Robert George: The Days of Being a Socially Acceptable Christian Are Over
- Status
S
Solmyr
Guest
As one of my favorite T-shirts says:
Everyone must believe in something, so I believe I’ll have another beer.
Is that satisfactory?
C
clem456
Guest
Many people have given their whole life to the proposition.
T
TMC
Guest
To quote Walter Sobchak, “Dude, at least its an ethos.”
T
TMC
Guest
No apology necessary. I see now that my post (and tone) were not so clear. My bad.
Sure there are.
Atheists believe there is no God.
N
NM505StKate
Guest
I am pretty sure atheists wake up without believing in something. If anything they believe who knows as there are so many varied atheists. it is like herding cats. Point is atheism is “I don’t believe in god(s)”. Atheists can still believe other types of woo just as easily as Catholics can.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
No, that is not what I am saying. This is not an either/or in the sense that you are making it out to be. I didn’t use the words “feel responsible" for, but rather “are” responsible for regardless of feelings.
Other children are, in themselves and in reality, as valuable as my child, but that does not mean I bear equal responsibility for them as I do my own child.
It is possible to “feel” responsible to those whom we value, but our responsibilities do not end when the eventually might come where the “feeling” of responsibility fades. In fact, it might be said that we value and have responsibility for those close to us in a different sense than the way we treat the implicit value that others have. We may still have some – but not the same – responsibility towards those not proximate or close to us.
Our sense or “feeling” of value may depend upon our knowing or being familiar with them, but that is not what determines our responsibility for them. We do not forsake our responsibility for those close to us merely when we no longer feel any sense of closeness or responsibility for them. We still ought to value them for their own sake not because of feelings these people engender within us.
YOUR insistence that responsibility is determined by “feeling” responsible for others or having a sense of value for them could be taken to mean that when or if the “feeling” of responsibility dissipates then your responsibility towards that person no longer exists. :nope:
The value we put on others does not determine their real value nor does it demarcate the limits of our responsibility for them. AND, this is the crucial point, their value does not determine the positive responsibility for them, necessarily. The responsibility we have towards anyone is determined also by a variety of factors, such as (most importantly) the fact that we gave them life to begin with.
I am not responsible to feed, clothe, educate and, generally, look after others in the same way as I am responsible for looking after myself. This is called the principle of subsidiarity, by the way, which properly orders responsibility. This does not imply that I am a moral failure if I don’t foist myself into everyone’s daily life or affairs as if I am them or on the supposition that I have some moral duty to inflict myself on others in that way. No, we respect the autonomy of others, including their “right” to make mistakes and learn from them.
This is why morality is, ultimately, a vexing issue. we are not dealing with rocks or pieces of wood whose properties can be quantified or otherwise relatively easily understood in terms of how we might respond to them. No, these are living beings with “value” equal to ours. Working out what that means in terms of our responsibilities to them is not as cut and dried as growing corn or tending hogs.
This simply misrepresents my point and I would think you realize that but are quibbling over a point that is nowhere even implied.
In fact, I would argue that a woman who aborts their child operates under the same error as you do above – i.e., that if she doesn’t “feel” or have a sense of responsibility for the child, she bears no responsibility. That is the implication of your view and precisely where it is mistaken. And where Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “violinist argument” ultimately fails.
The value we put on others by our “feelings" about them does not determine their real value, nor ultimately our responsibilities for them.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
There have to be beliefs associated with atheism or atheists would have no reason for making any claim whatsoever. Atheism would be a non-position. Is that YOUR position?
The attendant beliefs which lead to “no God” are “beliefs," are they not? Especially, the ones that directly entail “no God” - i.e., Atheist: “I believe there is no God because I believe X, Y and Z are true. AND my belief that X, Y and Z are true is what leads me to believe 'no God’ exists.” That would be a rational position based upon "associated beliefs,” so there are beliefs “associated with” atheism, yes?
If not, then atheists are being completely arational in having “no beliefs” that can possibly lead them to have no belief in God.
Careful how you answer this Brad. Rocks and mud have "no beliefs” either, and there "aren’t any beliefs associated with…” being or thinking like a rock or mud either.
We are known by the company we keep.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sure, if mere sentience (in some attenuated sense) is your ultimate aim in life.
Here, you see, we aspire to a higher form of life…
…rational existence.
To each his own, I suppose.
B
Bradski
Guest
So every single thing in which you and I do not believe is…a belief. As you will.
So we value those close to us differently to the value that we have for others. The value we put on someone is relative to how close they are to us. I thought you were trying to say that was NOT the case.
Did someone say that? I’m certain it wasn’t me. But I will agree that your sense of value is relative to how well you know them or are familiar with them. Are you sure you are arguing AGAINST relative value. You’ve just said two things that confirm it.
You love these straw men, don’t you. I haven’t said anything like that. You are the one that wants to compare value and responsibility. I’m not interested.
Yet again, you are arguing points which no-one is making. However, the fact that you can say: ‘The value that we put on otherS…’ pretty much throws in the towel as far as you are concerned. It is PRECISELY my point. That we put our own values on others (notwithstanding that you completely ignored my examples regarding things that we find valuable – the value is relative there as well. Do you want to qualify your previous statements to exclude them?).
Well, if you want to insist that…
…then I would suggest that you spend more time and money on people who really need help less on yourself and your family. When the final reckoning comes and you are asked to account for yourself, if you insist that everyone has equal value, how do you explain away the iPad and the flat screen TV and the car and the holidays and that good bottle of wine and the decent steak?
That made me laugh out loud.
My position is that the evidence presented for God is not sufficient for me to form a belief in the veracity of His existence. If you want to class that as a belief, then be my guest. I never cease to be amazed that this appears to be so important to Christians. It always comes across as schoolyard taunts: ‘Yeah, well YOU believe as well! And YOU have faith too! So there!’
As I said to vz, as you will…
M
Maximilan_Kolbe
Guest
And yet a man who seeks to build walls and not bridges is not a Christian. Odd.
C
clem456
Guest
Your idea is that there is no God, if I am not mistaken. You claim a-theism. Ok.
Or maybe you prefer to say you do not accept any beliefs toward the existence of God.
Whichever way you want to say it…
Does this idea of yours hold any value?
Obviously it does, as you are stating your ideas here.
If your ideas had no value, you would not give them the time of day or thought, let alone come to a Catholic web blog to proclaim your ideas. But here you are proclaiming your ideas and discussing the value of them with others. Your ideas are worthy pursuing, and are worth relating to others.
That’s great by the way, that you are here proclaiming and debating your ideas. I don’t agree with you, but at least we are both observing, listening, thinking, talking, spending time making a case about our ideas.
Given that we are here, I think you can see there is an issue with your claim that you do not have strongly held beliefs. A negative belief is still a belief, and you certainly do posit your beliefs for our edification in relation to “god”, even if you posit them in the negative. You still posit them.
Why do you find it difficult to admit that you believe something, when your very presence here tells the obvious?
The point is, it’s impossible to have an honest discussion when an obvious thing is denied. It is important to Christians what other’s believe, or at least it should be. It’s part of respect for human dignity.
And it’s important to you, or you would be out mowing the grass or having a beer instead of searching the fine points of religion-anti religion on a religious message board.
The evidence for God is not sufficient for you. Fine.
Let’s just have honest discussion and not pretend that belief is an offensive and alien idea, the peculiar realm of the religious, rather than being innate to every human being.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Actually there is a difference to be made between things I do not believe in because I haven’t given them any thought whatsoever – AND have no idea whether they are true or not precisely because I haven’t expended a single thought either way – and those things which I reject outright precisely because I have given them lots of time and mental energy.
In other words, some things are “not believed in” BECAUSE they haven’t been given any consideration whatsoever AND no beliefs whatsoever are held about them. While other things are “not believed in” BECAUSE they have been thought about lots and have been rejected.
Now are you claiming that your lack of belief in God is of the former kind – the one that is non-existent BECAUSE you haven’t given it a first thought, let alone a second? Well, if that is the admission you want placed on the public record, then let your atheism be one which has no supporting beliefs BECAUSE you haven’t thought about nor considered the belief “God exists” at all.
On the other hand, if you want to insist that your belief “God does not exist” is one about which you have actually thought seriously, then you will have to admit that there exist a cohort of supporting beliefs which led you to that conclusion.
Pick your rat poison.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Apparently, you haven’t given this issue much thought either and rely on an absence of thought to arrive at what you suppose is a considered belief.
Let’s break this down shall we?
- Every human person has the same value by virtue of being human – this would be derived from a basic rule of logic: treat relevantly like things alike.
- A child in some third world country has the same intrinsic value as your child sitting across from you at the dinner table.
- It is possible to recognize that every child has the same moral value as every other child, while also recognizing that your moral responsibility towards particular children may vary for practical and other considerations.
- The fact that you brought a child into existence places you into a particular relationship of responsibility for that child given that the child is vulnerable and by creating that child you are responsible for fending off threats to that child’s existence.
- The responsibility you have shouldered (detailed in 4.) by creating a child places a moral burden on you until such a time as that child is completely able to look after themselves. The burden on you extends to instilling into said child the competencies, virtues and personal qualities required by the child to be fully human and fully alive.
- You do not bear the same responsibility for other children in the world BECAUSE those other children have parents of their own who have similar responsibilities toward those children.
- As a general moral rule, you may have incidental responsibility for preventing harm to others or protecting the innocent from harm, but that does not entail you have the same moral responsibility towards all children that you have towards your own.
- Your responsibility towards your own children exists whether or not you acknowledge any sense of their “value” to you personally. Yes, you ought to love and value your own children BECAUSE of the unique relationship you have towards them; however, not “feeling” or have this sense of value towards them does not excuse you from being responsible for them.
- The unique relationship with your children that derived from bringing them into being makes your relationship to them, likewise, unique. Recall the logical rule – treat like things alike. This entails that because you did not bring into existence every child in the world you do not have the same responsibility for every child in the world that you have towards your own children.
- However, because every child in the world is alike in the fact that they are human children, you do bear moral responsibility for every child in the same sense that you bear for every human being. You ought not harm, kill or otherwise negate their moral rights. This does not mean you have the same responsibility to feed, clothe and nurture them that you have for your own child precisely because in this respect – i.e., you did not bring them into existence – those other children are relevantly different from your own.
This is why, by the way, Judith Jarvis Thomson applied poor logic to the abortion issue. The violinist is not relevantly like the children that men and women bring into being and, thereby, take on a unique responsibility for their care.
Let me check real quick and see if I said that…
Nope, I didn’t.
What I did say is as follows:
Sure there are.
Atheists believe there is no God.
And indeed you corroborate this from your own biography page on this very forum as follows:
*I am an atheist. That is, I do not believe in gods. *
Perhaps you did not mean to imply a belief in your biography page?
Perhaps you have not given thought towards God and simply have not formed a belief since you have not provided enough thought to it one way or another.
Or perhaps acknowledgement of a belief is no longer conducive to your arguments…
I think you need to clarify this as it does not appear completely forthright.
What I did say is as follows:
Sure there are.
Atheists believe there is no God.
And indeed you corroborate this from your own biography page on this very forum as follows:
*I am an atheist. That is, I do not believe in gods. *
Perhaps you did not mean to imply a belief in your biography page?
Perhaps you have not given thought towards God and simply have not formed a belief since you have not provided enough thought to it one way or another.
Or perhaps acknowledgement of a belief is no longer conducive to your arguments…
I think you need to clarify this as it does not appear completely forthright.
C
clem456
Guest
Seems we are disputing between the following:
I do not believe in gods. (which is claimed is “not belief”)
or
I believe there are no gods.
I can see there is a nuanced difference, but either way, both hold a position on the matter.
In Christianity, a good definition of belief, or faith, is to give one’s responsive assent to that which one perceives as true.
Assent is more than reciting a creed, it is to listen, hear, think, express, and live according to what one believes. (it can be expressed in both positive and negative ways)
Belief and religion are not exactly the same thing. Belief is not words on a page like a creed, it is the internalizing and actualizing of the truth one perceives.
Again, no person could get out of bed in the morning without accepting some basic truths.
I do not believe in gods. (which is claimed is “not belief”)
or
I believe there are no gods.
I can see there is a nuanced difference, but either way, both hold a position on the matter.
In Christianity, a good definition of belief, or faith, is to give one’s responsive assent to that which one perceives as true.
Assent is more than reciting a creed, it is to listen, hear, think, express, and live according to what one believes. (it can be expressed in both positive and negative ways)
Belief and religion are not exactly the same thing. Belief is not words on a page like a creed, it is the internalizing and actualizing of the truth one perceives.
Again, no person could get out of bed in the morning without accepting some basic truths.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It appears that Bradski’s position is a third option…
I hold no belief about gods.
As far as I can tell that would imply he has nothing to say on the matter.
So, much ado about nothing.
So when a theist says, “I believe God exists,” an appropriate response from Bradski would be “I hold no thoughts on the matter,” or a genuine
or :ehh: or or even :yawn:And, yet he seems to have a great deal to say about the matter.
Not that I am objecting.
I am puzzled, however, by those who imply they have no thoughts or beliefs with regard to a subject they seem to be able manufacture a great deal of text on, even though they claim to hold no beliefs about it.
Which leaves me
B
Bradski
Guest
But you need to realize that I am not arguing for my position as an atheist. I can’t argue that I don’t believe something. I guess I can debate the strength of the arguments that you might have for your belief but I am not in a position to tell you that you must find the evidence lacking. That’s your call. I’m not here to convert anyone to my way of thinking. And I generally only talk about such matters when others tell me that I SHOULD accept the evidence brought forward. It then takes a little time to explain why I don’t find it compelling.
But generally, matters discussed, at least from my point of view, are debated from a secular viewpoint, not an atheist one.
- Status