Ten Questions for philosophers from Msgr. Charles Pope

[Peter_Plato]

Ghaaa!! I…can’t…control my…urge to answer…questions posed…on the…internet!

I had to go and read the original blog post to understand what these questions are really asking. In my mind why and how are intrinsically linked with regards to physical explanations. But that’s not what the author is asking. By “why”, it seems that he is really asking “what is the meaning of…”, so I’ll try to answer with that in mind.

Sparky,

Let me start off by saying that you must be one smart little puppy to be using a computer to post on a web forum. I have a cat that instinctively knows the day she is going to the vet and hides in a difficult place to corral her on that day. But your level of intelligence, let me say, is far beyond anything I could have imagined from your species. (No offense to other dogs that might be lurking about.)

Getting back to the topic at hand:

To my mind, how and why are not “intrinsically linked” because they ask about two inherently different aspects of reality. How refers to the “means by which” something came about. Why, on the other hand, is concerned with “the reason for” or "the explanation of."

It may be the case that in a causally determined universe the means by which (how), aka, the cause of, supplies the reason for (why) something, but that would only be true if the effect follows inexorably and intrinsically from the cause so that the cause provides both the means by which and the reason for. That scenario would presume a material and causal order where the nature of the order explains the causal chain (both how and why.)

The problem here is that Big Bang cosmology seems to indicate that the entire scenario (the space-time continuum, energy and matter) came into existence some 13.7 billion years ago. Essentially that means the material causal order or "how” that has served to answer both the means by which and the reason for the universe itself has come to a screeching halt.

At the Big Bang instant, the means that supplies the answer for “how,” itself came into existence. So pursuing the “how” is no longer an option (beyond the Big Bang instant) to explain the reason for because the means to do so has reached its logical terminus. We are left with “why” since the “how” has arrived at its terminus. However, because the reason for (why) does not depend upon having the means by which (how,) we can begin to proffer possible answers to “why” precisely because the how has, so to speak, run its course. It makes sense to ask, “Why did the universe come into existence, from nothing, 13.7 billion years ago?” And that question remains meaningful despite the fact that the how (means by which) has evaporated because the causal means (matter, physical laws, space-time, energy) - the only means to answer “how” - themselves began to exist at that instant. The material components of the universe cannot provide the means by which the universe came into being since they could not pre-exist it to be “the means by which” that answers “how.”

I am still shaking my head in disbelief over the fact that I am discussing metaphysics with a very intelligent puppy on a web forum. Of course, I have come to realize that the universe is full of surprises. I wonder WHY that is? Or, if you prefer HOW could such surprises come about in a causally ordered universe where surprises would seem to be beyond possibility.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think you’re forgetting that the original question was “why” or "the meaning of…"and not “how”. We have a good deal of empirical knowledge about how the world originated and how humans “got here”. As for what happens after you die, I haven’t seen any evidence we do much of anything except decay.

I certainly disagree. We have no good explanations on " how " the universe originated and none on " how " intelligent life appeared. I know pop - scientists dedicated to scientism, naturalism, or materialism say that. But really, all they have is pipe dreams they call " theories. " And other than that, they have no direct empirical evidence to explain the " how " of either.

And of course the " why " is also important. But Msgr Pope, I think, was asking non-believers why they don’t think about the ten questions he asked, or, if they do, why don’t they take them seriously. .

I am always looking for answers and I’m always open to new ideas. But I don’t just believe something because an authority says it. You need some kind of evidence behind your statements to show that they are valid.

I haven’t offered any proofs, I was merely asking questions, probing. Did you want me to offfer some proofs? You understand of course that these are not " proofs " that can be scientifically verified, they are proofs derived from Philosophy. But there are some common sense proofs that make sense. And if you object, " what good are proofs that cannot be proven scientifically or that not all accept, " I would point out that every sceintific law is subject to revision, so they are not absolute proofs of anything.

The question was about the meaning of my existence, not existence itself. Also you are asking “how” again and not “why” as it was phrased in the original question.

Both questions are important don’t you think? Very well. What is the meaning of your existence. I don’t think you are going to find the answer to that in a test tube. But the Revealed Word of God may be a start. Philosophy may offer some good ideas too.

If you want the real answer here it is. You were made to know, love, and serve God in this life, and enjoy the fruits of you faithful service in eternal union and love with your Creator. It will be an eternity in which you mind will be opened to the totality of truth and spiritual ( translate - psychological ) love of the Absolute Perfection, which is God. Can I prove that? Of course not. But God can, but you have to be open to Him, He will not force you.

As for how existence came to be (or what the nature of existence is) I don’t know. I’m not even sure that it is coherent to ask where existence came from.

Of course it is. It is the most crucial question of all. Everything that exists has a nature. Take the example of a horse. Each horse has a nature we can call horse-ness. When you see a horse, you do not see the horse-ness, you see the external manifestations of that nature we call horse-ness. Horse-ness exists in every particular horse. Ditto for every lump of coal, every ounce of gold, etc.

The one perfection everything has is that which makes it real is its existence. But you cannot see existence. Your knowledge of it is a judgement your will makes. You see something your intellect recoginzes, and your will says, " yes, that thing exists, it has existence. "

But everything in the universe exists - but not perfectly, because if one thing had perfect existence, there would only be one thing that existed. So your intellect advances a little more and says, nothing in this universe can be the cause of the existence that all things have, because nothing in this universe has perfect existence. Therefore, your intellect says and your will judges, there must exist a Being, not a part of this universe, which is the cause of the nearly infinite number of limited extents in this universe. And this Being must be absolutely Perfect Existence Itself - and this we rightly call God.

We’re veering off the topic now. But yes I would love for them to be happy for all eternity. Unfortunately I haven’t seen any reason to think that they (or I) will be around for that long…

But that is where you are wrong. You have a spiritual ( non-material ) principle that is at the very center of you, that governs every aspect of your life. It is, firstly, your life principle. It is what makes you self aware, it makes it possible to know, to think, to judge. Not only that but it remains the same eventhough every cell in your body is replaced up to seven times in your life span.

At the end of your years, you still know who you are ( unless you develope dementia, and even then the capacity is there but it will have become latent.). Such a principle cannot be material. And since it is immaterial, it will live on after your body dies. An immaterial substance has nothing in it to decompose. It will live on.

[QUOTEI think you’re missing my point. I’m not complaining about my relative, I’m making an analogy as to why some people get angry with those who believe in Gods or spirits or other things that cannot be empirically verified.
[/QUOTE]

I see. But that is scientism. Sience can not prove, nor does it make any claim that it is the only valid source of knowledge. It is only a certain brand of populist that makes these assertions. And they are only assertions.

I was raised a practicing Catholic and confirmed in the church. I heard many “answers” from many different people and found none of them particularly satisfying or unique to Catholicism…

As I said earlier, Edward Feser was once an Atheist, he was also a baptized Catholic. Get his book, " Aquinas. " He also has a blog. Just google " Edward Feser."

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I’ve given my perspective on this question several times now so let me put it back to you. How does having a ultimate law giver make an action immoral or moral? In other words how does “God says it’s wrong” make something wrong?

Because he made us and all creation to function in such a way that the greatest good would be done and so we would be united with Him for all eternity, He has the right to make demands. Non intellgtent beings do his will and accomplish the common good by instinct. Man has been given an intellect and will through which he was to govern his life to accomplish the greatest common good. And by making his actions conform to God’s plan, he does God’s Will. It is man’s test. If he has Faith, and does God’s will, he will achieve his final end. Since God knows what is best for us, and since he has given us a human nature to use, He has a right to demand that we do His Will.

No, I am not positive that there are no Gods outside of my range of detection. I can only investigate the claims that are laid out before me. If someone has a specific God claim that they would like me to investigate, I would be more than happy to do so.

Please reread what you were responding to. I don’t think you understood what I was saying there.

Right, I think I am at sea. Perhaps you would like to rephrase it if it is important to you.

I don’t think I can turn my empathy on and off at will. It is not a rational decision. It seems to be an innate trait in humans. We feel empathy towards our own kind.

I disagree.

Sociopathy is not “correct” or “incorrect”. It is a brain condition. Sociopaths generally lack the ability to feel empathy. Also, sociopaths are not necessarily violent. We don’t just lock people up because they’re a sociopath.

Of course. That is understood.

Let me ask you another question. Let’s imagine that there is no God and that we are just primates living on the Savannah in Africa. What are the advantages to having a trait like empathy? Why might that trait be favored over sociopathy?

Firstly, I don’t grant that animals have empathy, I think some display behaviors that only resemble empathy. Certainly all mother animals display that behavior in regard to their young. And that is advantagous.

What do you mean that without God there is nothing you can say? Didn’t the inquisition involve God and God’s church in some way? What does the 12 step program have to do with killing? I’m confused…

The answer should be obvious. Without God, there is no standard of behavior to which all men are bound.

I’m not an expert on the Inquisition. But abuses steming from it are attributable to individual men who were sinners, not to the Church. And of course, the Catholic Church is full of sinners.

I didn’t say the 12 step program had anything to do with killing. Apparantly you think there is a connection.

Again, I have to ask, why would the existence of God make me feel any more guilty about hurting someone?

I simply asked, where does the " sting of conscience " come from if not from God?

I will check the local library system here to see if I can find it. Is there any chapter in particular that relates to our conversation that I should read first?

Start with page 1.

Good luck.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

And why did God create Universe?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that God created the universe to manifest His Goodness and Power through benefits freely bestowed on His creatures ( CCC, para 293)
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

And why did God make you, Monsignor?

I’m not Msgr, I am merely a messenger, so to speak. But as far as I am concerned, God made me to know, love, and serve Him in this life, and to spend eternity with Him after this life.( CCC, para 358 )

For the same reason, Monsignor, that the founder of your religion was was angered at Pharisees. It’s not that you mention God. It’s that you have appropriated God, twisted Him to fit your agenda, and made yourselves an intermediary between people and God, so that you, not God, have to be worshipped. You preach poverty, yet wear expensive robes; you preach chastity, yet shield child molesters; you preach peace, yet bless machine guns.

Certainly all Catholics are sinners but don’t you think you are being a little unjust here? As I said, I am not Msgr, but I know him and I can tell you he lives a life of poverty, serves an inner city parish, and has never shielded child molesters. Nor has he ever blessed machine guns, he is a very peaceful man. I do not know whether or not he is a pacifest or whether he would defend a just war. But I can tell you he is not the man you addressed above. In fact I do not personally know any priest that fits your discription.

Besides, you missed the point of #3.

You claim to be the shepherds who lead people to God, yet, you are guards who block access to Him.

I’m sorry you feel that way. I do not know any shepherds who fit your discription.

QUOTE]But Monsignor, the problem is not injustice, the problem is contradiction. Let me remind you that it was your Pope who was found dead in mysterious circumstances after 33 days of reign. It was your banker who was found hanged in circumstances suggesting a ritual murder. It was your bank that was laundering mafia money. It is your basillica which became an eternal resting place for a mafia boss. It was your high priest who fathered children and molested them. We know, Monsignor, what your God commands. Truly, Monsignor, if your God is indeed what you claim He is, why didn’t the rain of fire yet descend on the city on Tiber?

You have obviously been reading hate literature. Nothing you say here is true. Again, you missed the point.

And if it is because God has mercy on you, then why wouldn’t God have mercy on us, who do no evil, and sin with mere unbelief?

You are surely the only person I ever encountered who claimed to be without sin. Congratulations. Again, you missed the point.

The point was, if you have a sense of injustice, where does it come from if there is no God by whom we can set a standard?

Truth be told, we have some ideas, but we don’t know.

And you are satisfied with uncertainty?

But we DO know that a good God cannot command genocide (see Amalekites). It’s not that atheism is right, it’s that your God is self-contradictory.

Perhaps if you read your Catechism you might have more understanding of the Truth.
God created us to know, love, and serve Him. He owes us nothing. The Amalekites were a particularly repugnant people, as were the people of Sodom and Gemora. They had their warnings and would not listen. Therefore God used them as an example. That was His right. And who are we to judge God. Did you ever read the Book of Job? You should read it.

Monsignor, stop kicking the dead horse of Inquisition, put away your strawmen, and read a book on neuroscience. Brain chemicals control simple things; sadness, happyness, lust, attachment, aggression, and so on. If you, Monsignor, can identify a chemical which can make someone write a complicated and consistent document such as Crimen sollicitationis then truly, go to Oslo, for the Nobel prize in medicine is yours. Such calculated and collective evil, Monsignor, cannot be blamed on simple imbalance of neurotransmitters.

You miss the point entirely. The point is, if we are nothing but a bunch of chemicals, how can you or anyone blame anyone for doing something you consider wrong. Because if we are just a gallon or two of chemicals, we can’t be blamed for anything.

The Msgr brought up the Inquisition because that is one of the complaints people throw at the Church to give it a black eye, though they themselves know next to nothing about it.

The rest of you comment is pointless.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

Hi Linus2nd,

Monsignor Pope’s text, given the arguments used, appears to attack the Dawkins-style (or reddit-style) atheism.

Monsignor Pope has produced a list of 10 questions, which are essentially two well-known arguments for God: the Kalam argument, and the objective morality argument.

Questions 1-2 attempt to trick the reader into concluding that there must be God, because otherwise the existence of the Universe and yourself would not make sense (Kalam). The problem is that he implicitly presupposes that the Universe must make sense. The thing is, since don’t know why the universe exists, then we cannot know if it should make sense. This is not a trivial problem at all. See Beginning of all things by Hans Kung for discussion, but basically, you cannot derive God from Universe unless you make an unsupported and unscientific assumption that creation of Universe was good. And this assumption must be taken on faith

Question 3 is rather peculiar, because Monsignor is setting a straw man that modern atheists are opposed to God as an abstract concept, and implies that they must be insane, because they react emotionally to an abstract concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Monsignor had spent an hour trying to communicate with people he’s trying to challenge, then he would know that they are not opposed to the idea of God per se, but rather to what the churches are doing with the idea. Monsignor should read what the great Catholic philospher, Fr. Jozef Tischner had to say about atheists: “I have never seen someone lose faith because they read Marx, but I have seen many lose faith because of the exploits of their pastor”. As I said, there are way too many Catholic priests who perfectly fit the description of Pharisees in the Gospel – as best exemplified by one Marcial Maciel Degollado. Personally, reading about his… achievements was one of two things responsible for my deconvertion from Catholicism to atheism.

In questions 4-7, Monsignor is essentially trying to redo the William Lane Craig argument for God from absolute morality. A lot of keyboards have been used up discussing that, so I’ll skip.

Then, we get to a true gem: questions 8&9. These land squarely in the “not even wrong” land and deserve a detailed discussion.

First off, Monsignor does not understand what is the link between brain chemicals and morality: brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/13/brain.awr334.full

Second, even if we did grant that chemical imbalance in the brain removes culpability, it is still very difficult to claim that moral failures such as Inquisition, Crusades or Crimen Sollicitationis could be justified that way. This is because chemical imbalance in the brain (read: insanity) can only exonerate a specific person, and these things have been perpetrated by the Church as a whole. Therefore, the claim that Inquisition etc. have been a result of chemical imbalance in the brain, would require that everyone in the Church had such chemical imbalance – in other words, everyone was insane. It’s been a while since I last read the Gospels, but I believe that Jesus was pretty explicit that he intends to fund a church, and not an insane asylum.

Third, Monsignor claims that atheists, as moral relativists, cannot judge the behavior of believers. This is a straw man: atheists can be moral relativists, but they can also be moral absolutists. (Hitchens, for example, was the latter.) Much more importantly, however, Catholics CANNOT be moral relativists. Catholic morality ascribes moral value to actions themselves. Therefore, in situations like Inquisition, Crusades, Crimen, etc. the Church did not violate some nebulous atheist morality – it has violated ITS OWN moral code. You do not have to violate MY moral code to demonstrate your hypocrisy to me – you just have to violate your own. Ironically, Jesus said something about it (eyes, specks and logs).

And now to answer question #10: WHY, OH WHY should I take advice on God or morality from an institution which “cannot keep his own house in order”, to quote St. Paul?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus2nd,

Monsignor Pope’s text, given the arguments used, appears to attack the Dawkins-style (or reddit-style) atheism.

Monsignor Pope has produced a list of 10 questions, which are essentially two well-known arguments for God: the Kalam argument, and the objective morality argument.

Questions 1-2 attempt to trick the reader into concluding that there must be God, because otherwise the existence of the Universe and yourself would not make sense (Kalam). The problem is that he implicitly presupposes that the Universe must make sense. The thing is, since don’t know why the universe exists, then we cannot know if it should make sense. This is not a trivial problem at all. See Beginning of all things by Hans Kung for discussion, but basically, you cannot derive God from Universe unless you make an unsupported and unscientific assumption that creation of Universe was good. And this assumption must be taken on faith

Question 3 is rather peculiar, because Monsignor is setting a straw man that modern atheists are opposed to God as an abstract concept, and implies that they must be insane, because they react emotionally to an abstract concept. Nothing could be further from the truth. If Monsignor had spent an hour trying to communicate with people he’s trying to challenge, then he would know that they are not opposed to the idea of God per se, but rather to what the churches are doing with the idea. Monsignor should read what the great Catholic philospher, Fr. Jozef Tischner had to say about atheists: “I have never seen someone lose faith because they read Marx, but I have seen many lose faith because of the exploits of their pastor”. As I said, there are way too many Catholic priests who perfectly fit the description of Pharisees in the Gospel – as best exemplified by one Marcial Maciel Degollado. Personally, reading about his… achievements was one of two things responsible for my deconvertion from Catholicism to atheism.

In questions 4-7, Monsignor is essentially trying to redo the William Lane Craig argument for God from absolute morality. A lot of keyboards have been used up discussing that, so I’ll skip.

Then, we get to a true gem: questions 8&9. These land squarely in the “not even wrong” land and deserve a detailed discussion.

First off, Monsignor does not understand what is the link between brain chemicals and morality: brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/13/brain.awr334.full

Second, even if we did grant that chemical imbalance in the brain removes culpability, it is still very difficult to claim that moral failures such as Inquisition, Crusades or Crimen Sollicitationis could be justified that way. This is because chemical imbalance in the brain (read: insanity) can only exonerate a specific person, and these things have been perpetrated by the Church as a whole. Therefore, the claim that Inquisition etc. have been a result of chemical imbalance in the brain, would require that everyone in the Church had such chemical imbalance – in other words, everyone was insane. It’s been a while since I last read the Gospels, but I believe that Jesus was pretty explicit that he intends to fund a church, and not an insane asylum.

Third, Monsignor claims that atheists, as moral relativists, cannot judge the behavior of believers. This is a straw man: atheists can be moral relativists, but they can also be moral absolutists. (Hitchens, for example, was the latter.) Much more importantly, however, Catholics CANNOT be moral relativists. Catholic morality ascribes moral value to actions themselves. Therefore, in situations like Inquisition, Crusades, Crimen, etc. the Church did not violate some nebulous atheist morality – it has violated ITS OWN moral code. You do not have to violate MY moral code to demonstrate your hypocrisy to me – you just have to violate your own. Ironically, Jesus said something about it (eyes, specks and logs).

And now to answer question #10: WHY, OH WHY should I take advice on God or morality from an institution which “cannot keep his own house in order”, to quote St. Paul?

I won’t be able to answer you in detail until tomorrow night some time - full load of work.
In the mean time I think you should read Msgr’s comments again, including the here and here references. And you might get to know Msgr. better by reading some of his other posts. You may disagree with some of what he says here and there, but I think if you had had him for your parish priest, you would not have strayed. And I can assure you, he would be the first to welcome you back.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus2nd,

Second, even if we did grant that chemical imbalance in the brain removes culpability, it is still very difficult to claim that moral failures such as Inquisition, Crusades or Crimen Sollicitationis could be justified that way.

No one claimed otherwise. But again, you don’t know the unbiased account of any of these. I am unfamiliar with your reference to " Crimen." And read my closing comments, we all human, including Atheists, we have all sinned, and none is more holy than any other. So you can climb down from your high horse, Atheists have hundreds of millions of skeletons in their closet.

You do not have to violate MY moral code to demonstrate your hypocrisy to me – you just have to violate your own. Ironically, Jesus said something about it (eyes, specks and logs).

He certainly did and it applies to Atheists as well.

And now to answer question #10: WHY, OH WHY should I take advice on God or morality from an institution which “cannot keep his own house in order”, to quote St. Paul?

You don’t have to and apparantly you have decided to chart your own course. But as I have shown you above and below, the Atheistic house is in no better order.

And you are missing the point. It isn’t the Church we are accountable to, it is Jesus, His Father, and the Holy Spirit. Neither Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist has a " get in free card. " We will all be judged by Jesus Himself, and objectively so, there won’t be any excuses the moment after we die.

The point about the Church is that it is the Church through whom the Holy Spirit speaks, and it is through the Church that we receive His Saving Truth, and it is through the Church that we receive the Soul Saving Sacraments.

To be honest, you are speaking like a man who is jumping off a tall building because he is mad at the world ( the Church is just an excuse ). Where does that get him?

End Part 1 ( Closing comments are in Part II)

Linus2nd
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus2nd,

Part II

I had time to address the question of the Inquisition briefly. See the following post I left on another thread. You should go to the source and either read the article or watdh the video which is linked at the end of the article by following the link, " read more…"

Re: The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Therese Martin
The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition

By Jon Sorensen

Many Catholics squirm at the very mention of the Spanish Inquisition, often times conceding to claims that it was the most brutal time in Church history. But was it really as brutal as it is often described?

If you have never seen the BBC documentary The Myth of the Spanish Inquisition, I highly recommend it. At a little over forty-five minutes, it summarizes the most recent scholarship about the “Black Legend,” how it began, and why it persists.

Here are just a few of the more interesting points covered in the documentary:…

Read more.

It was good that this was a BBC presentation. Still one has to admit that there were deaths attributed to the Inquisition, some at the hands of Clerics. And it is a known fact that St. Joan of Arc was burned at the stake due to the instigation of certain Bishops supporting Britian against France. And no doubt there were many other less violent injustices that can be laid at the feet of the Inquisition, not only in Spain but throughout Europe.

The question I have is what was the reaction of the Popes and the Curia to the injustices being carried out by the Inquisition?

The bottom line fact is that injustices were done, and these can never be excused. And we know from our own recent experience with our own problems that Church Officials are just as frail in their decisions as anyone.

The thing that has to be kept in mind is that we are all sinners and that we are all capable of comitting great sins - all of us, including non-believers as well. None should feel " better than thou, " to have any other attitude is simply dishonest.

Linus2nd

 

[weller2]

Hi Linus2nd,

No straw man. If an atheist appears to be a moral absolutist or claims to be, he merely demonstrates that he can’t think clearly.

Now, before I discuss why this is a straw man, I will demonstrate why this is wrong.

There are atheists who are moral absolutists. A good example is the arch-nemesis of Catholic moral theologians, Peter Singer. Singer wouldn’t be that much hated by Catholics if he engaged in moral relativism, because a moral relativist acknowledges validity of the opposing position, and Singer does not. Singer believes that utilitarianism is one true moral philosophy, and judges everything by it. To provide an example:

• Catholics (absolutists): “Abortion is evil. Period.”
• Relativists: “I think that abortion is wrong, but there are people who believe otherwise, so I will let them live by their beliefs”, OR “I think that aborton is not wrong, but I will let Catholics live by their beliefs”
• Singer et.al.: “Abortion is not evil. Period.”

The distinction between moral absolutism and relativism is not about what you believe, it’s about how you feel about imposing your beliefs on others. Another example: homosexuality in the Soviet Union was punishable by 5 years of hard labor. Why would the Soviet Union prosecute homosexuality if they were moral relativists? (And did you know that Stalin also outlawed abortion?)

Now, on to why this is a straw man.

Contrary to what Monsignor believes, moral relativism is no defense – it is in fact irrelevant. A moral relativist believes that everyone should be judged by his own values. Or (to use a religious analogy) a moral relativist believes that Catholics will be judged by a Catholic God, who will judge their adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church; a Protestant will be judged on how he followed the Bible; a Muslim will be judged by Qu’ran and Hadiths; and an atheist will be judged by those that outlived him. (In this paragraph, “God” is used as a shortcut to mean what each religion believes God is, not what the relativist himself believes God actually is or is not.)

So Monsignor asserts that a moral relativist cannot be angry at the Catholic church for things like Inquisition, Crusades, or recently the child molesting scandal (directly enabled by the infamous Crimen Sollicitationis document, personally approved by Pope John XXIII). Monsignor assumes that a moral relativist has no ethical system in which such judgement should be grounded. This is incorrect, because, as I said earlier, a moral relativist will judge Catholics the same way the Catholic God would. Since the Catholic God is known to disapprove of acts such as torture, war or child molesting, it’s a no-brainer for a moral relativist to judge churchmen engaging in such acts as evil – by their own criteria.

And now to your “We’re all sinners!” argument. Of course we are all sinners. Nobody claims otherwise. If you read the Gospels, then you will see that Jesus kept company with the sinners. He told them to repent, yes, but he didn’t criticize them.

There was exactly one cathegory of people Jesus heavily criticized – to the point of hurling insults at them. I’m talking of course, about the religious aristocracy of Israel in Jesus’ time. Now, the sad fact is that most of Jesus’ rant from Matthew 23 perfectly describes the Catholic Church AD 2013. To wit:

2 “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 Therefore whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do.

Catholic Church claims teaching authority in the name of God, so it also applies to it, right?

4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Many examples of that, the best one probably is this: Catholic priests make the detailed pronouncements how their faithful should live family life, yet they themselves don’t marry, because that would be too much a burden for them.

5 But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments.

All that beautiful liturgical clothing…

6 They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7 greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ 8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

Aren’t Catholic priests referred to as “Father”?

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

Imagine that:

Sunday: a priest gives sermon that those who divorce and remarry will got o Hell.
Monday: the priest is arrested for child abuse.

14 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you devour widows’ houses, and for a pretense make long prayers. Therefore you will receive greater condemnation.

Financial irregularities…

And so on, and so on, including the colorful analogy in verse 27-28, which would probably earn me a ban if quoted I have hit the 6000 characters limit so I will end here

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Hi Linus2nd,

Now, before I discuss why this is a straw man, I will demonstrate why this is wrong.

There are atheists who are moral absolutists. A good example is the arch-nemesis of Catholic moral theologians, Peter Singer. Singer wouldn’t be that much hated by Catholics if he engaged in moral relativism, because a moral relativist acknowledges validity of the opposing position, and Singer does not. Singer believes that utilitarianism is one true moral philosophy, and judges everything by it. To provide an example:

• Catholics (absolutists): “Abortion is evil. Period.”
• Relativists: “I think that abortion is wrong, but there are people who believe otherwise, so I will let them live by their beliefs”, OR “I think that aborton is not wrong, but I will let Catholics live by their beliefs”
• Singer et.al.: “Abortion is not evil. Period.”

The distinction between moral absolutism and relativism is not about what you believe, it’s about how you feel about imposing your beliefs on others. Another example: homosexuality in the Soviet Union was punishable by 5 years of hard labor. Why would the Soviet Union prosecute homosexuality if they were moral relativists? (And did you know that Stalin also outlawed abortion?)

I must point out that " moral absolutist " is your term, not mine, nor is it a term used by the Catholic Church, nor by Catholic moral theologians, nor by Msgr. Pope. What Msgr. is saying in questions #s 8 & 9 is simply this. If there is no moral law to which we all are morally obliged to conform, then why do non-believers get so upset by behaviors which they perceive as immoral? For if there is no moral law to which we are all obliged to comply, then there is no behavior to which, even, non-believers may logically object.

In saying that abortion is evil in itself, the Church is simly saying there is a moral law to which all are obliged to conform and that willful abortion is one act which is always morally wrong. It is wrong because it violates this, morally obligatory, Law. No one may violate it directly, no one may intentionally support it, not even Peter Singer. Ditto with the other examples you have given.

You must be aware that there are not a few Apologists for your camp who agree with me. They agree that without an Ultimate Lawgiver, to whom all owe obedience, there is no logical reason to object to any behavior. And for them, everything goes, no matter how distasteful or disgusting or cruel.

Now, on to why this is a straw man… ( omitted for length, refer to prior post ).

And I have just shown why this is incorrect. Without an Ultimate Moral Authority, there is nothing logically compulsive about your opinion. It may be enforced of course, but only at the point of a gun ( i.e. China, North Korea, militant Islam, Eastern Cult Religions, etc. ). And since, indeed, there is an Ultimate Moral Authority, all will be judged by Him.

And now to your “We’re all sinners!” argument…( omitted for length )

Your theology is incorrect, Jesus was objecting to the fact that Jewish leaders heaped moral obligations onto the people in matters in which there was no moral obligation because they were concocted by man.

Many examples of that, the best one probably is this: Catholic priests make the detailed pronouncements how their faithful should live family life, yet they themselves don’t marry, because that would be too much a burden for them.

But the morality the Clergy promote is not theirs but God’s. Besides, even the Clergy is obliged to obey the same law.

All that beautiful liturgical clothing…

Aren’t Catholic priests referred to as “Father”?

Oh come now? You are really stretching here. You know the answers.

Imagine that:

Sunday: a priest gives sermon that those who divorce and remarry will got o Hell.
Monday: the priest is arrested for child abuse.

Is that really a logical reason to reject God? I think you are just looking for excuses again. The Church does not excuse such behavior.

Financial irregularities…( shortend for length )

Being a Catholic or a Catholic Priest or Bishop is not a magic bullet, doesn’t erase human weakness, does not dismiss culpability. God will judge all in the end.

I congratulate you on your restraint. Good job.

Linus2nd

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hi Linus2nd,

Contrary to what Monsignor believes, moral relativism is no defense – it is in fact irrelevant. A moral relativist believes that everyone should be judged by his own values. Or (to use a religious analogy) a moral relativist believes that Catholics will be judged by a Catholic God, who will judge their adherence to the teachings of the Catholic Church; a Protestant will be judged on how he followed the Bible; a Muslim will be judged by Qu’ran and Hadiths; and an atheist will be judged by those that outlived him. (In this paragraph, “God” is used as a shortcut to mean what each religion believes God is, not what the relativist himself believes God actually is or is not.)

This shows why moral relativism is a completely incoherent position.

If a relativist takes the position that everyone should be judged by his own values, then the relativist is taking an absolutist stance on morals. A true relativist is one who takes the position that there are no absolute moral standards and that each person is free to decide for themselves on the nature of their morality. A relativist would not make the additional claim that there exists a “higher” authority that will hold each person accountable to their chosen standard. That is an absolutist claim that does not cohere with the idea of self-determination of moral codes and the non-existence of any real moral authority.

Moral relativism is an incoherent “moral” position precisely because it isn’t a moral position at all. It is an amoral position that claims morality does not exist as a reality except in the minds of those who think it does, and so can be sociologically or anthropologically studied, but, in fact, what these individuals and groups believe in is a myth.

Your little “addendum” to moral relativism, in an attempt to salvage it as a moral position is even more incoherent. It is not only morally incoherent because if moral values have no real absolute ground, then on what basis should anyone be judged by their own values? Is it merely because they are being inconsistent? Well, why should consistency be an absolute moral value? The fact that there is such an absolute ground to judge the moral behavior of some turns your “relativist” position into an absolutist one, which defeats the claim that it is a relativist position after all.

In relativism, if each person is free to make their own moral values, then that person is, likewise, free to alter them at will. That means they need not be consistent at all. True relativism entails an attitude towards morals that is akin to wearing morals like clothing. Morals are self-determined, you are free to choose what you want to believe, as you are free to choose what pants and shirt best suit you. No one holds you accountable for that, in moral relativism, not even the fashion police, because fashion police assume some kind of absolute standard for fashion.

If you want to insist on self-consistency as a moral position, then the question can (and should) be asked, “Why should consistency be the only absolute moral principle?” Someone, like Genghis Khan or Adolf Hitler, who is consistently brutal, would under your “moral” position be exonerated by this imagined moral authority who will in the end judge each person by their own standards. So the standard is: “Be as immoral as you want, just be consistent about it.” That would not seem to be a moral position, at all

 

[empther]

Sparkythedog wrote:

The empirical mechanisms for the cause of existence are largely unknown.

On the contrary,
the empirical mechanisms are fully known.

1. the universe could not have existed through an infinite past
2. the universe could not have come into existence by “accident” because an accident only happens to something that already exists
3. likewise, the universe could not have come into existence by “chance” for the same reason
4. likewise, the universe could not have come into existence by a “quantum effect” for the same reason

Therefore,
the only possibility that remains is a supernatural cause,
that is, God. :

 

[Peter_Plato]

4 For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

I must say that this is the poorest excuse for an argument I have heard since my kids were eight years old trying to make a case for why they shouldn’t have to clean their own rooms.

What this argument entails is that no one should make any kind of pronouncement about how someone doing another job should do that job. A police officer, for example, could not critique, make suggestions about or exhort firefighters to do their job well because, they themselves, do not take up the burden of the firefighter.

Or perhaps even more germane, a supervisor could not critique, suggest or exhort because by doing so they would be hypocritical since they aren’t actually carrying the burden of the job itself.

Your presumption is that only the person actually holding the job or responsibility “knows” what the job entails and how to do it, and no one else could.

Taken to its extreme, you would be compelled to argue that God is a hypocrite when judgng concerning the rightness and wrongness of each person’s behaviour because he does not actually live out the specifics of each life.

 

[Sparkythedog]

Sparky,

Let me start off by saying that you must be one smart little puppy to be using a computer to post on a web forum. I have a cat that instinctively knows the day she is going to the vet and hides in a difficult place to corral her on that day. But your level of intelligence, let me say, is far beyond anything I could have imagined from your species. (No offense to other dogs that might be lurking about.)

Ahh…I’ve been rumbled!

Alas it’s true. I’d grown weary of the limitations of canine thought. Questions like “what is the nature of the mailman?” and “if something dies in the forest, and no one’s around, does it make a smell?” just didn’t do it for me anymore. And don’t get me started on dog debates… Imagine trying to bark out a syllogism into the night before your red-eyed, bathrobed owner angrily drags you inside. No fun at all, I say.

So I taught myself to use a computer (which is no easy task for a species that walks on its fingertips). But after searching, I found myself some open-source “bark to text” software and here I am conversing with the humans. Life is funny that way.

 

[inocente]

What Msgr. is saying in questions #s 8 & 9 is simply this. If there is no moral law to which we all are morally obliged to conform, then why do non-believers get so upset by behaviors which they perceive as immoral? For if there is no moral law to which we are all obliged to comply, then there is no behavior to which, even, non-believers may logically object.

As an ex-atheist myself, his approach is misguided. An obvious question here is by “non-believers”, does he include Buddhists and Muslims? Presumably not as they believe in moral law. But then hang on, how come they and other believers don’t agree on what is the moral law? So straight away the Msgr. is digging a hole.

Not to mention the standard Dawkins rough housing such as: "Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.”

The obvious rebuttal to the Msgr. is to ask simply what’s so wrong with having and using a conscience?

 

[inocente]

Ahh…I’ve been rumbled!

Alas it’s true. I’d grown weary of the limitations of canine thought. Questions like “what is the nature of the mailman?” and “if something dies in the forest, and no one’s around, does it make a smell?” just didn’t do it for me anymore. And don’t get me started on dog debates… Imagine trying to bark out a syllogism into the night before your red-eyed, bathrobed owner angrily drags you inside. No fun at all, I say.

So I taught myself to use a computer (which is no easy task for a species that walks on its fingertips). But after searching, I found myself some open-source “bark to text” software and here I am conversing with the humans. Life is funny that way.

Dogs are very profound. Who’s a good boy!



en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Internet,_nobody_knows_you%27re_a_dog

 

[Linusthe2nd]

As an ex-atheist myself, his approach is misguided. An obvious question here is by “non-believers”, does he include Buddhists and Muslims? Presumably not as they believe in moral law. But then hang on, how come they and other believers don’t agree on what is the moral law? So straight away the Msgr. is digging a hole.

Not to mention the standard Dawkins rough housing such as: "Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God’s approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That’s not morality, that’s just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base thought.”

The obvious rebuttal to the Msgr. is to ask simply what’s so wrong with having and using a conscience?

Having a conscience assumes that there is a moral law to which all are obliged to conform - no matter who they are. It assumes that there is a Creator which imprints his law on every conscience.

Dawkins misses the point altogether.

Linus2nd

 

[inocente]

Having a conscience assumes that there is a moral law to which all are obliged to conform - no matter who they are. It assumes that there is a Creator which imprints his law on every conscience.

Dawkins misses the point altogether.

Linus2nd

While keeping off evolution it appears there is evidence that animals are also moral.

*In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

“I think what’s at the heart of following morality is the emotions,” Rowlands said. “Evidence suggests that animals can act on those sorts of emotions.” - livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html*

 

[Linusthe2nd]

While keeping off evolution it appears there is evidence that animals are also moral.

*In one experiment, hungry rhesus monkeys refused to electrically shock their fellow monkeys, even when it meant getting food for themselves. In another study, a female gorilla named Binti Jua rescued an unconscious 3-year-old (human) boy who had fallen into her enclosure at the Brookline Zoo in Illinois, protecting the child from other gorillas and even calling for human help. And when a car hit and injured a dog on a busy Chilean freeway several years ago, its canine compatriot dodged traffic, risking its life to drag the unconscious dog to safety.

“I think what’s at the heart of following morality is the emotions,” Rowlands said. “Evidence suggests that animals can act on those sorts of emotions.” - livescience.com/24802-animals-have-morals-book.html*

I certainly disagree with this on several levels. First, morality is not based on emotions at any level. It is a matter of obeying the moral law, which means knowledge and will must be evaluating and willing for or against an action, depending on how it conforms with the moral law. Emotions have nothing to do with it.

Secondly, St. Thomas and all respected Catholic philosophers/theologians I know teach that man is the only animal capable of thought, judgement, willing. And this is what the Catholic Church teaches. If animals were moral, thinking creatures it certainly would have be a matter of Revelation. And Revelation gives no hint of this.

Linus2nd

 

[WmJackP]

1.Why is there existence?
2.Why (not how) do you exist?
3.Why are you angered when I mention God? You are not angry when I mention a duck-billed platypus or the possibility of ancient space visitors to this planet who sowed the seeds of life. But my mention of God seems to evoke a strong response in you? Why?
4.If your anger is rooted in a sense of injustice (i.e. that what I say or believe is “wrong”), why?
5.In other words, why do we human beings have a sense of justice, of right and wrong? Where does it come from and on what is it based?
6.Is there any basis for morality at all, if as a materialist you say that everything is caused by random mutation and behavior and is biologically determined?
7.Why do you say believing in God is “wrong” and atheism is “right?” On what do you base this?
8.If you point to the “evil things” believers have done such as the “Inquisition,” where does your sense of injustice come from, and why be angry with believers if we are simply doing what the chemicals in our brain made us do?
9.Why is anything wrong at all, if behavior, thought and decision are simply and biologically determined?
10.In a word, “Why?”

blog.adw.org/2013/08/why-a-simple-question-often-overlooked-or-suppressed-today-but-we-who-beleive-must-keep-asking-it-of-a-secular-world/comment-page-1/#comment-179169

Linus2nd