Objective Morality

[dskysmine]

Are there objective morals due to God, or no objective morals due to God? In other words, you’re not saying much there. If you’re arguing against instincts and subjectivity then you might like to propose an alternative mechanism.

The first one is clearly the only possible and reasonable one.
If there is no objective morality then God cannot judge us…
If there is no objective morality we have no “right” to “judge” others…
If there is no objective morality no morality can or should be enforced…
If there is no objective morality, what is “good” could just as easily be “evil”.
If there is no objective morality it makes no sense to believe in God.

On non-instinctive matters like downloading music, we all think differently and a consensus evolves. Darwin didn’t corner the market on the word evolution. For instance, see how the word is used in Origin and Historical Evolution of Pontifical Diplomacy

Actually, downloading music is just as instinctive as stealing… it’s just a much easier and hidden way to do it. Human beings eager to possess stuff, it is nothing new. There is a right and a wrong regarding this, we just become too blind to see it when the people involved don’t act on phisical things. Students copying works from the internet is a very common and probably common things these days. It’s just like asking some one to do your work for you… but the internet detaches people from each other because there’s a machine in the middle.

Which Christian? Those of us who say the homosexual act is a sin or those of us who disagree? How do you get your objectively divine revelation of what is good when I have the same scripture and a different answer – is it because your Church is bigger than my church, that might is right?

You should know that being a Catholic, I only consider the morality that stems from the Catholic Church… it’s precisely because protestant relativism can agree to anything…

I’m not the one arguing that no one in Germany saw the evil of Hitler, I’m simply pointing out that the majority in Germany at the time were probably Christians. Mussolini got to power in Catholic Italy, Franco in Catholic Spain. Was Russia awash with atheists or with Christians on the day before the Revolution?

I don’t care if they were Christians or not… I’m saying that the majority of people in those countries allowed for “evil” to exist peacefully. They weren’t peacefully ignoring the politics. The majority of the German people worked and served the state in many ways. Were they “right” because they were Christians? No. Were they “right” because they had the “might” to invade other countries? No. If “might” makes “right”, then “right” is indeed arbitrary…

I’d take my chances on that not happening, through faith in people - see next post to granny.

How can you have faith in “people”? You can trust people… but “faith”? What is having “faith” in people? You don’t worship people do you? What makes some one who states that morality is “subjective” be faithworthy? They can as easily say that what you say is right, or is wrong… or maybe you just get convinced by atheists? Then how are you a Christian?

 

[dskysmine]

On the contrary, sweetie pie. This thread has been useful in contrasting faith in God with faith in people.

In reply Jesus said: "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too, a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But an Atheist, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring on oil and wine. Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn and took care of him. The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper. ‘Look after him,’ he said, ‘and when I return, I will reimburse you for any extra expense you may have.’

“Which of these three do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?”

The expert in the law replied, “The one who had mercy on him.” Jesus told him, “Go and do likewise.” - Luke 10:30-37 NIV (with one edit)

There’s no rulebook containing fix moral commands there, nor even any mention of God. A kid can work out a good understanding of compassion and our moral responsibilities from the parable without belief in God and without knowing any of the Law (well, I and my school-mates did anyway). We have a capacity for doing bad things but for most of the time most of us are good. God made us that way, and He also made us so we can work stuff out.

I’m probably a relativist if only I could work out what it means. Apparently, Aquinas was a divine commandist but that’s a bit of a mouthful.

I would like to point out a few things:
1- A samaritan isn’t an atheist… They are hebrews that believe they posess the have kept the law from Abraham because they never went to Egypt.
2- For the purpose of discussion Jesus could have argued for an “atheist” in the same way, but He didn’t. Although I agree that Jesus argues for an innate sense of morality, it doesn’t mean that morality is arbitrary it actually comes to show to the Jewish people that morality isn’t exclusive to the Jewish people and that the Holy Spirit can act in everyone. I would like to point out the verses from Matthew 15:22-28, in which Jesus tells that He came primarily to work with the Jewish people for His ministry (although He later explained that God would be worshiped by people from all around the World). It would make no sense for Jesus to have ministred outside the Jewish faith, to which God made the promise of the Messiah, but it would make no sense to have those teachings be restricted to the Jewish people either… That’s why we have Pentecost.
3- Relativism doesn’t make much sense in a Christian faith, where “good” is objectively described as being Universal.

 

[inocente]

Or, its not apropos, or, we can’t find it, etc., etc.

I guess we just have to work out the morality of torture subjectively then?

On the other points, we’re both getting off topic. We might agree that Pearl Harbor had nothing whatsoever to do with the US entering WWII, that the Vietnam police action went very well, the Korean police action produced great results, and the 100,000+ civilian deaths in Iraq since the invasion is the result of terrific police work. But that’s a different thread, so let’s leave that one well alone.

 

[inocente]

If there is no objective morality then God cannot judge us…
If there is no objective morality we have no “right” to “judge” others…

Rom 14:23 – “and everything that does not come from faith is sin”. For me, God made us to have faith in one another, not just exclusively in Him. So for me, it’s a sin when I lack faith in others (there but for the grace of God go I). It’s also a sin for me to judge another, unless I’m judging in a law court.

If there is no objective morality no morality can or should be enforced…
If there is no objective morality, what is “good” could just as easily be “evil”.

We collectively form morality. If torture is condoned by one nation for the greater good, another may outlaw it for the greater good.

If there is no objective morality it makes no sense to believe in God.

God didn’t create us with the single purpose of judging us.

Students copying works from the internet is a very common and probably common things these days.

Good point.

You should know that being a Catholic, I only consider the morality that stems from the Catholic Church… it’s precisely because protestant relativism can agree to anything…

You’ll have to take that one up with the Catholics who disagree that the homosexual act is a sin.

How can you have faith in “people”?

Faith = great trust or confidence in something or someone – Cambridge

3- Relativism doesn’t make much sense in a Christian faith, where “good” is objectively described as being Universal.

I agree with the other points in that post but can’t say on this one.

granny’s definition (post #205) is : A relativist believes that he or she has the power to determine objective truth by calling anything objective morality minus its foundation.

On that definition no Christian can be a relativist, assuming it intends the foundation as God. But I don’t really understand relativism as defined by Wikipedia etc. I thought I did until trying to apply it to any real life position, and then got a bit lost.

 

[inocente]

Not a problemo.

To be pedantic, problems are female (which makes sense to any male ) so it’s no problema.

 

[wanstronian]

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

How is that relevant? You said that “being an atheist allows for anything.” That’s nonsense, it no more allows that for an atheist as for anybody else.

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.

True - that was an assumption I shouldn’t have made, although I suspect it’s true for the majority. That doesn’t change the fact that atheist morality doesn’t just equate to the whim of the individual. There is an option other than “religious” or “individual.”

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.

No, it’s not the assertion of a utopian world, nor did I suggest it was. I’m not sure what you’re trying to show here, I’m afraid.

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!

Not to someone who doesn’t believe in any gods. And regardless of your claimed ultimate source, it doesn’t change the fact that simply claiming it doesn’t make it right.

Actually it is a good enough analogy, but the problem is that vegetarianism already presumes a moral code (at least in dietary context).

You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about the morality of vegetarianism, I’m just pointing out that atheism is an outlook that has its implications - one of which is the rejection of a religious source of morality. Vegetarianism is an outlook that also has its implications - one of which is a principle of dietary acceptability. In fact, this is pretty much the only implication of vegetarianism, which is why it’s not a great analogy.

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.

So your argument is that because there are variations on moral doctrines outside of Christian moral dogma, that somehow makes Christian dogma the right one? And the fact is that the moral code by which atheists live their day-to-day life is generally the same as the moral code by which Christians live their day-to-day life. Surely this, if nothing else, points towards an over-arching, society-oriented, evolved moral code that Christianity has merely adopted for itself, by documenting it in the bible and claiming it came from God!

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.

Oh, well nobody’s perfect! If you can find the post I’ll happily explain my rationale. It wasn’t a deliberate ploy to omit it.

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.

I don’t think I’ve implied that. I believe that morality has developed memetically alongside the development of our cultures. I’ve never used the word random, and nor would I.

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.

Indeed - some aspects of moral culture are bound to remain unchanged - particularly the ones that work for society as a whole. Why would you change something that works?

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.

Yes - non-religious morality tends to discard concepts which have no practical use!

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).

This is the common theistic misrepresentation of atheistic morality. It’s wrong.

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.

Exactly the same thing that makes a theist ‘not be evil.’ The only difference is the theists have it written down, as if that makes a difference!

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

There are a number of fallacies that get repeated time and time again (and not just by theists) - it would be draining to explain the fallacy each and every time. However, as I said, I’m happy to be called out on it.

 

[wanstronian]

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

I’m not familiar with Oscar Wilde’s works, but I don’t believe Shakespeare was in the business of trying to get his output accepted as historial truth.

If I’m wrong, so be it. Consider them destroyed. An appeal to emotion shouldn’t stand in the way of the facts.

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.

The non-presence of the story-teller at the events being told, didn’t stop the New Testament from being written!

So if Genesis is demonstrably false, why should we have any faith in the rest of the book?

And I should point out, this is only your opinion. Plenty of catholics take it literally.

The Catholic Church doesn’t reject evolution.

Maybe not, but plenty of Catholics do.

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

Do you mean generally, or in a specific post? Generally speaking, there are dozens. More than I can fit into two posts, and I certainly don’t want to spill into three! I’d be happy to start another thread, but I suspect it would get hijacked. I’ll give it a go if you fancy it.

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…

Well, there’s the argument from biblical testimony. The Cosmological and Ontological Arguments are laughable. Many arguments for the existence of God boil down to the Argument from Incredulity. These are the main ones I see, I guess.
I think the biggest culprit is the underlying assumption, without evidence, that metaphysical phenomena exist. We can’t know this to be true, yet theists invariably take this as a given, and base an argument on this unproven premise.

And yet, we can in fact evaluate if their “stories” match up to reality, through arquology,

What’s “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.

No - we shouldn’t presume that they don’t exist, but nor should we presume that they do. Because then the temptation is to fall back on them as ‘answers’ when the investigation falters. This begats the Argument from Incredulity, often mixed with special pleading etc.

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

As per my previous post.

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

That wasn’t clear from your post - you just stated that “Reason tells me that atheists “know” they are always right because their morality is their own…” - I invited you to look around and see whether atheists behave the way you would expect people to who selected their own individual morality.

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.

Incorrect conclusion. Correct conclusion would be that morality is mutable, malleable. Hence the repealment of the slave laws, the emanipation of women, and so on. This is an example of how morality has changed, due to memetic pressures, since the time of the bible.

“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?

As a Brit, I wouldn’t see that as my problem!

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.

Indeed. So we shouldn’t take the bible literally? Then why assume that the moral guidance within it is anything special?

Your comment could be read as implying that you believe the bible is essentially a novel. I don’t want to put words in your mouth though - can you clarify?

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

Well, that’s a pretty sad state of affairs then, if Christians still live according to the moral lessons of the bible! Thank goodness for modern, secular morality!

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…

I’m just saying, that because a country’s leadership and army commit an evil act, that doesn’t make that country’s society evil. And I don’t think that ‘might makes right,’ but concensus certainly does, at least for those who are part of the society. For example, do you, as a Christian, think that Islamic morality is acceptable? Do you think that Muslims think Christian morality is acceptable?

 

[JDaniel]

To be pedantic, problems are female (which makes sense to any male ) so it’s no problema.

No problema, I was just trying to be as cool as Arnie.

But, I think you mean “feminine.”

jd

 

[dskysmine]

Rom 14:23 – “and everything that does not come from faith is sin”. For me, God made us to have faith in one another, not just exclusively in Him. So for me, it’s a sin when I lack faith in others (there but for the grace of God go I). It’s also a sin for me to judge another, unless I’m judging in a law court.

That doesn’t mean we have to have faith in people… people will surely and almost always fail you in one aspect or another. We are falible. It is God that we must put faith in, and through Him we trust people, but not without evidence. We are to be “prudent like snakes”. To love people isn’t to trust them blindly… how then could you answer to someone who told you: “You must give me all your money. It is God’s will.” We are not to be gullible!
How is it that you can state that God can judge us if morality is subjective. If God says: “Your action X is evil, so you must go to Hell”, you can state “The collective subjective morality of society didn’t consider it evil, so You are wrong.”…
Unless you’re that kind of Christians that thinks everyone is going to Heaven…

We collectively form morality. If torture is condoned by one nation for the greater good, another may outlaw it for the greater good.

… then the “greater good” you refer to is arbitrary and is unreasonable. That is not what Jesus teaches.

God didn’t create us with the single purpose of judging us.

Maybe not, but if morality is subjective we can argue for no “good” coming from our creation. Our creation could just as easily be “evil”.

Good point.
You’ll have to take that one up with the Catholics who disagree that the homosexual act is a sin.

I’ll take them any time

Faith = great trust or confidence in something or someone – Cambridge

That may be a subjective definition. According to what I understood from its use, Faith is the absolute trust without factual evidence. Also known to the atheists as “blind trust”.

I agree with the other points in that post but can’t say on this one.

granny’s definition (post #205) is : A relativist believes that he or she has the power to determine objective truth by calling anything objective morality minus its foundation.

On that definition no Christian can be a relativist, assuming it intends the foundation as God. But I don’t really understand relativism as defined by Wikipedia etc. I thought I did until trying to apply it to any real life position, and then got a bit lost.

granny’s position is not what a relativist “is”. It is what we perceive a relativist to be.
What is your definition of relativism then?

 

[dskysmine]

How is that relevant? You said that “being an atheist allows for anything.” That’s nonsense, it no more allows that for an atheist as for anybody else.

Actually it doesn’t. There are people who can get excommunicated from the RCC, so not everything is “allowed”, and you can in fact tell if some one is following Chatholic’s morality or not, but I don’t think anyone can be “dismissed” from atheism other than believing in God or the supernatural. What I think you should be arguing for is some other form of epistemology… you shouldn’t refer to your moral base as from “atheism”. Atheism should be a result of your epistemology. (I think you are probably empiricist)

True - that was an assumption I shouldn’t have made, (…) doesn’t just equate to the whim of the individual. There is an option other than “religious” or “individual.”

That is precisely why I requested in my previous answer for you to describe the source of your knowledge, your epistemology, since arguing pro or against atheism is pointless for morality since atheism proposes nothing of the sort.

No, it’s not the assertion of a utopian world, (…). I’m not sure what you’re trying to show here, I’m afraid.

I was trying to show that different atheists will have different views on epistemology, morality, etc…

Not to someone who doesn’t believe in any gods.(…) ultimate source, it doesn’t change the fact that simply claiming it doesn’t make it right.

I never said that claiming it made it right. It is right because it is right, even if I don’t claim it is so. It is through critical reasoning that I understand the teachings of the Church. They make sense. They do not require me to put on “blind faith” or reject my reason. They appeal to my most deep understanding of human nature and the consequences of our actions. It is a matter of great respect for reason and human existence.

You’re missing the point. I’m not talking about the (…) dietary acceptability. In fact, this is pretty much the only implication of vegetarianism, which is why it’s not a great analogy.

The problem is that atheism isn’t the start… it is a conclusion of your epistemology. Just like vegetarianism is a conclusion of whoever thinks that animals are valuable.

So your argument is that because there are variations on moral doctrines outside of Christian moral dogma, that somehow makes (…) has merely adopted for itself, by documenting it in the bible and claiming it came from God!

Not at all. I never stated that atheists couldn’t be moral, or do “good” things. I already stated that the greatest evidence for an objective morality is that anyone, regardless of philosophy can know what to do morally is through the knowledge of human nature and consequences of our actions. That isn’t a necessity of Christianism. What I was arguing was that atheism can “fit” different kinds of epistemologies.

Oh, well nobody’s perfect! If you can find the post I’ll happily explain my rationale. It wasn’t a deliberate ploy to omit it.

With all these arguments I forgot whom it was… it was just an advise not to fall for the same kind of logic.

I don’t think I’ve implied that. I believe that morality has developed memetically alongside the development of our cultures. I’ve never used the word random, and nor would I.

How and why do you think “culture” and “morality” developed?

Indeed - some aspects of moral culture are bound to remain unchanged - particularly the ones that work for society as a whole. Why would you change something that works?

Slavery worked just fine when it was used… that didn’t make it “right” or did it?

Yes - non-religious morality tends to discard concepts which have no practical use!

Actually, the problem comes when “evil” is concerned. Do you think that people who steal think they are doing something morally permissible? Do you think that people who go against morality have any other argument for not being “evil”? Especially in a world where there is no argument not to do something selfish.
The belief in an “after-life” doesn’t stem from dreams or imagination. It is well within us the sense of Justice that “evil” is not rewarded, or else it would not be “evil”. No person in the world will state “Might makes right” (if they are not among the mightiest at least).

This is the common theistic misrepresentation of atheistic morality. It’s wrong.

No arguments offered?.. See how this fails to help the discussion?

Exactly the same thing that makes a theist ‘not be evil.’ The only difference is the theists have it written down, as if that makes a difference!

And what is that “thing” that makes atheists not do “evil”?

There are a number of fallacies that get repeated time and time again (and not just by theists) - it would be draining to explain the fallacy each and every time. However, as I said, I’m happy to be called out on it.

It’s Ok. I’m not perfect either

 

[wanstronian]

Actually it doesn’t. There are people who can get excommunicated from the RCC, so not everything is “allowed”

Nor is “anything allowed” outside a religious framework. It’s true that atheists don’t consider themselves bound by Catholic moral dogma, but that doesn’t make them immoral.

, and you can in fact tell if some one is following Chatholic’s morality or not, but I don’t think anyone can be “dismissed” from atheism other than believing in God or the supernatural. What I think you should be arguing for is some other form of epistemology… you shouldn’t refer to your moral base as from “atheism”.

Nor have I. I think I’ve already said that atheism doesn’t herald a defined set of morals, any more than does albinism. Atheism and morality are separate concepts. The atheist worldview only considers its source of morality when challenged by a religion that claims to be the source of morality. Atheists are moral people because they are part of a moral society. It’s only religions that claim a causal link with morality, where (imo) there isn’t one.

Atheism should be a result of your epistemology. (I think you are probably empiricist)

Okay. You’re probably right about that.

That is precisely why I requested in my previous answer for you to describe the source of your knowledge, your epistemology, since arguing pro or against atheism is pointless for morality since atheism proposes nothing of the sort.

I guess the source of my knowledge, of my worldview, is a combination of my upbringing, my environment (cultural, financial etc), my peer group, my parents’ wisdom, and so on.

Is that what you mean?

I was trying to show that different atheists will have different views on epistemology, morality, etc…

As will, in practice, different theists - even different Catholics.

I never said that claiming it made it right. It is right because it is right, even if I don’t claim it is so. It is through critical reasoning that I understand the teachings of the Church. They make sense. They do not require me to put on “blind faith” or reject my reason.

They appeal to my most deep understanding of human nature and the consequences of our actions. It is a matter of great respect for reason and human existence.

I don’t deny that the moral teachings of the RCC are (generally) moral! They could not survive in modern society if they weren’t. I just see no reason to believe that they came from God. The fact that they correlate with what you feel to be right doesn’t mean anything. If I assume that you think they’re the word of God, let me ask you this: How do you think they would differ if they had been written by men?

The problem is that atheism isn’t the start… it is a conclusion of your epistemology. Just like vegetarianism is a conclusion of whoever thinks that animals are valuable.

Fine. I don’t see how it makes a difference.

Not at all. I never stated that atheists couldn’t be moral, or do “good” things. I already stated that the greatest evidence for an objective morality is that anyone, regardless of philosophy can know what to do morally is through the knowledge of human nature and consequences of our actions. That isn’t a necessity of Christianism. What I was arguing was that atheism can “fit” different kinds of epistemologies.

True. As can theism!

With all these arguments I forgot whom it was… it was just an advise not to fall for the same kind of logic.

Okay. I try not to.

How and why do you think “culture” and “morality” developed?

Group selection.

Slavery worked just fine when it was used… that didn’t make it “right” or did it?

That’s my point. It was deemed right at the time. Now it isn’t. Morality has changed.

Actually, the problem comes when “evil” is concerned. Do you think that people who steal think they are doing something morally permissible? Do you think that people who go against morality have any other argument for not being “evil”? Especially in a world where there is no argument not to do something selfish.

In general, I believe that when an atheist steals he is well aware that he is doing wrong. When a theist steals he is equally aware.

The belief in an “after-life” doesn’t stem from dreams or imagination.

Where do you contend it stems from?

It is well within us the sense of Justice that “evil” is not rewarded, or else it would not be “evil”. No person in the world will state “Might makes right” (if they are not among the mightiest at least).

I agree, but I think we have evolved that sense rather than had it mandated upon us by some deity.

No arguments offered?.. See how this fails to help the discussion?

It gets so tiring having to point out the same errors over and over again! You said that there is no result (which I took to mean ‘consequence’) of an atheist being mean, greedy, or whatever. This is rubbish. To assume that because an atheist doesn’t have recourse to a documented set of moral guidelines, his morality is arbitrary or his actions are without consequence, is nonsense! To believe that religion is necessary for morality, or to dictate the consequences of transgression, is demonstrably incorrect.

You said earlier that the moral teachings of the RCC fit with what you believe. What makes you think that your inherent morality, which you choose to match to religious teachings, is missing from atheists? The problem is that you are thinking about it the wrong way round.

And what is that “thing” that makes atheists not do “evil”?

Repercussions, both personal and societal.
Empathy with one’s fellow creatures.
An innate, evolved sense of right and wrong.

 

[dskysmine]

I’m not familiar (…) as historial truth.

The problem being that the Bible isn’t a single book, nor is it stated in it which verses are allegorical or not (at least for most of the OT).

If I’m wrong, (…) the facts.

It wasn’t an appeal to emotion… it was an appeal to facts. The fact is that people know that Shakespeare is allegorical but they claim that they know what is fact and what isn’t in the Bible.

The non-presence (…) written!

Don’t confuse two distinct things… the “Genesis” isn’t a witnessed event… the NT events are.

So if Genesis(…) of the book?

How is an allegory demonstrably false? It isn’t written with the purpose of being demonstrably true.

And I should point (…) take it literally.

I don’t follow “plenty of Catholics” I follow God and His Church.

Maybe not (…) Catholics do.

Are you sure? Or maybe you think Evangelicals are Catholics…?
What evidence do you have to assert that?

Do you mean (…) go if you fancy it.

If I find the time I’d be sure to participate. Send me the link when you can.

Well, there’s the (…) unproven premise.

Your presumption that we can “know” everything to be true seems based in something we do not share. I do not have any way to evidence the existence of other people’s conscience and yet I believe everyone experiences the world the same as me. The belief that something other than the physical world exists stems from our consciousness and rationality. I do know that we don’t know yet a lot about the brain and how it works exactly, but I assume that unless we start experimenting on live people that kind of “knowledge” will never be actually “knowledgeable”, and I will never accept to subject the human being to be the expendable in the name of science.

What’s “arquology?”

Archaeology…misspelled in the hurry.

No - we shouldn’t (…) , special pleading etc.

Not necessarily… and if you are not skeptical (in the extreme sense) you shouldn’t limit your worldview to what you see and what you feel, or else you would have no reason (other than biological empathy) not to be “evil” (which many people are, including me) or to be “good”.

As (…) post.

And I must ask you again, how and why do you think morality changes?

That wasn’t clear from (…) their own individual morality.

Yes and no.
I don’t see people owning up for their responsibilities. Abortion is one of the most obvious choices that clearly tell me that atheists (and people from all religions) don’t care about what is “good” or what isn’t… it’s just what “feels” good and what doesn’t. That is the Hedonist creed. I don’t suppose most atheists are Hedonists, but they aren’t far behind.
80% of the people I know that had abortions did know how to use a condom but didn’t. Now you tell me what does this tell you? I don’t know if this happens all around the world but I know what makes people “tick”.

Incorrect conclusion (…) memetic pressures, since the time of the bible.

What do you mean by “memetic” pressure?
You are arguing again for the “evolution” theory applied to morality?
What evidence do you have for that hypothesis? What evidence do you have of a “meme”? What is a “meme”? If “memes” exist how can we measure them?..

As a Brit,(…) my problem!

Just like Britain didn’t ask for help from the US against Hitler… right?
It doesn’t seem rational that you’d live in a welfare state when you don’t care for others…
Maybe you’d care to explain that.

Indeed. So we (…) is anything special?

Because moral teachings are moral teachings… allegory is allegory… historic speech is historic… etc. I don’t consider the allegory as historic nor the morality as historic speech. If I can’t understand the difference between them I can’t even talk to people on any subject…

Your comment could (…) can you clarify?

It is important to distinguish what is what in the Bible. I don’t view the Joshua battle as an appeal to go destroy people’s walls nowadays, nor I view the genesis as a historic treaty, nor do I view the parable of the Prodigal son as a historic treaty on some real person. I have to rationally understand what the writers wanted to communicate to me. Is it historical? Is it allegory? Is it a moral teaching? Why is it? What does it mean? etc…

Well, that’s a pretty (…)secular morality!

Who is this “goodness” you want to thank to? Lovely that you find “love thy neighbour” as a “sad state of affairs”. When the state stops paying you or your hospitals come back and tell me what is a sad state of affairs.

I’m just saying, that because a (…) Christian morality is acceptable?

If you take a world wide poll and check that over 70% of the population want you to donate money to them would that make it right? You are just using straw man. Using your argument “might” makes “right” every single time. You are just “lucky” that “western civilization” is mightier (at least for now). When China’s economy surpasses the US in 2020 (or somewhere around that) we can revisit this topic yet again.
No, I don’t think “Islamic morality” is acceptable… the only morality I find acceptable is the Christian one, but I can’t force people to be moral, can I?

 

[dskysmine]

Nor is “anything allowed” outside a religious framework. It’s true that atheists don’t consider themselves bound by Catholic moral dogma, but that doesn’t make them immoral.

Why?

Nor have I. I think I’ve already said that atheism (…) because they are part of a moral society. It’s only religions that claim a causal link with morality, where (imo) there isn’t one.

You are speaking as a respresentative of the atheist nation now? There are atheists that even assert that morality doesn’t exist. Where do you put those in your moral worldview?
Atheists can be everything and anything they want that they will still be atheists as long as they don’t believe in God or the supernatural. Why do you feel the necessity to defend your atheist “brothers”?

Okay. You’re probably right about that.
I guess the source of my knowledge, of my worldview, is a combination of my upbringing, my environment (cultural, financial etc), my peer group, my parents’ wisdom, and so on.

Is that what you mean?

I’m not talking about the vehicles of transportation of knowledge to you… I am talking about how do you epistemologically difer what is knowledge from what isn’t. Examples: Empiricism is “a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience”. Rationalism is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”. Constructivists maintain that “scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world”. etc…

As will, in practice, different theists - even different Catholics.

That would defeat the point of being Catholics…

I don’t deny that the moral teachings of (…) let me ask you this: How do you think they would differ if they had been written by men?

The question is impossible for me answer because I believe in God. The belief in God also implies that God is the source of morality. Are you asking me to suppose that God doesn’t exist?

True. As can theism!

That is incorrect, Christianism is not compatible with empiricism, for example.

Group selection.

What does that mean? Please ellaborate.

That’s my point. It was deemed right at the time. Now it isn’t. Morality has changed.

Then how can we say that slavery was wrong? We could only say that it is wrong now. And if slavery is wrong now, what makes it so more than arbitrary choice? Why value the abolition of slavery around the world? etc…
Why value “good” if we can easily deem it “bad”?

In general, I believe that when an atheist steals he is well aware that he is doing wrong. When a theist steals he is equally aware.

Then why would the atheist consider stealing wrong? Do human beings do things they deem wrong vehemently? I cannot fly (biologically) because physical law does not allow it, but I can easily do “evil” and “good” that nothing stops it. Why is “good” “good” and “evil” “evil”? (If you are going to argue for happiness then you’re going to have to answer why people steal if it is “evil”.)

Where do you contend it stems from?

Actually, a belief in the after-life is well entrenched in human history throughout times. It stems from our sense of justice.

I agree, but I think we have evolved that sense rather than had it mandated upon us by some deity.

You are always maintaining the “theory” that everything in us evolved like DNA without any support than mere belief. Can you explain this?

It gets so tiring having to (…) incorrect.

THEN what are the consequences for evil? If some one does evil but has no after-life there are no consequences. It doesn’t matter if he was evil or not. It is your emotional side that states that there are consequences for evil. If you don’t believe in an after-life being good or evil will only affect your relationships with people who have different beliefs. You can steal all your life, beat your children, spank your wife, drink till you drop your head that it doesn’t matter. You still lived. You still experienced satisfaction. You still experienced the pleasures you wanted.

You said earlier that the moral te(…) are thinking about it the wrong way round.

My problem is that atheists do not provide me with any evidence to be “good” or to be moral other than acceptance to society, and even then, in a libertarian society they have no obligation to be good…

Repercussions, both personal and societal.
Empathy with one’s fellow creatures.
An innate, evolved sense of right and wrong.

Then, pray tell, whence cometh evil?

Your assertion:
Morality (good) is the way to happyness.
People want to be happy.
People are moral (good).

If people are moral (good), where does the evil come from?

 

[inocente]

That doesn’t mean we have to have faith in people…

To not have faith in people would take all the meaning out of the parable of the Good Samaritan. No point trying to emulate the Samaritan when we can’t trust anyone else. Jesus didn’t teach us to be gullible, but He didn’t teach us to be paranoid either.

How is it that you can state that God can judge us if morality is subjective. If God says: “Your action X is evil, so you must go to Hell”, you can state “The collective subjective morality of society didn’t consider it evil, so You are wrong.”…

Not sure God works like an auditor. I’ve heard Catholics say that you can only sin if you know it’s a sin, which provides a great get out clause. But also, only those who believe God keeps a score-card can suffer from the compulsive disorder of scrupulosity. If Paul is right and not acting in faith is sin, God does not need piles of law books, He simply reads what’s on our hearts. Faith then leads us onward.

… then the “greater good” you refer to is arbitrary and is unreasonable. That is not what Jesus teaches.

Jesus doesn’t teach the “greater good” system of ethics, but it may be the only one in which it would be possible to condone torture (e.g. to try to obtain information from a suspected terrorist that would save lives). The principle of whether to condone torture at all, the circumstances in which it is authorized, and the methods allowed can be neither arbitrary nor unreasoned. Personally I say never but there must be many leaders who have wrung their souls over this dilemma.

Maybe not, but if morality is subjective we can argue for no “good” coming from our creation. Our creation could just as easily be “evil”.

But then everyone who used to treat women as inferior to men is now in hell. While not liking the word, I’m tempted to say you’re a relativist.

I’ll take them any time

Great, but you were the one saying “… it’s precisely because protestant relativism can agree to anything…” and I was responding that Catholics seem to be the same.

That may be a subjective definition. According to what I understood from its use, Faith is the absolute trust without factual evidence.

You have your own personal subjective definition, the dictionary gives a collective subjective definition.

What is your definition of relativism then?

Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. – Stanford

Note the Stanford article is exceptional long - the word has no real meaning unless qualified. It is normally used on CAF to put down any idea or person that doesn’t conform to one’s own orthodoxy.

 

[inocente]

It’s only religions that claim a causal link with morality, where (imo) there isn’t one.

One way it may happen is this:

If we believe that our king or emperor is appointed by our god (as most did in past times), it’s natural to think of laws as being handed down from our god via the royal line. Since the king can’t be everywhere at once, it’s then natural to think of our god as judging our compliance with these laws. If our god is unchanging, these laws must be eternal.

But in a secular democracy we can change laws by referendum. Our god doesn’t need a set of statutes to judge us. Simply, we sin when we don’t act in faith (or if you like, we do wrong when we don’t act in conscience). We then see morality as dependent on various things, and don’t give ourselves the right to condemn everyone in past ages just because we see things differently now.

The big problem is when the royal line and the state clash. For example, in other walks of life we may have gone beyond the age-old tradition of treating women as second class citizens.

The idea that we can only be good by believing in a chosen god begs the question of how come the folk who don’t believe in our god are still around, when surely in their unspeakable evilness they should all have murdered each other by now.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

inocente

*Not sure God works like an auditor. *

God is an auditor. He listens to us even when we do not speak.

I’ve heard Catholics say that you can only sin if you know it’s a sin, which provides a great get out clause.

You’ve also heard Catholics say we all all born with the natural law inscribed on our hearts. So the problem is to distinguish between honest and dishonest knowledge of what is right and wrong. God knows our hearts, and God knows when we deliberately fool ourselves into thinking that wrong is right. In that sense truly there is no “great get out clause.” that relativists are always looking for.

 

[wanstronian]

The problem being that the Bible isn’t a single book, nor is it stated in it which verses are allegorical or not (at least for most of the OT).

Right - so how do we know? Once upon a time the whole thing was taken literally. The rise in the labelling of passages as allegorical seems to correspond directly to their disproof by science! This is only my opinion, and I’m happy to be shown I’m wrong.

But in any event - who decides what’s what?

It wasn’t an appeal to emotion… it was an appeal to facts. The fact is that people know that Shakespeare is allegorical but they claim that they know what is fact and what isn’t in the Bible.

Indeed - I think we’re in violent agreement here. But the fact remains that, as you say, there are no indicators in the bible to determine what’s ‘factual’ and what’s not. It’s written as a historical record, parts of which have been disproved by science.

Claiming, after the fact, that these parts are merely allegorical throws into doubt not only the remainder of the bible, but also the authority of the person cherry-picking which bits are ‘true.’

Don’t confuse two distinct things… the “Genesis” isn’t a witnessed event… the NT events are.

Supposedly. But in the latter case, the people who actually wrote down the events are not (in most cases) the people who allegedly witnessed the events. I understand it’s generally accepted that these tales were handed down orally in most cases. Human nature all but dictates that inaccuracies and embellishments will creep in with each re-telling.

So in both the OT and the NT, the people who finally wrote the stories down had little or no knowledge of the actual facts.

How is an allegory demonstrably false? It isn’t written with the purpose of being demonstrably true.

Doesn’t make it exempt from being demonstrably false. And how do you know it was written as allegory? Other than that it’s been proved wrong through modern science?

I don’t follow “plenty of Catholics” I follow God and His Church.

We’re not talking about you, we’re talking about the stories in the bible. One of which is Genesis, which is not an accurate record of events. You agree with me on that, I think.

Are you sure? Or maybe you think Evangelicals are Catholics…?

What evidence do you have to assert that?

Anecdotal. Maybe I’ve got it wrong. Does it matter? This is something of a rabbit hole. I’m happy to concede that official Catholic doctrine doesn’t reject evolution, if you’re telling me that’s the case.

Your presumption that we can “know” everything to be true seems based in something we do not share. I do not have any way to evidence the existence of other people’s conscience and yet I believe everyone experiences the world the same as me. The belief that something other than the physical world exists stems from our consciousness and rationality.

Actually, I understand that most evolutionary psychologists believe that it stems from our evolved survival instinct of pattern-matching; and belief in the supernatural amounts to nothing more than a series of false positives. Also, as a heavily interactive species we have a tendency to see agency in randomness and nature, because then we innately feel we can interact with such agents.

I do know that we don’t know yet a lot about the brain and how it works exactly, but I assume that unless we start experimenting on live people that kind of “knowledge” will never be actually “knowledgeable”, and I will never accept to subject the human being to be the expendable in the name of science.

Nor I. (Funny how that morality has changed over time!)

Not necessarily… and if you are not skeptical (in the extreme sense) you shouldn’t limit your worldview to what you see and what you feel, or else you would have no reason (other than biological empathy) not to be “evil” (which many people are, including me) or to be “good”.

Many people equate skepticism to a refusal to consider non-natural phenomena. This is not correct, skepticism is just a refusal to consider non-natural phenomena without robust evidence. Granted, science and non-natural phenomena are mutually exclusive, but this just begs the question: Why believe it if you can’t prove it’s true? Skepticism isn’t the prior denial of the supernatural, it’s the resultant denial through lack of evidence.

I know of no reason other than those I gave in my last post not to be evil, or greedy, or malicious, or anything else considered “immoral.” I believe that it’s this cultural evolution that has formed our morality, and our cultural evolution is a dependent product of our biological evolution.

And we’ve already seen (unless you still dispute this), that naturalism doesn’t lead to moral depravity. The evidence is all around you, evident in the millions of naturalists that lead moral lives.

Why do you say you are evil? Or did I misunderstand you?

And I must ask you again, how and why do you think morality changes?

I’ve already answered this, haven’t I? Morality changes to meet the changing needs of the culture within which it resides. That’s the “why” at least. The “how” can be a number of ways - pressure groups (ie. suffragettes), peer pressure (vegetarianism), and so on.

 

[wanstronian]

Yes and no.

I don’t see people owning up for their responsibilities. Abortion is one of the most obvious choices that clearly tell me that atheists (and people from all religions) don’t care about what is “good” or what isn’t… it’s just what “feels” good and what doesn’t.

That is the Hedonist creed. I don’t suppose most atheists are Hedonists, but they aren’t far behind.

Well, you’ve said yourself that it’s not just atheists that perform immoral (according to catholic doctrine) acts. So you still haven’t really answered the question. Do you see evidence of atheists acting consistently less morally than theists, in general terms?

80% of the people I know that had abortions did know how to use a condom but didn’t. Now you tell me what does this tell you? I don’t know if this happens all around the world but I know what makes people “tick”.

Are you referring to our innate evolutionary desire to get laid? Do you think that this behaviour is prevalent in atheists rather than theists? I haven’t seen any data either way, it would be an interesting study. But regardless, one would still be judging against a subjective moral tenet.

What do you mean by “memetic” pressure?

You are arguing again for the “evolution” theory applied to morality?

It’s obvious that morality has changed over time, as well as by location. This is analagous to evolutionary adaptation, complete with selection pressures. It’s a hypothesis only, but it fits the facts. Objective, unchanging morality clearly doesn’t because morality hasn’t remained unchanged.

What evidence do you have for that hypothesis?

There are several books and papers that support it - just type “evolution of morality” into Google and you’ll find them. To me, it makes sense. I know - big deal! but I can’t think of any other process that explains the change in morality.

What evidence do you have of a “meme”? What is a “meme”?

The answer to both these should be apparent by looking in a dictionary. I’d be surprised if you rejected their existence!

If “memes” exist how can we measure them?..

By effect, the same way we measure all outputs of cognitive processing.

Just like Britain didn’t ask for help from the US against Hitler… right?

You helped when we asked. I’m not belittling America’s contribution to the war effort, I’m just pointing out that, NATO alliances notwithstanding, an attack on foreign soil doesn’t inherently oblige me to respond.

It doesn’t seem rational that you’d live in a welfare state when you don’t care for others…

No, it wouldn’t if I didn’t. But I do so it does.

Maybe you’d care to explain that.

Hopefully I have.

Because moral teachings are moral teachings… allegory is allegory… historic speech is historic… etc. I don’t consider the allegory as historic nor the morality as historic speech. If I can’t understand the difference between them I can’t even talk to people on any subject…

Right… so same question then: how does this make the moral tenets of the bible special, if they should be taken allegorically? They’re just one person’s (or perhaps one committee’s) allegory.

It is important to distinguish what is what in the Bible. I don’t view the Joshua battle as an appeal to go destroy people’s walls nowadays, nor I view the genesis as a historic treaty, nor do I view the parable of the Prodigal son as a historic treaty on some real person. I have to rationally understand what the writers wanted to communicate to me. Is it historical? Is it allegory? Is it a moral teaching? Why is it? What does it mean? etc…

Okay, so we come back to this: How do you decide? Did Jesus walk on water, or is that allegory? Was he resurrected from the dead, or is that allegory? Who decides? The individual? The Church? Whence the authority to judge?

Who is this “goodness” you want to thank to?

Oh come on…

Lovely that you find “love thy neighbour” as a “sad state of affairs”. When the state stops paying you or your hospitals come back and tell me what is a sad state of affairs.

Oh really? Is that the only moral message in the bible? What about the mysogyny, the condonement of slavery, rape and torture? That’s what I was referring to, as I’m sure you’re aware. Or is that merely allegory…?

It’s a shame you’ve resorted to such misrepresentation, I felt the thread was fairly constructive and civil until now.

If you take a world wide poll and check that over 70% of the population want you to donate money to them would that make it right? You are just using straw man. Using your argument “might” makes “right” every single time. You are just “lucky” that “western civilization” is mightier (at least for now). When China’s economy surpasses the US in 2020 (or somewhere around that) we can revisit this topic yet again.

That’s a rather superficial analogy, and doesn’t really reflect what I said. You’re convinced that I think that “might makes right,” and you keep putting those words in my mouth, yet I’ve never suggested anything of the sort.

No, I don’t think “Islamic morality” is acceptable… the only morality I find acceptable is the Christian one, but I can’t force people to be moral, can I?

Which Christian morality?

And do you think that Muslims find Christian morality acceptable? That was the other part of the question. The answer (obviously) is that they don’t. So why are you right, and they wrong? Could it be that their morality works for their culture, and the western morality (as poached by Christianity) works for ours?

 

[wanstronian]

Why?

Sorry - you’re asking me why not being bound by Catholic dogma doesn’t automatically make people immoral? I don’t know why, any more than I know why not subscribing to vegetarianism doesn’t automatically make people never eat vegetables.

It’s a daft question.

You are speaking as a respresentative of the atheist nation now? There are atheists that even assert that morality doesn’t exist. Where do you put those in your moral worldview?

No, I’m not speaking for all atheists - that would be as arrogant as one person speaking for the entirety of Catholicism…

The reason I said the atheist worldview doesn’t implicitly consider its source of morality is because morality is not intrinsic to any definition of atheism. There is no need to justify one’s morality as an atheist, any more than there is a need to justify one’s taste in music.

Atheists can be everything and anything they want that they will still be atheists as long as they don’t believe in God or the supernatural. Why do you feel the necessity to defend your atheist “brothers”?

I’m defending the misrepresentation of atheism from a straw man attack. There’s a difference.

I’m not talking about the vehicles of transportation of knowledge to you… I am talking about how do you epistemologically difer what is knowledge from what isn’t. Examples: Empiricism is “a theory of knowledge that asserts that knowledge arises from evidence gathered via sense experience”. Rationalism is “any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification”. Constructivists maintain that “scientific knowledge is constructed by scientists and not discovered from the world”. etc…

I don’t know formally, I’m afraid. Some or all of the above and more, I guess. Except the last one, which doesn’t seem to make much sense.

That would defeat the point of being Catholics…

Nevertheless, people still do it and call themselves Catholics.

The question is impossible for me answer because I believe in God. The belief in God also implies that God is the source of morality. Are you asking me to suppose that God doesn’t exist?

I’m asking you to pretend God doesn’t exist and imagine what would be different about the RCC moral doctrine. I’m asking you how you can possibly know that this morality is the word of God not man. Or is the important thing just that it’s written down?

That is incorrect, Christianism is not compatible with empiricism, for example.

I didn’t say it was. Stop putting words into my mouth. I said that theism can fit different kinds of epistemologies. I didn’t name any specific ones, or ascribe them to specific branches of theism.

What does that mean? Please ellaborate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

Then how can we say that slavery was wrong? We could only say that it is wrong now. And if slavery is wrong now, what makes it so more than arbitrary choice? Why value the abolition of slavery around the world? etc…
Why value “good” if we can easily deem it “bad”?

Precisely my point. Morality changes. It is not objective, in an absolute sense.

Then why would the atheist consider stealing wrong?

Same reason a theist would. Why do you keep asking the same questions?

Do human beings do things they deem wrong vehemently? I cannot fly (biologically) because physical law does not allow it, but I can easily do “evil” and “good” that nothing stops it. Why is “good” “good” and “evil” “evil”? (If you are going to argue for happiness then you’re going to have to answer why people steal if it is “evil”.)

I can’t say for sure, but my guess would be that for some people, the personal gain outweighs the societal obligation; or the local group gain is considered to outweigh the wider group obligation. Like covering up the abuse of children by priests in order to protect the RCC’s reputation.

Actually, a belief in the after-life is well entrenched in human history throughout times. It stems from our sense of justice.

So not from any proper rationale then? Just from an innate desire to be compensated for some perceived injustice?

You are always maintaining the “theory” that everything in us evolved like DNA without any support than mere belief. Can you explain this?

Like I said, it makes sense, and there’s no better explanation.

THEN what are the consequences for evil? If some one does evil but has no after-life there are no consequences. It doesn’t matter if he was evil or not. It is your emotional side that states that there are consequences for evil. If you don’t believe in an after-life being good or evil will only affect your relationships with people who have different beliefs. You can steal all your life, beat your children, spank your wife, drink till you drop your head that it doesn’t matter. You still lived. You still experienced satisfaction. You still experienced the pleasures you wanted.

This is what I mean by continually misrepresenting atheism. You clearly see atheism as selfish hedonism. Until you can accept that your dogmatic view is demonstrably wrong, your questions are wasted because you’re not listening to the answers.

My problem is that atheists do not provide me with any evidence to be “good” or to be moral other than acceptance to society, and even then, in a libertarian society they have no obligation to be good…

I’m tired of answering this question.

Then, pray tell, whence cometh evil?

Asked, and answered.

 

[dskysmine]

To not have faith in people would take all the meaning out of the parable of the Good Samaritan. No point trying to emulate the Samaritan when we can’t trust anyone else. Jesus didn’t teach us to be gullible, but He didn’t teach us to be paranoid either.

Abhramic religions are different from other religions as in the “object” of its faith. Christians have faith in God. We can trust people, but we don’t have faith in them. It is a matter of definition.

Not sure God works like an auditor. I’ve heard Catholics say that you can only sin if you know it’s a sin, which provides a great get out clause. But also, only those who believe God keeps a score-card can suffer from the compulsive disorder of scrupulosity. If Paul is right and not acting in faith is sin, God does not need piles of law books, He simply reads what’s on our hearts. Faith then leads us onward.

Unless human acts are made in coercion they are all made in what we “trust” is “right”, or at least when we’re not “blind” with rage or something like that. That doesn’t mean that every single person will go to Heaven. It isn’t so. Jesus told us that the doorway was narrow. We don’t know how many people are in God’s grace but we do know that “selfishness” will always exist within us to take us away from the “right” path.

Jesus doesn’t teach the “greater good” system of ethics, but it may be the only one in which it would be possible to condone torture (e.g. to try to obtain information from a suspected terrorist that would save lives). The principle of whether to condone torture at all, the circumstances in which it is authorized, and the methods allowed can be neither arbitrary nor unreasoned. Personally I say never but there must be many leaders who have wrung their souls over this dilemma.

But then everyone who used to treat women as inferior to men is now in hell. While not liking the word, I’m tempted to say you’re a relativist.

I am not a relativist…
I am asserting that morality is objective, how can I be a relativist. I was supposing your hypothesis was correct to show you it wouldn’t make sense.

Great, but you were the one saying “… it’s precisely because protestant relativism can agree to anything…” and I was responding that Catholics seem to be the same.

With fear to use the “true Scotsman” fallacy I will still affirm that Catholic morality is quite explicit since it is even written down. It stands to reason that if some one isn’t following that morality they would not be “true Catholics”.

You have your own personal subjective definition, the dictionary gives a collective subjective definition.

I do not a have a personal subjective definition… It isn’t personal if it isn’t arbitrary. It is rational and it is objective. It regards reality as it is.

Relativism is not a single doctrine but a family of views whose common theme is that some central aspect of experience, thought, evaluation, or even reality is somehow relative to something else. – Stanford

Note the Stanford article is exceptional long - the word has no real meaning unless qualified. It is normally used on CAF to put down any idea or person that doesn’t conform to one’s own orthodoxy.

… Being relative to something means that it deppends on something. I never stated that it deppends on the people. I argued for an objective morality!