F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, but by “sense of morality” I’m thinking of an interior “knowing” that I believe we all have but which is darkened by the fall and which precedes any laws that society might need to make for practical reasons.
- Status
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
I do not know how you would reach such a conclusion at all. On the contrary, I firmly believe that faith is reasonable and that God is reached by reason. Such was the opinion of most of our founding fathers as well. Such is undoubted true of atheists who claim to attain a firm understanding of right and wrong through reason. I believe that God gave us the minds we have for this very purpose…to achieve correct truth through reason, not blind following of some imposed dogma. Now dogma need not be incorrect, One hopes that most of the time it too is the result of reason. Occassionally reason is faulty of course and we learn over time that something that seemed reasonable was not. I have no clue how you came to believe I relied on feeling for determining right and wrong. Every post I have made suggests just the opposite. Right and wrong and quite capable in my opinion of reasonable deduction.
M
MindOverMatter
Guest
Why do Atheists Believe that something is wrong?
God is a necessary foundation for moral truth as Christians understand it. If God is Objectively Good, if Goodness is real, then we can say that stabbing people for money is wrong. Otherwise i fail to understand how we can call somebody immoral or evil without appealing to some kind of fantasy; a fantasy that nobody is obliged by logic to agree with. Reason makes it evident to me, that true morality objectively points to a transcedent lawgiver. If God doesn’t exist, then we are mearly talking about natural events. Depending on how we percieve things, we impose our “feelings” on the natural world.
Thats not to say that athiests are not capable of understanding the difference between right and wrong; but their reasons for believing that something is wrong, does not follow the laws of logic.
An atheist can certainly see the conceqences of certain behavior, and appeal to some sort of co-operative system which supports their personal survival; but thats as far as it goes. Socailism was an attempt to do just that.
H
Hastrman
Guest
Because they’re too cowardly to live the other way–ie, by Nietzsche’s master morality. Also, atheists base their whole worldview on the denial of a self-evident truth (there is real existence–i.e., there is a God), so they’re not exactly logical.
Incidentally, Buddhists do believe in God; it’s everything else whose existence they deny. Suffering is caused by the delusion that one is anything apart from existence itself, and the existence that they say is the only thing there is, happens to be our God.
Maybe we shouldn’t let a bunch of white atheists’ illiterate misunderstanding of Buddhism be a premise in an argument about something like this.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Nope.
Let’s say everyone in the world universally condemns murder as destructive. Let’s also say that Joe loves destruction – and thus decides to murder someone. What makes his value system less valid than that of everyone else – majority rule?
OK, then – let’s say that everyone else in the world except Joe loves destruction, and starts murdering everyone. Joe stands up and says, “This destruction is going to make us extinct – we have to stop!” Is Joe now a Brave New World-type lunatic?
Morality is absolute and objective. Thus, there must be some ultimate authority – hence, a “lawgiver”.
Furthermore, you cite the fact that this notion is based on faith as though that were a detraction. The fact is even the atheist pragmatist, who you admit can no better defend his position, is relying on faith – the faith that man is the ultimate judge and pinnacle of wisdom. Which position seems shakier?
Peace,
Dante
G
Greg27
Guest
I think if it were true the only source of morality and ethics is ultimately God, or divinely revealed laws and commands, the answer is no. However, if God does not exist, or you do not believe God exists, then clearly one has to develop one’s own system of morality.
S
Swan
Guest
I would say that most folks would develop the opinion that we should treat others as we wish to be treated even if only for self preservation. But it makes logical sense, especiallly since even atheists realize that man cannot create life (once someone has been killed there is no recourse).
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I come in as a Johnny come lately to this thread. But the most simple and direct answer I can give is that man knows what is right and wrong because of the** NATURAL LAW** being written in the heart of man. When reduced to writing, the Natural Law is the TEN COMMANDMENTS.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
A
annem
Guest
God wrote the natural law into our very beings. But if you look at various civilizations throughout the world it’s hard to believe humans listened to that law very hard.
The ancient Egyptians practiced incest and regarded it as right and natural.
Infanticide, abortion, and offering children to the gods was practiced throughout much of the western and near eastern societies.
Murder was raised to a high art among the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca, who yanked still beating hearts from their vast numbers of victims. Then they ate the remains.
And no, I don’t think we’ve improved all that much, even after Jesus’ death on the cross. Our last century certainly doesn’t show much improvement–not with Hitler, the ovens, the 100 million slaughtered by the communists, and two world wars.
God also wrote the fact of his existence into our souls and the entire of the natural world. And yet, here we are, with atheist tomes clogging every bookstore.
I tend to think that without God and without trying with all hearts to obey his laws we tend to fall to pieces.
God bless, Annem
The ancient Egyptians practiced incest and regarded it as right and natural.
Infanticide, abortion, and offering children to the gods was practiced throughout much of the western and near eastern societies.
Murder was raised to a high art among the Aztecs, Mayans, and Inca, who yanked still beating hearts from their vast numbers of victims. Then they ate the remains.
And no, I don’t think we’ve improved all that much, even after Jesus’ death on the cross. Our last century certainly doesn’t show much improvement–not with Hitler, the ovens, the 100 million slaughtered by the communists, and two world wars.
God also wrote the fact of his existence into our souls and the entire of the natural world. And yet, here we are, with atheist tomes clogging every bookstore.
I tend to think that without God and without trying with all hearts to obey his laws we tend to fall to pieces.
God bless, Annem
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
I can see your point. But Consider. God sent his only Son for us, to die on the cross.for us.so we could be with him, if we choose. Somehow if he went to this extreme, I don’t think he will give up on us, because he does not make mistakes. Giving his son to die for us was not a mistake. It was the greatest blessing ever given to man. All we have to do even in our stupidity, is accept it. and act upon it.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
D
dbg
Guest
What do you mean by “right” and “wrong”? Those words are meaningless to me. Some things are more loving than others and I desire to be more loving. That’s all that is necessary. “Right” and “wrong” is a faulty paradigm. Becoming more and more loving is not about adherence to rules of “right” and “wrong” but about a desire of your intellect and heart and a choice of your will. And how is it possible to know what is more versus not so loving without believing in God? How is it not possible? You Christians have poor reasoning here. You say that God is the source of morality and thus you cannot know morality if you don’t believe in God. Well, OK, but don’t you also say that God is the source of well everything? Is not your God also the source of the warmth of the sun? How can I, not believing in God, nevertheless recognize the warmth of the sun?
face it, there is no reason nor “need” to believe in God. The world is better off without such beliefs. They are the cause of immorality (religious wars, intolerance). I’ve never met an intolerant atheist or agnostic, have you?
F
fhansen
Guest
Well, I wouldn’t call Stalin tolerant and as far as agnostics are concerned, that covers a huge pool of people so you’d be painting with a broad brush by commenting on their level of tolerance.
Christians believe, most importantly, that God is the source of love. And that right and wrong behavior are first and foremost indicators of how well, or how poorly, one loves. And that God, this source of love, has the right to demand that we love well and the right to judge those who choose not to- in some cases choosing to behave towards fellow human beings in ways which indicate an extreme rejection of love.
D
dbg
Guest
So I gather your answer is that you, like me, have never met an intolerant athiest or agnostic? Granted that there have been and probably still are exceptions, but what explains your present-day experience. I see intolerant Christians trying to snuff out films like The Golden Compass and intolerant Jews trying to snuff out films The Passion of the Christ but I’ve never heard of any atheist or agnostic group trying to snuff out some film they didn’t like. Why is that? I agree with Rosie O’Donnell in her comparison of the puritan Taliban with the puritan Christians. The Taliban restricted free expression and so also do these puritan Christians seek to restrict (through laws or public pressure) free expression.
It seems then that your God is a hypocrite since it was your God who said “Judge not” yet chooses to “judge” himself. It also seems that your God is not loving since AFAIK, true love does not “demand” anything. If you truly love someone for example, you don’t “demand” that they love you back or “demand” anything from them. Love asks or invites, proposes and never imposes.
It seems to me that one can love with or without a belief in God. So then what harm would there be in someone loving without believing in God? Can you answer that question please?
A
annem
Guest
Um, what about the entire of the 20th century? The atheists who hunted down priests in Spain and Mexico, the Nazis who killed nearly every priest in Poland, and, of course, let us not forget the communists. I believe even to this day there are Christians in camps in Korea and Cuba that are living a tortured existence because of intolerant atheists.
Actually, I have never met a tolerant atheist in my life. I am frankly baffled by your suggestion that you have. Are you sure?
Come, come. God can’t judge? Take a deep breath, lie down, and maybe the solution will come to you.
One of the central themes of the bible is love, God’s love for us being so overwhelming that he died on the cross for us. None of us demanded this of him. He gave his life freely. Why aren’t you touched?
May God bless you, Annem
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
F
fhansen
Guest
The injunction for humans not to judge means they’re not to play god-not that God’s not to play God.
I think the Catholic perspective could be presented something like this. If you were God and had created the universe out of love and for love and had given to part of your creation-that is, to sentient beings-the freedom with which to also know and appreciate and share love, but you observed that some of those beings instead tended to unloving behavior such as rape and torture and murder or in any case disregard, whether in large or small ways, for the dignity of human life-that they had, in fact, abused the freedom given to them and acted in ways outside of the order which you had determined to be right and good- then you would certainly have the right to demand or command something which shouldn’t really need to be demanded at all-that is, to demand love. But, having determined that the freedom of these beings is an essential part of their coming to know and express love, which is what you’re after in them, and due to your patience and understanding, you’re not willing to override their freedom and force them to love-which would not produce love anyway- but rather to allow freedom to continue until all have had a chance to have a change of heart. All of this is simply to say that love is real and will prevail in the end whether or not some oppose or reject it.
This also points to the fact that Christians believe we’ve found the source of all goodness -because it’s chosen to reveal itself - and that this is an inexpressibly valuable thing because it means definitively that love and goodness are the way of and order behind the universe and that there’s a real hope in the future and an ultimate purpose for everything that happens in life. So when people hear of messages coming through the media which oppose or seek to distort or squelch the message of love they believe they’ve found- a treasure they think is good for them and all mankind-then they can naturally become passionate about it. This doesn’t mean that most of them would try to ban a film since most believers know that many are going to oppose Christianity no matter what.
In answer to your last question, I think it should be obvious that something’s wrong with this world-that much of the behavior we observe in ourselves and others is outside the range of reasonable or natural behavior-and that this is especially obvious where humans have committed atrocious acts against other humans-things animals wouldn’t do to each other. In other words, I believe that evil exists and is something which simply should not be. This is why the doctrine of original sin makes sense, if properly understood, because it means, in its most basic sense, that man has a problem and that problem lies in his rejection of and separation from God.
If it’s possible for people to be ignorant of God for whatever reasons while choosing to love in a genuine way (and the Church teaches that ignorance of God is mans’ problem) and orient themselves towards the good, I believe they’d be at a disadvantage but still have one up on anyone, Christian or otherwise, who, by the end of their lives, loved less well. In any case, like I alluded to at first, God’s the only one who can judge.
B
BlaineTog
Guest
K
KBarn
Guest
Your choice of “loving” and “more loving” are substantially equivalent to “good.” You prefer different terminology. That’s fine. But what we say by “good” you say by “loving.” Especially since love cannot occur unless there be an object of love, i.e., something good. Love is that passion of the will by which we seek the good. “Loving” depends on “good.”
The Natural Law tradition of Catholicism actually does say that we can be moral without constant reference to God. God is the remote (though ultimate) norm of morality. The proximate norm of morality is human nature adequately understood. It is possible to formulate social and political morality on the basis of a reasoned reflection on human nature without appealing to divine authority. This is precisely what Aristotle did. For Aristotle, “good” is simply the necessary precondition of “loving.”
In the Enlightenment period, Grotius, a Dutch philosopher was able to say that even if one should deny God (he certainly did not), human reason is fit to establish practical moral certainty in the realm of social and political life. In the Twentieth Century, Jacques Maritain showed that morality could be understood in relationship to human dignity, which is “empirically” and philosophically knowable.
Karl Rahner said that man’s ability to question himself in terms of categorical and material considerations offered by the sciences shows that he transcends these categorical and material limitations and exists as a person, as a subject, and as free: though he can analyze himself according to the materialist sciences, it is he that is prior to these sciences, it is his self-possession that makes this analysis possible in the first place.
- Status