God is the source of morality. There are big differences between those statements!

I mean, it’s not purely a moral stance. Strictly, it’s not a moral stance at all, it’s a stance on the source of morality, not on the details or content of morality itself.

Similarly, vegetarianism isn’t a list of what you can eat, but a set of principles that in turn define what you can eat. It’s not a great analogy, but hopefully you can see what I mean!

Actually it is a good enough analogy, but the problem is that vegetarianism already presumes a moral code (at least in dietary context). The fact that atheism presumes that God is not the source of morality it can get any source for morality, that’s why you have utilitarianism, communism, fascism, rationalism, empiricism, etc … which all fit inside atheism but not in Christianism.

Sometimes, yes. But mainly, such bluster isn’t required! I know that you’ll take this with a pinch of salt coming from an atheist, but generally atheists are quite careful not to make statements they can’t substantiate - because this is considered one of the main problems with religious apologist arguments, it’s important not to fall into the same trap.

I was talking about your argument that someone else’s argument (I don’t remember who now) was “bad” and you didn’t reply pointing the logical errors explicitely.

Why should there be a link? The atheist position, which is supported by shifts in morality over time and geographical location, is that morality is a product of culture, and that people simply took the morality of the day and wove it into their religious texts. The only link, therefore, is that religion has poached these moral guidelines and called itself the source of morality.

I can’t prove this, but it seems likely given how morality has changed over time, and also given that atheistic morality is pretty much the same as theistic morality in any given culture. There is certainly no evidence that religion is the source of morality.

I find it odd that you speak of morality changes as if they are “random mutations” in society. Morality changes is much more directly connected to technological and scientific knowledge than anything else. There are thousands of examples for this but probably the most obvious one is the printing press, which allowed for people to have access to bibles (and other books) which contributed to differentiation in value of knowledge from books.
But, I would have to state that even considering that, there are moral values that never changed (in over 3500 years of written history), life and property being the most obvious ones.

Not at all. It’s broadly the same morality as the rest of us use, in practice.

=)
Funny. Although it is true that it has the same “broad” principles regarding materialistic value, don’t forget that morality in religion includes the value of God and (for most religions) an after-life.

No it wouldn’t - that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Even if morality were a product of Religion X, that wouldn’t mean that agreeing with that set of rules made one a follower of that religion. It would just mean that there’s some ideological common ground.

When I am saying that some one agrees with some one else’s morality I mean the “whole” morality. There is many common grounds in religions, I understand, and even between atheists and religious people, that’s why we can get along, but there are important differences that can affect not only our bodies and each other’s but ourselves and the other’s (including soul, spirit, etc…) or the lack of such belief. What do you think is the result of an atheist being “selfish”, “evil”, and “mean” (even according to that atheist’s morality)? None (according to atheist belief). It begs the question of what makes an atheist not be evil. Especially if the atheist can find people around him acting “evil” and not getting any problems.

And we do, whenever we spot them. The fallacy just gets denied, even though it’s plain to see.

Well in the post I was mentioning I didn’t see it. I apologise if I missed it.

 

[dskysmine]

Biology, physics, astronomy, genealogy and geology destroy Genesis.

They also destroy William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, etc… but I don’t see anyone ganging up on them.
The genesis isn’t a scientific description of Creation… if it were, it couldn’t have been written by any human because no human ever existed at the time.

You lost me near the end there I’m afraid. Religion doesn’t formally condemn scientific endeavour, but it does (depending on the religion) reject certain scientific conclusions in favour of traditional superstitious doctrine. Evolution is the biggest example.

The Catholic Church doesn’t reject evolution.

I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or if you genuinely don’t know about them! Being a theist, I can almost believe the latter…

But this is just one reference.

I didn’t mean the definition or enumeration of the fallacies… I wanted you to tell me what fallacies did the theists use.

Maybe that’s it. There’s a great quote from Douglas Adams:

Maybe if one of you two can tell me which arguments in favour of religion are that “feeble” I can enlighten or give you some that aren’t…

Unfortunately they’re not here to confirm that. Nor, in most cases, were they even alive or present at the events they describe. These people were telling a story, so they ascribe the actions and outcomes to the characters within the story. That’s how stories work.

And yet, we can in fact evaluate if their “stories” match up to reality, through arquology, or if they are consistant, through exegesis and linguistics, and even logical, through philosophy. What we can’t is presume that God or the metaphysical doesn’t exist before we evaluate any of the arguments.

Not at all, it argues that atheists (and theists) follow a moral code that evolves along with the culture, to benefit that culture.

Are you arguing for an “evolution” theory of morality? That morality is subject to random mutations?

I want you to see the millions of atheists in the world that are living just as morally as you - helping others, remaining faithful to their friend and families, contributing to society, and so on.

I was talking about “pride”… what does that have to do with it?

Indeed - and that’s clearly wrong because the moral datum does change over time, and between societies.

How is it wrong? It is “right” then, not “right” now? Then how do we judge people based on our “right” now? There would be no “right” or “wrong”, just the “now”. What is “now” is what is “now”, neither “right”, nor “wrong”. Conclusion I can take from your argument: morality doesn’t exist.

Are you sure? What about the condoning of slavery, genocide etc.? I know these are cliches in this type of conversation, but for a very good reason. If we were to follow the moral code suggested by the bible, society would take a massive backwards step.

“genocides” in the bible only apply to people who were against Israel. Maybe you wouldn’t enter into war if Hitler existed now? Well, not until he attacked a US harbour right?
And don’t bother quoting the bible for those passages… if we analyse literally what the bible says it wouldn’t matter more than any other novel.

And yet those morals have changed, have been accepted by concensus, and are practised by theists and atheists alike.

Have they? Christian’s morality hasn’t changed, just moral actions, maybe they are reaching something…

What makes you think it wasn’t recognised as such in Germany? There’s more to a country’s citizenship than the leaders and policy-setters.

Even if it was recognised as evil by any ammount it wasn’t a significant amount to have succeeded the way it did (or else you are telling me they consciously chosen to be “evil”), and to speak of Nazism I could have mentioned any other political movement (Communism vs capitalism for example), even Sparta, which was considered “bad” from Athens…

 

[inocente]

They also destroy William Shakespeare, Oscar Wilde, etc… but I don’t see anyone ganging up on them.

Astronomy destroyed Shakespeare?

Are you arguing for an “evolution” theory of morality?

That’s an excellent analogy for my position.

Then how do we judge people based on our “right” now?

Well, as Christians … Mat 7:1?

Well, not until he attacked a US harbour right?

Hitler was Japanese?

Even if it was recognised as evil by any ammount it wasn’t a significant amount to have succeeded the way it did

Correct, there weren’t any Christians at all in Germany. Well, excluding all those Lutherans, etc.

 

[dskysmine]

Ah, so it’s the “no true Scotsman” fallacy, is it?

It’s not because I never asserted that the truth was in the Christians, it is in the Christ.

Never asserted such a conclusion, never suggested such a conclusion, don’t believe such a conclusion. Not sure where you got this idea from. Why would I think that religion is linked to divorce? By what mechanism? If anything, I was suggesting that divorce and religion are completely unrelated.

I was just pointing out that many theists point to a Christian marriage as being more valid than a civil marriage, as the vows are made in sight of God and Christianity is more moral than not-Christianity, blah blah. The statistics don’t seem to support this point of view, that’s all.

Your comment was a comment to my comment.
My comment was commenting on the phrase that inocente used to say that homosexuals want marriages because of the vows. I was accusing his argument of the “no true Scotsman” fallacy…

 

[dskysmine]

Paul first gets the attention of the two factions, the ex-Jews and the Gentiles, in Romans 1:16. He doesn’t use those terms in chapter 14. The guys that regard some food as unclean are the ex-Jews (there’s a theory that it also includes some of the Gentiles who don’t want to eat meat sacrificed to Mars or Venus, the false gods they used to worship). Likewise, the ex-Jews are the ones who believe in holy days, the Gentiles not so much. Paul says for himself he sees no problems in eating “unclean” meat, but says those who do are also running on faith. It makes perfect sense when read literally as if you were back in that early church. Try it.

Paul literally states that the “evil” is not in the material world… it is in the moral realm, the prideful gloat to regard a “holy day”, the “evil” in eating an “unholy meat” in front of an ex-jew… etc… I didn’t say that you couldn’t read what Paul said literally… I said that you couldn’t read the OT laws literally.

On the top right-hand corner of my posts it says Baptist. That’s what I typed when I joined, and that’s my faith. If it says Catholic on your computer I’ll post a bug report.

I’m sorry, It is my fault. I must have confused it somehow =x…
But still, as a Baptist it is your assertion that morality is subjective? As in “right” and “wrong” being arbitrary?

But also … I’ve seen Catholics (or at least that’s what they post as) on CAF arguing whether the Bible is infallible, whether every word must be read literally, whether the Church is correct about some of its moral teaching, whether the Eucharist is explicable by string theory , whether the scientific method should be condemned outright and so on. It seems at times that the only thing all Catholics have in common is a badge.

One must “critically exame everything. Hold fast to which that is good”. Paul said it

Me too. I think it was C II who made the argument that it’s all wired into our brains. I certainly didn’t, for I’m saying there are some instincts and the rest is collectively subjective.

Then how do you explain for “value”? DNA?

Like you, I can’t see how it could all be wired into our brains. But you’re the one arguing for objective morality, so where are the eternal moral truths?

God. Where do you think everything comes from?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

But also, the only cogent argument anyone has made for objective morals is that they are all wired into our brains, which to me then denies our reasoning and makes us no better than animals. What’s your view on that and/or the Rom 14 issue?

Well, it’s clear that you have eliminated free will as an option. Animals don’t have it, so they cannot overcome their wiring. We can. This is the only cogent argument that explains the universal phenomenon of conscience among human beings and the lack of it among animals.

 

[dskysmine]

Astronomy destroyed Shakespeare?

Not literally… >_>

That’s an excellent analogy for my position.

How is it analogous? Where is the random mutation?

Well, as Christians … Mat 7:1?

Christian morality was “right” 2000 years ago (give or take), but we judge people as Christians “now”?
What makes Christian morality “right” now?

Hitler was Japanese?

I was talking about a “present-day” “hitler”… not a past one.

Correct, there weren’t any Christians at all in Germany. Well, excluding all those Lutherans, etc.

How can you state that the minority was “right”? If it’s the collective subject morality that is “right” makes for the argument that “might” makes “right”. If you lived in a world where everyone else but you were atheists that defended the death of religious people, you wouldn’t make the collective subject morality… they would!

 

[grannymh]

Grannymh:

I see that you did not get your question(s) answered. May I try?

A moral is a value, but, not just any “value”, rather it is the fundamental value, and is generally based upon whether the actions of a man (or, woman) are “good,” and, perhaps even the degree of good. We say, or describe, a man to be a “good” businessman, artist, actor, athlete, speaker, employee, politician, and so on. But, there is one final value we ascribe to a man even if he is extraordinarily good at being any of the above and that is, he may be a “bad man.” On the other hand, he may be horrible at being any of the above, or anything else he attempts, but, he may be considered a “good man.” More specifically, a moral is generally considered an aspect of a man, based on conduct that is “good” as opposed to “bad.”

Moral values are understood to be those which make a man good precisely as a man. They are “personal” but not just because a person has them, but also, because they are the expressions of each person’s unique personality, emanating from the innermost center of his being, and, are shown to us by the acts of his free choice. It is these free choices that are responsible for determining the character of a man. Moral values can only exist in a free being and in his free actions. They must be universal in that they must hold for everyone under the same conditions. They must be self-justifying. They must be preeminent over all other values (such as beauty, intelligence, witty, etc.). They imply obligation.

When an action is such that it meets, or exceeds, most or all of the criteria generally regarded by mankind as exemplary, it is good. Such a good is one that is intrinsic; it is a perfect good. It could also be called an ideal, or even one that is ideally good. It is good, not as leading to something else, not as a means useful to something further, but in itself. It has value because it has what it ought to have to be the fullest expression of itself. This is the highest sense of “good.” If it is good for something else it is presupposed by another that it is good for. If it is good only inasmuch as it is leading up to something more good, it is not good in the highest sense. But, in its highest sense it is merely good for no other reason than itself.

God bless,
jd

Thank you for the above. These are my additional comments.

It is human nature itself, rational/corporeal, material/non-material, soul and body, which is fundamental to any discussion of moral values.

Morals are based on the universal truth of human nature which is worthy of profound respect. It is the “will” of our soul which seeks the highest good, eternal union with God. Being created “free” the will can seek the lesser good. The exercise of free will choice does not change human nature itself nor does it lesson the sacredness of the human person. Free will choice does determine the final, eternal disposition of the human person.

Because of relativism and the loss of Divine Revelation, discussions about morality this and morality that multiply ten-fold without ever getting to the basic objective truth regarding the human object of morality.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.