Question for Parents

[Jake_Ellison]

I was referring to one of your replies in which you said that you’d made your decision.

As far as not practicing atheism, the danger is that you’d not continue to read, study, find out about God and the existence of Him. From your other replies it looks as though you’ll do that, though, and that is good. I’m going to jump out of this at this time because you have lots of conversations going on here at once and it must be hard to keep up with. Good luck and prayers to you.

Yes I find religion and its development very interesting. But I have to say, I see Christianity as being as likly as Islam, or Jewdaism, or any other religion. I’m not an atheist with Chritian leanings. I believe all religions are as right as each other. So I won’t be solely thinking about Christianity.

I’ll just breifly add: If I spoke about making a decision prehaps I wasn’t being clear. There was no time in my life that I believed in God and just descided to stop.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Right NOW you don’t see any evidence for religion being true but that hopefully will change in the future.

Also, you seem to be looking at religion from the “Big Picture” point of view. By that I mean that you are standing back and looking at the world as it is today and and has been throughout history. God has been used as a weapon, an excuse, a divider, and as a dictator. And none of it makes much sense because who is this ‘Being’ people call God? We can’t see Him. He hasn’t come down here lately in a burning bush to talk to anybody. Was He made up by people just to explain the unknown?

But God is more than that. He is part of the spiritual side to our humanity. This is why I don’t believe you can try to understand and believe in God from the “Big Picture” perspective but rather a person must go into his/her own spirituality to consider whether God is real. This is more personal and deep.

This is what I asked my son do to: Develop your spirituality. By this I mean, who are you talking to when there is no other human being in sight? Do you feel as if ‘Someone’ is there and hears you? Or do you feel as if you are just talking to yourself inside of your head? If it is the latter then try it from the perspective that Someone is there who is listening to your thoughts. Be honest and upfront, and most importantly, be able to be quiet to hear answers when they come.

This isn’t an overnight project either. Do it over time, with an open mind, and see what happens.

Trying to pretend someone is listening won’t help. Its part of our human nature, that we are very good at believing in things that arn’t there. But even those feelings, that we are sure are from God, are universal across any number of religions. Your religious experience of God would feel no less real then the exerience a Muslim has of Allah talking to him. A big picture perspective shows us that we are suseptable to irrational belief, whether that be God or faries or Father Christmas. Trying to imagine that person listening to us, is giving in to that suseptability, whoever we imagine it is.

And I have been there. I’m not saying I won’t try this becuase I’m closed to it. I’m saying I spent so much time praying for God, if he was real, to just help me believe. Never got very far on that part. But that was when I was becomeing more incredulous as to the existance of God, and really the only thing keeping me attached to faith was fear, and constantly telling (in other word lying) myself that ‘I do believe in God.’ But thats human nature. And I’m nothing if not human.

Thanks anyway for your hope. At least thats one way of caring about others.

 

[MaryD7]

Trying to pretend someone is listening won’t help. Its part of our human nature, that we are very good at believing in things that arn’t there. But even those feelings, that we are sure are from God, are universal across any number of religions. Your religious experience of God would feel no less real then the exerience a Muslim has of Allah talking to him. A big picture perspective shows us that we are suseptable to irrational belief, whether that be God or faries or Father Christmas. Trying to imagine that person listening to us, is giving in to that suseptability, whoever we imagine it is.

And I have been there. I’m not saying I won’t try this becuase I’m closed to it. I’m saying I spent so much time praying for God, if he was real, to just help me believe. Never got very far on that part. But that was when I was becomeing more incredulous as to the existance of God, and really the only thing keeping me attached to faith was fear, and constantly telling (in other word lying) myself that ‘I do believe in God.’ But thats human nature. And I’m nothing if not human.

Thanks anyway for your hope. At least thats one way of caring about others.

Boy, I wish I knew how people divided up posts. You brought up a few good points that I’d like to touch on individually but I don’t know how.

I wasn’t talking ‘imagining’ but I guess that is the word you would use if that is what you think it is. See, to me, it is part of who I am. Maybe it was how I was raised but I always felt as though ‘Someone’ was here. I’m never alone (much to my chagrin when I’m doing something I shouldn’t.)

And I wanted to assure you that it is not good to practice faith because of fear. Yes, it is good to have fear in order to have boundaries (like “I’m afraid if I rob that bank I will be sent to jail,”) but it isn’t good to practice faith under duress. It only breeds resentment and you’re not really practicing anything … you’re just pretending. I did that for a few years and then went completely the other way. I ditched the whole system. But I wandered back again, but this time I did it without duress and without the baggage I had when I left. The second time around was by MY choice and it is better because now I KNOW why I am here.

Give yourself time and don’t shut yourself off to possibilities. I always considered the time I spent away from religion was like one of those dog leashes that owners have that let the dogs roam pretty far off but they can pull them back again when necessary. God gave me a pretty long lead but He was always connected to me. It was me who wandered off but He was always there.

And yes, there is always hope. If a person loses hope, I think they lose everything.

Bless you, Jake.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Boy, I wish I knew how people divided up posts. You brought up a few good points that I’d like to touch on individually but I don’t know how.

I wasn’t talking ‘imagining’ but I guess that is the word you would use if that is what you think it is. See, to me, it is part of who I am. Maybe it was how I was raised but I always felt as though ‘Someone’ was here. I’m never alone (much to my chagrin when I’m doing something I shouldn’t.)

And I wanted to assure you that it is not good to practice faith because of fear. Yes, it is good to have fear in order to have boundaries (like “I’m afraid if I rob that bank I will be sent to jail,”) but it isn’t good to practice faith under duress. It only breeds resentment and you’re not really practicing anything … you’re just pretending. I did that for a few years and then went completely the other way. I ditched the whole system. But I wandered back again, but this time I did it without duress and without the baggage I had when I left. The second time around was by MY choice and it is better because now I KNOW why I am here.

Give yourself time and don’t shut yourself off to possibilities. I always considered the time I spent away from religion was like one of those dog leashes that owners have that let the dogs roam pretty far off but they can pull them back again when necessary. God gave me a pretty long lead but He was always connected to me. It was me who wandered off but He was always there.

And yes, there is always hope. If a person loses hope, I think they lose everything.

Bless you, Jake.

I hope I havn’t lost hope! I think I just hope for different things. I find my hope with other people as opposed to from God.

I agree that its not good to practise faith out of fear. That was really one phase of my life, when I’d lost all the faith except the fear. But it wasn’t always like that.

 

[MaryD7]

I hope I havn’t lost hope! I think I just hope for different things. I find my hope with other people as opposed to from God.

I agree that its not good to practise faith out of fear. That was really one phase of my life, when I’d lost all the faith except the fear. But it wasn’t always like that.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you personally lost hope! Maybe I was speaking as a parent when I said those words. Just like with my son, my hope is that you will develop for yourself a belief in God and the Catholic Church.

I’ll add you to my prayers of hope as I pray for my son too. How’s that?

When do you start University? What are you planning on studying?

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Sorry, I didn’t mean to imply that you personally lost hope! Maybe I was speaking as a parent when I said those words. Just like with my son, my hope is that you will develop for yourself a belief in God and the Catholic Church.

I’ll add you to my prayers of hope as I pray for my son too. How’s that?

When do you start University? What are you planning on studying?

Don’t worry, I didn’t think you were implying that! Just wanted to be clear. It was good advice and definatly something we all should keep in mind.

Thankyou for keeping me in your prayers, thats very kind of you. Forgive me if I don’t do the same, but I really do hope everything goes well for you too.

I’m starting Medicine at the beginning of October of this year.

 

[Nino]

I’m a catholic parent and it would upset me if one of my children told me they no longer believed. It would never affect how much I love them.

I would also ask them to reconsider their beliefs. I would explain that while they are considered an adult at 18, they really do not have much experience in life. I would hope they respect me enough to at least try a few things before walking away from the church.

After all, I’ve given them my all since they were born the least they could do would be to read a few books or attend some classes?

 

[Nino]

consider…the 20th century saw the most horrible outrages of all time…6 million Jews murdered by pagans…the communist conspiracy murdered some 100 million…all …yes…in doing their duty as pagans…believing in obeying only their own creed…any so called ‘christian’ who harms his neighbor for no reason is NOT a christian at all but in reality a pagan…thats why I condemn groups like …'the voice of the faithfull etc ’ that use the word ‘priest’ when describing a child molestor…that piece of vermin is no servent of God as Benedict Arnold was no longer a patriot when he sold out to the brits…this is a great site…we can discuss the days events with all sorts of characters …while my wife is playing golf I can chat here…Nino ps dont disagree with me or I will call you rude or …duh what charity…

 

[Little_Mary]

Can someone give me a hand with this CD? How do I download it? I can see how to buy it, (free plus $3 shipping) but I don’t have a credit or bank card or anything to pay with. Is the downlod easy to manage? My computer is rubbish.

I’ve never downloaded, just ordered the CD’s. You could email them and tell them what you are trying to do - unless someone else here could help you.

I never order them online either. I send a check or cash (donation - bu tyou don’t have to donate) through snail mail. That way it’s only the cost of the stamp.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

I’ve never downloaded, just ordered the CD’s. You could email them and tell them what you are trying to do - unless someone else here could help you.

I never order them online either. I send a check or cash (donation - bu tyou don’t have to donate) through snail mail. That way it’s only the cost of the stamp.

Ok, doesn’t matter anyway, I worked out how to download it.

Just finnished listening to it actually. Very intersting talk, but I feel in no way challanged by it. The wasn’t a single point where he makes a logical argument, where the only rational responce is, ‘there must be a God.’ I think this is important. All he is talking about is objective morallity. Without a God, there can be no objective morallity. All morallity must then be subjective. At this point I am supposed to go, ‘Yeah thats true. There must be a God.’ In fact, my responce would only be ‘Yeah thats true.’

I do not believe in any objective morality. John is correct, I cannot objectively say why Hitler is wrong. It is only my opinion that he is. However, fundamentally were any of Hitlers actions wrong? No. Not without a God. With nothing fundamental to judge us, there are no fundamental truths. And all that means, is that Hitler, however unfair this may seem, has gone to the same oblivion that we are all headed to.

Having said this, the question asked wasn’t, ‘Was Hitler Wrong?’ It was ‘Was Hitler Right?’ I can only repeat myself. There is no God, no fundamental truths and no fundamental morallity. And there for fundamentally Hitler was not right. Every act that anyone does is fundamentally neutral.

Right now you may be thinking that its terrible that I can say this. So before I go on, let me assure you that I am sickened by what Hilter did. I think it was morally wrong and evil. But I don’t pretend to offer an objective reason. My veiwpoint is clearly subjective. I just hope that everyone shares my subjective veiwpoint.

What I am trying to say here, is that the idea of objective morallity is not universal. John assumes that everyone accepts objective morallity, and then says, in a perectly logically sound step, that atheists can’t justify this. He says God is necessary to justify this. Thats all well and good. Its the first assumption that is wrong.

There are a couple of points he raised that I’d like to pick up on. Without a transcript it is difficult to do so in the deatail I’d like, but I remember the important points.

Firstly Johns own morality. Clearly he believes in objective morality. Now for the sake of argument lets assume he is correct. Lets say, yes, there is objective morality. Lets also say that it is his objective morality (the christian one) that is correct. By this morality, if an atheists chooses not to accept it, that makes it no less true. If it is a fundamental truth and not affected by opinion. Therefore my life is no less valueless if I make the claim that there is no objective morality. I’d be wrong, but the same laws universally apply and I cannot change that. Therefore my life would still be held in equal value by God.

Now I know that John really wouldn’t shoot me with his mandatory hunting rifle (as he puts it). I know he doesn’t believe that it is morally acceptable to kill me. But when he does hold that rifle up, to scare me and to make a point, I would have absolutly nothing to fear. Because by his own morality he can’t shoot me. He would be accepting what he percevies to be my morality. I know he wouln’t do that. So I would say: ‘Fine shoot me. How do you think your God will judge you?’

(cont next post)

 

[Jake_Ellison]

(cont from previous post)

Ah of course. He was just makeing a point. He is just trying to say, that without an objective morallity there is no reason for me to say that its wrong for him to pull the trigger. So what he should do is hand me the gun. And then I’d talk him through my moral reasoning.

This is what I would say. ‘Fundamentally, me pulling the trigger and killing you is morally nuetral. However, in my opinion it would be wrong. I feel no need to back that up in any objective sence. Subjectivity is perfectly good enough for me. Subjectivity is all anyone can have. And therefore, my subjective beliefs, taught to me by my parents and culture, won’t let me kill you. My subjective beliefs, developed over thousands of years becuase it benefited general human survival, and thus was selected for in evolution, will not let me kill you.’ Then I’d give him back his gun.

So yes, he plays devils advocate in his talk. I know he doesn’t honestly believe that atheists are second class citizens. I know he believes that we are still, at least, the least of Christ brothers.

So far all this idea of no real good and evil (real in a fundamental sence) might seem cold and heartless. I would agree. The world is not a fair place. However, it is not unfair either. It is indifferent. The world neither cares nor does not care for us.

Like the sound of that? I’m sure you don’t I’m sure it seems alien and cruel. You may wonder how I can live like that. And the answer to that is simple. It does not matter. It does not matter how fundamentally indifferent the world is. And why is this? Because we can never see the world from a fundamental veiwpoint. We just can’t. As humans we are incapable off it. Sure I know murder is fundamentally morally neutral? Does this mean I’m justifying it? No. Because I, like a murderer, can veiw the world fundamentally. We are bound to this relative, subjective, human morallity.

Murder sickness me. Abortion sickness me. Do I want to be able to see the world fundamentally? No. I am human. I need the comfort that morality gives me. I don’t need to pretend that morallity is fundamental. But I still want it as much as any of you.

The final point I want to make is about one spesific example John gave. The 9/11 terrorist attacks. He said there so no objective way of saying they were wrong without God. This is true. But it is equally true to say there is no objective way of saying they were right without God. Think about it. Pretend your an atheist and try and come up with an objective reason as to why the attacks could be called right. Now imagine that you are an extremist Muslim. How do you think they justify the attacks? They say that, objectivly, the attacks were right, because it was the Will of Allah. And who makes the objective laws? Allah.

Even when John tries to make a set of objective all encompassing laws like ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ he is being subjective. His idea of an objective morallity is different from other peoples. And their ideas of objective morallity are also different. And therefore, how can they be both objective. They can’t be. They both can’t be fundamentally true. So now you say, ‘correct. John is right and the terrorists are wrong.’ But that is your own subjectivity. See if you can put yourself in the boots of the terriorist. Imagine you actually are one of those terriorists. Now who do you say is right?

Could it be that both are wrong? Could it be that there is no objective morality?
John says that there is no ‘coherrant, rational, intellectually consistant responce’ to the question of objective morallity with no God. In my opinion, that is a matter of opinion.

 

[KCT]

My knowleage of the world is not the total knowleage in the world, so I know some true things will exist that I don’t understand.

No disagreement there. I don’t understand God, but I believe He exists . —KCT

 

[Jessamy]

Hello Jake,

First I’d like to say that I’m one of the few non-Catholics on this forum. I am only a little bit older than you, but I seem to have the opposite perspective. While you are a Catholic contemplating atheism, I was born an atheist and am now being drawn toward theism.

As the previous posts have indicated, moral relativism vs. moral objectivity takes a central role in the debate. I agree with you that without God there could be no objective morality, and I also agree that human morality does not indicate with certainty that there is a God.

What I think can be argued is that for humans, objective morality exists. It isn’t something tangible, and it has nothing to do with whether the universe cares or not, it is as you’ve said, something that evolution has en-grained in you. Whether that evolution is directed is what we’re all arguing in the first place.

My subjective beliefs, developed over thousands of years becuase it benefited general human survival, and thus was selected for in evolution, will not let me kill you.’ Then I’d give him back his gun.

You call your beliefs subjective, yet nearly every human feels the same moral revulsion when it comes to murder as you do. It seems to me that this makes morality a reality inherent in the human condition.

So why do I believe in God now? (Not the Christian God for certain, but an all powerful God who created the universe). It has less to do with moral arguments and more to do with the beginning of the universe. I think you mentioned earlier that you were sure of evolution, but didn’t know how it all began. This is where I too had a problem; I could find no decent explanation in any atheistic or scientific writing of how something could have come from nothing. So I would like to ask you if you’ve read through the first cause argument and what you make of it. I won’t go through everything myself because my thoughts always jumble when trying to explain philosophy; I don’t really have a way with words like some.

Here’s a simple explanation of the argument, though I’d definitely encourage you to read more than just this because it is probably over-simplified: peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Also, though I’ve glossed over it here to direct you elsewhere I’ve never been convinced that evolution really explains morality and I would encourage you to think about this as well; it is really short. humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l052.html

Jessica

P.S. You may think that you’ve come to a final conclusion about God, but I’d say its all an ongoing struggle. I don’t expect you to change your mind after reading these two articles, and in any case I don’t know that you should, but there’s no need to close the subject quickly. Keep reading things from both sides until you’re tired, then take a break and read some more. Someday we’ll both figure it out.

 

[Jake_Ellison]

No disagreement there. I don’t understand God, but I believe He exists . —KCT

And you don’t understand evolution, but you don’t believe in that?

 

[Jessica_Girardi]

I understand what you are saying I will type this to you copy and paste it in a forum. It might not be posted until reviewed though.
Re: Praying is good but learning how to pray is vital.
Praying is a relationship with God. Praying to other titles and names is not in the bible. Moses was used of God and even Esther was used of God we do not pray to them and there is a reason. First because prayer is a relationship with God. Praying to another name is simply stating to have a relationship with someone other than God. But let’s not take my opinion for it let’s examine the bible together…
Genesis 25:21
Isaac prayed to the LORD on behalf of his wife, because she was barren. The LORD answered his prayer, and his wife Rebekah became pregnant.
Genesis 25:20-22 (in Context) Genesis 25 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 32:9
Then Jacob prayed, "O God of my father Abraham, God of my father Isaac, O LORD, who said to me, ‘Go back to your country and your relatives, and I will make you prosper,’
Genesis 32:8-10 (in Context) Genesis 32 (Whole Chapter)
Genesis 32:11
Save me, I pray, from the hand of my brother Esau, for I am afraid he will come and attack me, and also the mothers with their children.
Genesis 32:10-12 (in Context) Genesis 32 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 8:8
Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, “Pray to the LORD to take the frogs away from me and my people, and I will let your people go to offer sacrifices to the LORD.”
Exodus 8:7-9 (in Context) Exodus 8 (Whole Chapter)
Exodus 8:9
Moses said to Pharaoh, “I leave to you the honor of setting the time for me to pray for you and your officials and your people that you and your houses may be rid of the frogs, except for those that remain in the Nile.”
Exodus 8:8-10 (in Context) Exodus 8 (Whole Chapter)
The above are examples of praying to God in the Old testament. Now note how we are taught to pray in the New Testament
in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you.
Romans 1:9-11 (in Context) Romans 1 (Whole Chapter)
2 Corinthians 1:11
as you help us by your prayers. Then many will give thanks on our behalf for the gracious favor granted us in answer to the prayers of many.
2 Corinthians 1:10-12 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
2 Corinthians 9:14
And in their prayers for you their hearts will go out to you, because of the surpassing grace God has given you.
2 Corinthians 9:13-15 (in Context) 2 Corinthians 9 (Whole Chapter)
Ephesians 1:16
I have not stopped giving thanks for you, remembering you in my prayers.
Ephesians 1:15-17 (in Context) Ephesians 1 (Whole Chapter)
Ephesians 6:18
And pray in the Spirit on all occasions with all kinds of prayers and requests. With this in mind, be alert and always keep on praying for all the saints.
Ephesians 6:17-19 (in Context) Ephesians 6 (Whole Chapter)
Philippians 1:4
In all my prayers for all of you, I always pray with joy
Philippians 1:3-5 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter)
Philippians 1:19
Yes, and I will continue to rejoice, for I know that through your prayers and the help given by the Spirit of Jesus Christ, what has happened to me will turn out for my deliverance.
Philippians 1:18-20 (in Context) Philippians 1 (Whole Chapter)
1 Thessalonians 1:2
Thanksgiving for the Thessalonians’ Faith ] We always thank God for all of you, mentioning you in our prayers.
1 Thessalonians 1:1-3 (in Context) 1 Thessalonians 1 (Whole Chapter)
1 Timothy 2:1
Instructions on Worship ] I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—
1 Timothy 2:1-3 (in Context) 1 Timothy 2 (Whole Chapter)
2 Timothy 1:3
Encouragement to Be Faithful ] I thank God, whom I serve, as my forefathers did, with a clear conscience, as night and day I constantly remember you in my prayers.
2 Timothy 1:2-4 (in Context) 2 Timothy 1 (Whole Chapter)
Philemon 1:4
Thanksgiving and Prayer ] I always thank my God as I remember you in my prayers,
Philemon 1:3-5 (in Context) Philemon 1 (Whole Chapter)

See in the above they prayed to Lord,God never to a person who worked for God. Afterall he is the supreme and there is none like him.This whole earth thing is not to make other Gods but to be a relashionship with the one true God. P.S. These are only some scriptures on prayer to view them all search biblegateway.com and enter “pray” and or “prayers”

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Hello Jake,

First I’d like to say that I’m one of the few non-Catholics on this forum. I am only a little bit older than you, but I seem to have the opposite perspective. While you are a Catholic contemplating atheism, I was born an atheist and am now being drawn toward theism.

As the previous posts have indicated, moral relativism vs. moral objectivity takes a central role in the debate. I agree with you that without God there could be no objective morality, and I also agree that human morality does not indicate with certainty that there is a God.

What I think can be argued is that for humans, objective morality exists. It isn’t something tangible, and it has nothing to do with whether the universe cares or not, it is as you’ve said, something that evolution has en-grained in you. Whether that evolution is directed is what we’re all arguing in the first place.

You call your beliefs subjective, yet nearly every human feels the same moral revulsion when it comes to murder as you do. It seems to me that this makes morality a reality inherent in the human condition.

So why do I believe in God now? (Not the Christian God for certain, but an all powerful God who created the universe). It has less to do with moral arguments and more to do with the beginning of the universe. I think you mentioned earlier that you were sure of evolution, but didn’t know how it all began. This is where I too had a problem; I could find no decent explanation in any atheistic or scientific writing of how something could have come from nothing. So I would like to ask you if you’ve read through the first cause argument and what you make of it. I won’t go through everything myself because my thoughts always jumble when trying to explain philosophy; I don’t really have a way with words like some.

Here’s a simple explanation of the argument, though I’d definitely encourage you to read more than just this because it is probably over-simplified: peterkreeft.com/topics/first-cause.htm

Also, though I’ve glossed over it here to direct you elsewhere I’ve never been convinced that evolution really explains morality and I would encourage you to think about this as well; it is really short. humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/y64l052.html

Jessica

P.S. You may think that you’ve come to a final conclusion about God, but I’d say its all an ongoing struggle. I don’t expect you to change your mind after reading these two articles, and in any case I don’t know that you should, but there’s no need to close the subject quickly. Keep reading things from both sides until you’re tired, then take a break and read some more. Someday we’ll both figure it out.

Right now its midnight, so I’m too tired to read the articles with any real consentration. I’ll get back to you at a more decent hour for me…

However, I do want to quickly talk about the begining of your post. I disagree that an almost universal opposition to murder automatically makes that a fundamental moral. The word almost is important. Some people are not opposed to murder. You could bring a child up to feel good about causeing pain and ending life. This has tragically been shown in some abuse cases, where abused children, grow into apparently evil killers themselves. Its not ingrained, its just something so important evolutionarily speaking, that it appears universal.

I think the best way of showing this is by looking at killing in general. How do you define murder? When a soilder kills another soilder in war, is that murder? While something arbiterily (sp) defined as murder seems universally revolting, the taking of a human life under any cercumstanses does not.

I’m talking about a group mentality, which does exist within humans to a certain extent. People feel comforted when they recoginse others of their own ethnic origin. Even recogniseing the accent of someone, as the same as your own can be a comfort because it is familiar.

What does this have to do with killing? Once a group is established, it is in the net benifit of that group, if it can kill off a neighbouring group. In tribal warfare, if a dominant tribe can kill of a weaker one then it no longer has to compete for resourses.

(cont next post)

 

[Jake_Ellison]

(cont from prev post)

In terms of evolution, (and this is simplified) the group protects the shared genes within it. If your group has genes that make everybody, in general, stronger, then your group has a greater chance of survival over a weaker group. If you sacrifise your life for the good of your group, you help to protect those shared genes.

But if you kill a member of your group, a member who others love and are attached to, who share your genes, who should be familiar to you, how does that benifit the group in any way? It doesn’t. And thus the evolution of a ‘moral’ revulsion to murder within the group is garanteed. But even today, when an Iraqi solider is killed by an American or British one, in general, people in America or Britain do not feel as sad or as angry as when an Iraqi kills an American or British soldier. Some people even feel glad that we are winning.

I don’t support the Iraqi war. But depite how much I dislike this fact, I have to admit that I feel worse when I hear about British troops dying then when I hear about Iraqi soliders dying. Now when civilians die its another matter. Its easy to feel sad, when your own country has caused these senceless deaths. You feel guilty.

So of course the morality of death is complex. But when we really get to the bottom of it we can say that all killing is senceless. But are we wired up to think this? No. Is it a universal moral? Definatly not. Can we see why an aversion to murder would develop? Yes.

Just breifly on what I know about theism: Theism seems a much more sensibly veiwpoint to take then any reilgion. Even if we knew ‘God’ existed, we can say nothing of the nature of ‘God’. Even if we knew ‘God’ existed, we know nothign of whether ‘He’ intended our creation or even cares we are here. Or even knows we are here. But Theism as a basic theology doen’t work for me. Lets say that ‘God’ (or whatever you want really) started off the Big Bang. This God is the eternal factor, the causless cause, the most fundamental constant. But why not just let energy be constant. Imagine energy is this fundamental constant that always existed. Energy could be the ‘God’ from which everything sprang. After all, matter is energy.

Also we can’t assume a God created the Universe because we know nothing of an outside of the universe or a before it. We are bound to the laws of this universe, because we are in it, so we find it hard to imagine what it would be like if the laws were different. One such law is causality, cause and effect. Theism takes God or whatever as the causless cause. It still leaves the question, why was there a God? And on top of this, if we assume a God did it, why don’t we simplify? Why not say ‘the laws of causality apply to this universe. How do we know they apply outside it? Prehaps cause and effect does not hold outside the universe. Prehaps something really could come form nothing, outside the universe. Prehaps it did, and here we are now.’

Anyway, I hope I’ve got the right end of the stick here and havn’t just argued about something you never meant in the first place. I’ll look over those arguments in the morning. Tell me if I’d made no sence in this post, or you want me to try and clarrify something. I don’t really have a way with written words either, (dyslexic) so my writting may not read very well.

And finnally, I won’t stop reading or thinking, and I hope that someday we do figure it all out. Nobody hold their breath though…

 

[mariyka]

Hello Jake,

When you wrote this, you gave me hope.

I won’t stop reading or thinking, and I hope that someday we do figure it all out.

Hope that my son, who told me he didn’t believe in God anymore, would keep looking and keep his heart open.

How would your parents feel? I can only tell you how I feel. It’s like someone kidnapped him. I cry often and pray more often, but I never let him see it. My greatest joy would be if he told me he would stay open to God’s Grace. That he would listen to that Voice within, then maybe he might come back Home. I grieve for him, but I love him, and I hope he knows I do.

That’s how I feel.

 

[Jessamy]

Hi again,

I’m getting tired too and I start my first day of pharmacy school tomorrow, so I don’t have much time to think about my response in depth. For now I’m going to forego the discussion on the evolution of morality and just focus on the first cause/cosmological argument. I will say that the short article I asked you to read distinguishes so-called “group morality” from true altruism. I think it lays on the side of evolution explaining morality anyway, but it does raise the question of why some apply morality universally when this does not seem like it would benefit survival. As you’ve pointed out, this type of morality is less universal in any case, so I may concede the point.

I agree with you that a general theism is much more rational than the support of any one God. I tend to believe that the Christian God cannot be proven, and must be taken on faith. It may be possible to be more certain than not that some type of God exists, but I don’t think you can know without a doubt the exact attributes of that being. I am, however, leaning toward becoming Christian, but all of my reasons behind that cannot be rationally explained. I suppose I’m developing faith of some sort, but I of all people know that this cannot be taught and is not something one can use to convince others.

Anyways, on with the rational arguments, first I’ll quote the passage of yours I want to start with:

Also we can’t assume a God created the Universe because we know nothing of an outside of the universe or a before it. We are bound to the laws of this universe, because we are in it, so we find it hard to imagine what it would be like if the laws were different. One such law is causality, cause and effect. Theism takes God or whatever as the causless cause. It still leaves the question, why was there a God? And on top of this, if we assume a God did it, why don’t we simplify? Why not say ‘the laws of causality apply to this universe. How do we know they apply outside it? Prehaps cause and effect does not hold outside the universe. Prehaps something really could come form nothing, outside the universe. Prehaps it did, and here we are now.’

This argument seems quite shaky to me. I don’t think you can assume, just because we are talking about the beginning of time, that suddenly all the laws don’t apply anymore. Sure, if the laws were different than the world and universe could have appeared out of nowhere, fully formed with the beginning of human existence. To us, it appears that evolution took place, but since we weren’t there, for all we know the universe just “popped” into existence that way.

The first cause argument actually does imply that the laws didn’t fully apply before the universe existed. Remember, we are talking about some eternal “thing” for which we often say God, which existing outside of time, created our universe where everything requires a cause. This God is the exception to the cause and effect rule. To create the universe, however, God had to apply the first rule which is that nothing in it could be created without a cause.

I guess with all my running around the block on this question it comes down to this: how and why could your laws suddenly shift? First you’ve got this quark that came from nowhere. Is everything then dependent on this particle? Or do more things appear from nowhere and then once there’s several of them they stop appearing out of nowhere and cause everything else? How can you, without an infinite being, define the point where cause and effect becomes a true law of universe? And “outside the universe” sounds pretty silly to me 'cause I haven’t a clue what that means. To me it is absolute nothingness which brings into question whether that one quark from nowhere IS the universe once it appears or not. And if that quark is the universe than shouldn’t our rules apply from then on? Answer me those questions and I’ll stand in awe of your reasoning skills.

To me the simpler explanation is that ONE eternal being created everything. Whether that is truly God as we think of or not, or something closer to “energy” I want to leave for another post because my brain is tired. Anyways, I’m really enjoying this because I can tell you have thought about it a lot. I hope you post again soon, but take your time because I’m probably going to be busy here real soon with school starting.

Jessica

 

[Jake_Ellison]

Ok, I read the articles. The evolution one is interesting, all I think there is to say on the point, is that human socail evolution has become incredably complex, especally because we have become so dominant, that we find ourselves in a position where we can do things that would seem to have negetive consquences for our evolution, but that do not effect our domiant position. For the survival of the species, the fact that we can reason of feel empathy towards some people, is obviously an advantage. This advantage has not been diminished by the fact that now we may feel empathy towards complete strangers. The advantage has been strong enough to preserve this ‘quality’ within us.

I agree with you that a general theism is much more rational than the support of any one God. I tend to believe that the Christian God cannot be proven, and must be taken on faith. It may be possible to be more certain than not that some type of God exists, but I don’t think you can know without a doubt the exact attributes of that being. I am, however, leaning toward becoming Christian, but all of my reasons behind that cannot be rationally explained. I suppose I’m developing faith of some sort, but I of all people know that this cannot be taught and is not something one can use to convince others.

Anyways, on with the rational arguments, first I’ll quote the passage of yours I want to start with:

This argument seems quite shaky to me. I don’t think you can assume, just because we are talking about the beginning of time, that suddenly all the laws don’t apply anymore. Sure, if the laws were different than the world and universe could have appeared out of nowhere, fully formed with the beginning of human existence. To us, it appears that evolution took place, but since we weren’t there, for all we know the universe just “popped” into existence that way.

The first cause argument actually does imply that the laws didn’t fully apply before the universe existed. Remember, we are talking about some eternal “thing” for which we often say God, which existing outside of time, created our universe where everything requires a cause. This God is the exception to the cause and effect rule. To create the universe, however, God had to apply the first rule which is that nothing in it could be created without a cause.

I guess with all my running around the block on this question it comes down to this: how and why could your laws suddenly shift? First you’ve got this quark that came from nowhere. Is everything then dependent on this particle? Or do more things appear from nowhere and then once there’s several of them they stop appearing out of nowhere and cause everything else? How can you, without an infinite being, define the point where cause and effect becomes a true law of universe? And “outside the universe” sounds pretty silly to me 'cause I haven’t a clue what that means. To me it is absolute nothingness which brings into question whether that one quark from nowhere IS the universe once it appears or not. And if that quark is the universe than shouldn’t our rules apply from then on? Answer me those questions and I’ll stand in awe of your reasoning skills.

To me the simpler explanation is that ONE eternal being created everything. Whether that is truly God as we think of or not, or something closer to “energy” I want to leave for another post because my brain is tired. Anyways, I’m really enjoying this because I can tell you have thought about it a lot. I hope you post again soon, but take your time because I’m probably going to be busy here real soon with school starting.

Jessica

Ok, as for theism.

Firstly I don’t believe that the laws of causality don’t apply outside the universe. All I’m saying is it is a possiblity that can’t be disproved:
The universe appears to have had a finite existance.
It appears to have come from a big bang.
What caused the big bang?
Prehaps outside the universe there are no laws of causality and therefore the universe was created but in such a way that it did contain laws of causality.

(cont next post)