Relativism is Irrelevant (So is Absolutism)...Let's Talk about Justification

[fhansen]

What if reason consistently reigned within each individual, yet individuals, with full knowlege of right reason still chose to do evil? Doesn’t that describe the world we live in in a lot of ways? I mean, we know what the natural law is telling us to do, but we still choose to do evil. We have the knowlege of right reason written upon our hearts. And yet, we ignore it and do things our own way, in opposition to right reason. That is called sin.

Ishii

Yes, the more we know that what we’re doing is unreasonable, the more culpable we are. But I was maintaining that if reason were to reign, that is, if nothing were ever done against reason, then sin or moral evil would cease to exist. As it is, reason wars against the desire to sin and often loses.

 

[Dameedna]

Oh, sorry. This revelation about you was new to me.

That’s okay.

And, Dame? I’m still hoping you’re going to provide sources (that is, evidence) for your claim on post #104.

Was this the one about science and religion? There is a lot of information there about this. Are you really struggling to find any, or are you going to ask me for sources so that you can “attack” my sources? I hope not.

Start off by reading about the foundations of The scientific(empirical) method. It wasn’t dreamed up by the secular world we see today Although Wikepedia should be taken with a healthy dose of salt, it’s not a bad place to start.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Revolution

Islamic scientists surprisingly determined, or hypothesized many things(including evolution) before the west did.

 

[Dameedna]

I, too, would be interested to see anything legitimate supporting such an egregious claim.

I’m really surprised by this. Religion and science were not alway’s at odds with each other at all. Religion, science and philosophy were considered all part of the same puzzle.

Anyway, you want to dive further into it, then probably another thread would be best.

Cheers

 

[Dameedna]

Think of how different the course of human history would probably have been if Jesus had explicitly said that slavery is wrong.

Jesus gave a way of living, more than a set of rules to live by. If you go with the Golden rule “Treat people the way you want to be treated”, then by following this you would obviously negate any form of slavery. It’s a way of thinking, a philosophy to live by so to speak. So one could use that as a rather slippery slope argument if you wanted.

Jesus, and those that followed him and wrote about him are two very different things imo.

But the bigger point is: for all practical purposes, the way history has unfolded looks exactly as if morality gradually developed over time in society. There is no reason and no good evidence to accept your claim that there is a transcendent source of absolute morality that acted in history. There is not a trace of a source of absolute morality acting anywhere in history to tell people these absolute morals.

I agree. I think you can however, p(name removed by moderator)oint unique individuals who at least within their cultures, raised some very interesting issues and taught some very unique concepts. Sort of like humans moving in leaps and bounds from time to time, as a result of a new set of ideas that worked.

The individual who at the cost of their own life is determined to teach a new way of living is a unique individual indeed. Sometimes, even entire religions are created out of them

Edit: And before you say it: no, I don’t have “faith” in history. I accept that historians use evidence (that anyone can look at, examine, and verify) to determine what is most likely to have occurred in history. Like all conclusions, these historical conclusions are provisional, always subject to change when new evidence appears. That is the opposite of faith.

Bolded for emphasis.

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m really surprised by this. Religion and science were not alway’s at odds with each other at all. Religion, science and philosophy were considered all part of the same puzzle.

Anyway, you want to dive further into it, then probably another thread would be best.

Cheers

Religion and science aren’t at odds with each other now.

 

[Dameedna]

Religion and science aren’t at odds with each other now.

Okay, we’ll have to agreee to disagree on that one

 

[PRmerger]

'If someone beats his slave, male or female, and the slave dies at his hands, he must pay the penalty. 21 But should the slave survive for one or two days, he will pay no penalty because the slave is his by right of purchase.

Slavery was practiced by many cultures in the ancient Near East. This is an example of law which restricted the abuses that were commonly practiced by pagan societies.

If you look throughout the Old Testament there’s numerous examples of restrictions of abuse of slaves. I don’t know for sure, but I’m guessing that if you were a slave in these times, you’d want to be owned by the Israelites.

In fact, there’s a Jewish proverb: He who buys a slave buys himself a new master.

And in the New Testament, in Ephesians, we find:
5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are, according to human reckoning, your masters, with deep respect and sincere loyalty, as you are obedient to Christ.

In Ephesians, Philemon, and many other epistles the inspired writers propose the revolutionary ideas that Christian slaves were God’s free men, Christian masters were God’s slaves, and slaves and their masters were brethren. Wow.

Do you have any evidence of any coeval atheistic (or pagan) cultures which promoted this revolutionary concept?

 

[Dameedna]

Do you have any evidence of any coeval atheistic (or pagan) cultures which promoted this revolutionary concept?

The buddhists suggested 500 years before christ, and outside of the entire ME culture entirely, that all humans were of the same worth and therefore should be treated equally.

The first Buddha, who reached enlightenment spoke of these things, and they were “apparently” (like the bible) written down or told as stories and adhered to today.

What pray tell, would provde you with evidence of such concepts, that is more “worthy” of your own evidence?

Cheers

 

[PRmerger]

So let me clarify. You have admitted that there is no practical difference between those two worlds. In every way, history appears to have unfolded exactly the way we would expect if morality gradually developed in societies over time (as it did in ancient Hebrew society, no different than anywhere else in the world).

Mega, I have no argument with your very important point.

As I’ve stated before, and it’s been repeated numerous times by all sorts of Catholic posters on this thread and in this forum:

The natural law is written in our hearts. We can determine morality rationally.

Our catechism proclaims “The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.”

 

[Dameedna]

The natural law is written in our hearts. We can determine morality rationally.

And what happens when one rational individual decides a morality the catholic church disagrees with?

Is it the church, or God’s rational thinking that is wrong?

I’m sorry but you aren’t addressing the issue. You are attempting to negate this entire post and it’s very premise.

Not sure if your posts are worthy of more response considering this. You are using a circular argument.

 

[PRmerger]

You haven’t answered the questions. The questions were: “What other ‘methodology’ do you recommend we use to acquire information? How do you know that the information you would glean from such methodology is true?”

Faith and reason. We start with faith and use reason and experience to confirm and affirm this faith.

Simply using reason alone is inadequate. For how does one use finite terms to express the experience of the infinite?

That’s correct, but only for a definition of “True” limited to the objective world (that is, the world that is real for everyone). I think there are subjective realities (like thoughts, preferences, values, and desires) that are “true” for an individual but are not confirmable. But that is an entirely different sense of “true.”

Wow. All that is True is verifiable. You believe that. Ok.

That totally eliminates the possibility of a Transcendent entity.

It seems to me to be a very arrogant point of departure for understanding the universe, but, ok.

 

[Dameedna]

Faith and reason. We start with faith and use reason and experience to confirm and affirm this faith.

Badda bing…badda boom!! there we have it.

You start with a belief about something, and you attempt to fit reason and experience around it.

Truth is not more important than belief to you. You start with belief. That is all the athiest has ever been trying to tell you. We come from a different place in our thinking. Truth, not belief, comes first to us.

You can only affirm your "faith’, and that is based on … …only you can decide that.

But it certainly ain’t truth.

To the athiest.

 

[1holycatholic]

Badda bing…badda boom!! there we have it.

You start with a belief about something, and you attempt to fit reason and experience around it.

Truth is not more important than belief to you. You start with belief. That is all the athiest has ever been trying to tell you. We come from a different place in our thinking. Truth, not belief, comes first to us.

You can only affirm your "faith’, and that is based on … …only you can decide that.

But it certainly ain’t truth.

To the athiest.

PRmerger isn’t accurately communicating what Catholics believe, knowledge is a preamble to faith.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PB.HTM
36 "Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason."11 Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.12
newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm
Question 2, Article 2

Reply to Objection 1. The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles; for faith presupposes natural knowledge, even as grace presupposes nature, and perfection supposes something that can be perfected. Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated.

 

[Dameedna]

PRmerger isn’t accurately communicating what Catholics believe, knowledge is a preamble to faith.

The holy church can claim whatever it wants. It can even use human reason, to define it’s purpose.

But any other religion can do the same thing.

Human reason, cannot belong by default within one human religious institution. Or else…it is meaningless. It is only the insitution that defines human reason.

The catholic church can define whatever it wants. Why you trust them, is subjective…and relates to you. Not God. Not reality. And not truth.

 

[1holycatholic]

The holy church can claim whatever it wants. It can even use human reason, to define it’s purpose.

But any other religion can do the same thing.

Human reason, cannot belong by default within one human religious institution. Or else…it is meaningless. It is only the insitution that defines human reason.

The catholic church can define whatever it wants. Why you trust them, is subjective…and relates to you. Not God. Not reality. And not truth.

The existence of God can be known by human reason alone. Many groups exist that acknowledge the fact of the existence of God, which confirms your assertion.

 

[PRmerger]

And what happens when one rational individual decides a morality the catholic church disagrees with?

Insert “another rational indivdual” where "catholic church’ is, and how does an atheist respond? That is: And what happens when one rational individual disagrees with another rational individual’s morality?

If a rational individual decides a morality the church disagrees with, then he’s wrong.

Not sure if your posts are worthy of more response considering this. You are using a circular argument.

Oh, that’s too bad! :sad_yes:

Well, I hope you don’t mind if I continue to address your posts.

And I’m still looking for the source which supports your claim that science, religion and philosophy were all one discipline until the church decided to separate them.

The wikipedia articles on the scientific method did not make that claim whatsoever.

 

[PRmerger]

I There’s no evidence that the legendary figure depicted in the gospels existed. There are no eyewitness accounts, no contemporary accounts, nothing this figure wrote himself, nada.

Ok. I guess, then, that you have to deny that any Galileans existed at that time. We don’t have any eyewitness accounts, no contemporary accounts, nothing written by any Galileans in that period of history, so I guess that entire culture didn’t exist.

 

[PRmerger]

The buddhists suggested 500 years before christ, and outside of the entire ME culture entirely, that all humans were of the same worth and therefore should be treated equally.

The specific topic was slavery. Did ancient Buddhist China and India have slaves?

 

[PRmerger]

You start with a belief about something, and you attempt to fit reason and experience around it.

You misunderstand the Catholic understanding of faith. It is not, in this case, “a belief.” It is an assent of the will.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Ok. I guess, then, that you have to deny that any Galileans existed at that time. We don’t have any eyewitness accounts, no contemporary accounts, nothing written by any Galileans in that period of history, so I guess that entire culture didn’t exist.

there are contemporary historical accounts mentioning the surrounding events, but why would the romans or the Jews write specifically about some carpenter, especially one that caused such a ruckus, as we know the victors write the history books. it would take a conspiracy of monumental proportions to fake such a thing.

further if that is the standard of evidence i dare you to prove any thing existed before photographs. maybe it is all one huge conspiracy that the aliens have invented to keep us docile like cattle