The immaculate misconception

[tonyrey]

Considering the nature of the post to which this was a response, I suspect I merely gave the sentiment its appropriate expression. I apologise if the language was more offensive than usual.

I think it is more appropriate not to descend to the level of those who cease to be objective (although I’m hardly a model to follow… ).

 

[tonyrey]

You don’t have to commit yourself to anything else whatsoever - but how can you avoid committing yourself to yourself?!
*
What are the others - apart from arbitrary rules or moral laws plucked out of thin air? *

These were not good questions.

They were simple and designed to be insulting by implying that because I don’t believe in the supernatural I have no moral code. You would not have asked a fellow theist such questions.

For the record, my own moral code is based on the law and my own personal standards.
They are not insulting but intended to elicit statements of fact:

1. No one has any a priori moral obligations.
2. All moral obligations have a rational foundation - if they are worthy of adherence.
3. Without an objective rational foundation one is necessarily committed to one’s own values.

That is precisely your interpretation of morality because your moral code is based your personal standards - and those aspects of the law which are consistent with your personal standards.

 

[tonyrey]

The last bastion of the theistic believer, when it comes to constructing evidentiary arguments for the existence of their god, is to cite morality. It hasn’t been thoroughly explored by science, much less decisively explained.

Science is necessarily amoral because it is concerned with facts not values.

In any case, no explanation based upon natural proclivities and the necessary behavioural restraint that comes with social living is likely to satisfy those who think human morality is some kind of mystical, metaphysical realm that sets us apart from the rest of nature, and is somehow a trump card that proves they were right all along

No explanation based upon natural proclivities can be moral - - unless you reduce morality to expediency. Your version of morality is no less mystical and metaphysical because it interprets reality as constituted entirely by natural objects which magically produce everything whatsoever - without any evidential justification for such a hypothesis…

Therefore those of us who reject belief in a personal god are accused of having arbitrary or no morality.

It is arbitrary because you alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust. It is amoral** if **you reduce morality to expediency.

It might seem insulting to us, but a little unpacking reveals it’s actually insulting to those who believe that without a god telling them what to do and how to think and behave, they would be nothing but brutes.

It is not insulting to anyone because it is a statement of fact - unless the truth can be insulting…

 

[mark_a]

Do you believe celibacy is the ideal and most people should be faulted for not living up to that?

Not according to Catholic teaching.

Until recently, it would be extremely difficult to make even more atheists with that attitude.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Even if Jesus did die for our sins so what?

God also created the system where sins are virtually impossible to avoid and deserving of damnation. These are not the actions of a loving, all-knowing, all-powerful being.

Says who? You? How do you know this? Are you omniscient? Are you divine? Where do you get the authority to determine the appropriate characteristics of a God in Whom you don’t even believe?

 

[LittleSoldier]

These were not good questions.

They were simple and designed to be insulting by implying that because I don’t believe in the supernatural I have no moral code. You would not have asked a fellow theist such questions.

For the record, my own moral code is based on the law and my own personal standards.

What law? Yours? The legal system? What if the law is unjust in your opinion - what if it conflicts with your own personal standards? What do you do then? Do you change your own moral code to reflect the law or do you disregard the law while keeping your own moral standards intact?

 

[LittleSoldier]

Anyone engaged in sex is treating their partner as a sexual object to a certain extent.

So what?

Do you believe celibacy is the ideal and most people should be faulted for not living up to that?

God created sex. He is the One Who made it such a pleasurable experience (at least if one is not forced in any way to participate) and the One Who made it necessary for the introduction of a new life on earth. He is the One I thank for it and also the One to Whom I have offered my celibacy as a sacrifice.

Celibacy is a calling. Chastity is a requirement.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Your “answer” was just evasion. And in a very good sense, it is the usual “catholic” answer: evasion! Observe: “question: what would you as a catholic do, if God ordered it…?”. The so-called “answer”: “but this is an invalid question, so I refuse to answer”.

Now I will help you, and show two possible answers:

1. Given by a true dyed-in-the wool-orthodox: "Of course I would go ahead and kill, murder, maim, rape and torture, if God would order me to do it. I would have no idea why God orders such a behavior, but I would trust that God knows best, and these deeds further God’s great plan, and whenever it pleases God, he could explain that to me. In the meantime, it is my duty to obey and not to question God. But, I wish to add a disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order any of these things”.
2. Given by an “everyday” believer: "No, I would not do it. God declared that those actions are unacceptable and immoral, and if God changes his mind, he is not worthy to obey any more. If God would break his own commandments, then those commandments are not absolute. I would forego my salvation with my disobedience, but my conscience does not allow me to follow such horrible commands. But I also add the disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order anything of this kind”.

Now, you see, here are two possible catholic answers: both give a disclaimer, but neither attempts to avoid the answer. Are these answers also “caricatures”?

I think that if a Catholic gives Spock an answer that he does not like, he says it is a “cop-out” or an evasion. My response was called a “cop-out.” Yet the real difference between my answer and the answers given above is that I *know *that God would not order “anything of this kind” because it would go against His very being.

It’s not a cop-out. It’s an answer given by a true believer in the Catholic Faith.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Couldn’t sleep, eh?

 

[Spock]

I think that if a Catholic gives Spock an answer that he does not like, he says it is a “cop-out” or an evasion. My response was called a “cop-out.” Yet the real difference between my answer and the answers given above is that I *know *that God would not order “anything of this kind” because it would go against His very being.

It’s not a cop-out. It’s an answer given by a true believer in the Catholic Faith.

First, you do not KNOW… you strongly believe - and those are not the same.

And it is totally irrelevant if God would make such an order or not. The question was “What if…”. I showed two possible answers above (and included the disclaimer in both). Besides God constantly allows such things to happen. There is no difference between “allowing stuff like that to happen”, or “ordering such things to be done” and "personally performing such acts.

I remember an old, school-related joke: the teacher calls out little Jimmy ans asks him to tell about President Washington. Jimmy did not prepare forr the class, but instead of admitting it, he says: “Washington was a great president… but even greater was Lincoln, who…” and keeps on talking about Lincoln. Sorry, my friend… that is called a cop-out and it does not work. If you do not wish to answer a hard question, then don’t do it. But do not try to pull a trick like that.

 

[LittleSoldier]

First, you do not KNOW… you strongly believe - and those are not the same.

I KNOW.

And it is totally irrelevant if God would make such an order or not. The question was “What if…”. I showed two possible answers above (and included the disclaimer in both). Besides God constantly allows such things to happen. There is no difference between “allowing stuff like that to happen”, or “ordering such things to be done” and "personally performing such acts.

So you admit God exists? You have stated that “God constantly allows such things to happen.” You have just admitted that God exists. I thought you were an atheist.

I remember an old, school-related joke: the teacher calls out little Jimmy ans asks him to tell about President Washington. Jimmy did not prepare forr the class, but instead of admitting it, he says: “Washington was a great president… but even greater was Lincoln, who…” and keeps on talking about Lincoln. Sorry, my friend… that is called a cop-out and it does not work. If you do not wish to answer a hard question, then don’t do it. But do not try to pull a trick like that.

I stand by my answer. I KNOW. How have you decided what I know and do not know? On what do you base your opinion? Also, it is not a “hard” question. It is a very, very, VERY easy question.

 

[Spock]

I KNOW.

Well, that pretty much settles it. Thank you for the conversation. I cannot waste more time on talking to someone who is probably a nice fellow, but cannot tell the difference between reality and a delusion.

So you admit God exists? You have stated that “God constantly allows such things to happen.” You have just admitted that God exists. I thought you were an atheist.

Get real… do I have to prepend every sentence with “According to christian belief…”? I trusted you be able to understand the meaning… that just adds to reasons why it would be futile to continue. As I said: good bye. And have a nice life.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well, that pretty much settles it. Thank you for the conversation. I cannot waste more time on talking to someone who is probably a nice fellow, but cannot tell the difference between reality and a delusion.

So you have dismissed someone who believes in God because *you *believe God doesn’t exist and therefore I must have a delusion? You would have to dismiss most of the people who are members of CAF as they probably suffer from the same “delusion.”

Get real… do I have to prepend every sentence with “According to christian belief…”? I trusted you be able to understand the meaning… that just adds to reasons why it would be futile to continue. As I said: good bye. And have a nice life.

C’mon, your user name is “Spock.” So of course I expect you to be a bit more logical than most other posters. You did say that God does those things. I thought you were attempting to be logical in your responses and arguments. But when I point out something you have stated that is illogical you dismiss me (again). Of course you don’t have to preface every sentence with “According to christian belief” (which is also illogical because there are many non-Christian faiths that include belief in God) but if you had put quotation marks around the word “God” then I would have been sure of your meaning. You know, some people might say that what you wrote is a Freudian slip. I would accept that as a possibility although my gut feeling is that it was merely a lapse in logic. And you got caught. Why would you expect me to not point it out? Have you pointed out what you believe to be lapses in logic on my part? I think so. And, in fact, you have said that I am delusional - and that, sir, is an ad hominem. I have never accused you of being delusional.

And yet I am accused of copping-out? Oy vey!!

 

[Julia_Mae]

Well, that pretty much settles it. Thank you for the conversation. I cannot waste more time on talking to someone who is probably a nice fellow, but cannot tell the difference between reality and a delusion. .

See, this is the problem with trying to have a conversation about God with an atheist. You just have no way to even admit the possibility you might be wrong. So you believe we cannot know.

Yet, many of us do.

You believe in the absence of something, yet, your very belief in nothingness is a delusion, a non-rational, impossible-to-demonstrate version of reality with all the evidence on the other side. In fact, you have no evidence at all.

We* know*. For a fact. We know, but we cannot make you know. All people of faith don’t know, many believe. Some of us, however, have been given the experience of incontrovertible proof. Probably because we are such spiritual dunces we needed that.

This is one mountain you have to climb yourselves.

Now, I don’t care what atheists believe, I have no interest in trying to convince y’all of a thing. However, I do want something. I want what I want from all atheists:

Inside your own mind, secretly, find a way to admit, maybe you are wrong and there is afterlife, and Eternal joy and a God Who loves you in spite of yourselves. As He loves us all. Just the possibility, because you will die, and then you will be very surprised, and I don’t want you getting lost, so very seriously, I do not.

Because I know. Just decide that if I’m right and you are still around after you pass, you will look for that Light and call for your Father, call for Jesus, call out to God. You won’t have any vocal chords, of course, but that’s okay, the thought and intent work just fine. You don’t have to say anything here, just please, try to do that much.

God bless you all abundantly.

 

[Sair]

Science is necessarily amoral because it is concerned with facts not values.

Scientific processes need not be moral in and of themselves in order to discern facts about human morality, such as why we might have values, why we might choose to behave in certain ways.

No explanation based upon natural proclivities can be moral - - unless you reduce morality to expediency. Your version of morality is no less mystical and metaphysical because it interprets reality as constituted entirely by natural objects which magically produce everything whatsoever - without any evidential justification for such a hypothesis…

There is plenty of evidential justification for natural events and objects, and none at all for supernatural phenomena. What do you think moral systems are other than sets of behavioural norms that start out from expediency and become culturally embedded and codified as societies develop? There is nothing mystical about this.

It is arbitrary because you alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or unjust. It is amoral** if **you reduce morality to expediency.

This is the part that this attempt at criticism continually gets wrong - there is nothing arbitrary about moral decisions made in the context of one’s relationship to others and to the world of which we are part. Morality only becomes arbitrary if you base it on the supposed whims of a being who may or may not exist and is not part of this world. It is not I ‘alone’ who decides what is good and evil - I am not an island entire unto myself, but part of a vast web of cause and effect relationships. What do you imagine is at the root of all morality other than expediency and self-interest - doing what needs to be done to achieve a desirable outcome (whether that outcome is here and now or beyond the grave…)? Some magical patina of ‘nobility’ or ‘grace’? These are things of the imagination, until you can unequivocally demonstrate their existence.

It is not insulting to anyone because it is a statement of fact - unless the truth can be insulting…

You seem to find the truth plenty insulting, since you’re not able to accept the basis upon which morality is built. You also seem to find it impossible to accept the fact that we are animals, by our very definition, just because you don’t like the dubious implications you yourself attach to being an animal.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I hope you don’t mind me arranging this text in a different order. I wanted to group together parts of text that are relevant to my responses.

You believe in the absence of something, yet, your very belief in nothingness is a delusion, a non-rational, impossible-to-demonstrate version of reality with all the evidence on the other side. In fact, you have no evidence at all.

There are some subtle nuances in what follows so my apologies if this isn’t completely clear, but I’ll try. I’ve no doubt there exists people who both believe and proclaim that there are no gods. But my understanding and usage of the word “atheist” is that is is a person that does not hold a belief of any gods. A person that claims to know there there are no gods does fall under this category as do people with much “softer” positions such as a person that doesn’t believe there are any gods and a person that says that (s)he does not know if there are any gods and thus doesn’t hold a belief in them.

There’s an opportunity for misunderstanding here. For some of these positions some one may say “(s)he’s not an atheist, (s)he’s agnostic.” I won’t argue over which term is correct. But to understand some one else’s position it may be necessary to qualify hot that person uses their terms since there may be a difference in how those terms are used and how they are received. Some call themselves “agnostic atheists” to communicate the position that they have no belief in any gods and that they don’t have sufficient information/experience to conclude whether or not any gods exists. If you need further information a student calling himself Evid3nc3 did a video on the term. He consider’s himself an agnostic atheists and gives a more detailed explanation of term usage that I’m describing. The video is 10 minutes long, but the first 3 minutes sums up what I’m trying to highlight. The 6:20 mark attempts to clear up the agnostic/atheist ambiguities from how some use the terms.

On a lesser note I hold the position that a combination of rational and irrational thought is involved in healthy behavior. Within these forums it seems that “irrational” is seen as almost always bad/undesirable and “rational” is seen as almost always good/desirable. My view doesn’t agree with this. Perhaps I’ll detail that in another thread one day. I did touch on it in another thread.

See, this is the problem with trying to have a conversation about God with an atheist. You just have no way to even admit the possibility you might be wrong. So you believe we cannot know…

…Now, I don’t care what atheists believe, I have no interest in trying to convince y’all of a thing. However, I do want something. I want what I want from all atheists:

Inside your own mind, secretly, find a way to admit, maybe you are wrong and there is afterlife, and Eternal joy and a God Who loves you in spite of yourselves. As He loves us all. Just the possibility, because you will die, and then you will be very surprised, and I don’t want you getting lost, so very seriously, I do not.

I suppose I can some what grant your request. I don’t hold a belief of any gods. Based on your stated religious position I’m sure you are most interest in one’s belief of Yahweh and that holding beliefs for the existence of other gods doesn’t matter. So a more qualified statement would be that I don’t hold the belief that Yahweh exists. That isn’t the same as asserting that “I know Yahweh doesn’t exists.” I don’t rule out the possibility that after my demise I may discover that Yahweh is there and waiting. I’m sure for some this raises the question that if I consider this a possible outcome why don’t I return to being a Christian. The possibilities I’ve considered are not limited to “Yahweh is waiting for me after death” and “there is nothing for me after death.” There’s a multitude of others, but those are the only two relevant for this conversation.

 

[tdgesq]

Your “answer” was just evasion. And in a very good sense, it is the usual “catholic” answer: evasion! Observe: “question: what would you as a catholic do, if God ordered it…?”. The so-called “answer”: “but this is an invalid question, so I refuse to answer”.

Now I will help you, and show two possible answers:

There is another possible answer: I don’t know what I would do. For example, if I could ride a purple flying sponge or a giant caterpillar to work tomorrow, which would I choose? I might decide not to take either means of transportation, as both seem inordinately dangerous. On the other hand, to be seen arriving on a flying sponge (purple is my favorite color) would be pretty cool. I’m just not sure.

1. Given by a true dyed-in-the wool-orthodox: "Of course I would go ahead and kill, murder, maim, rape and torture, if God would order me to do it. I would have no idea why God orders such a behavior, but I would trust that God knows best, and these deeds further God’s great plan, and whenever it pleases God, he could explain that to me. In the meantime, it is my duty to obey and not to question God. But, I wish to add a disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order any of these things”.

This might be the answer, but it assumes a belief on my part that God is not truly going to have me carry through with an action that violates his own nature - such as the staying of Abraham’s hand during the sacrifice of Issac. My faith in God would certainly be tested.

1. Given by an “everyday” believer: "No, I would not do it. God declared that those actions are unacceptable and immoral, and if God changes his mind, he is not worthy to obey any more. If God would break his own commandments, then those commandments are not absolute. I would forego my salvation with my disobedience, but my conscience does not allow me to follow such horrible commands. But I also add the disclaimer: “I do not think that God would order anything of this kind”.

If I was convinced that God would have me commit an act that would violate his own ordinances - those that bear on his very nature of goodness, truthfulness, and justice - then I would probably disobey. My faith in God would also come to an end. He would lack essential attributes of all-goodness and perfect justice. He would not be the God who I could trust to do what he said he would do, just like a friend who engages in betrayal in whom I previously had faith. Now we have problem though.

On what basis would I exercise any future normative moral action? I guess I would have to give Relativism, Utilitarianism and Consequentialism a second look; although I’ve already determined that they have insurmountable meta-ethical issues.

Now, you see, here are two possible catholic answers: both give a disclaimer, but neither attempts to avoid the answer. Are these answers also “caricatures”?

Maybe not caricatures so much as speculative answers to a conditional proposition. I’m not certain what the question and the possible answers are meant to illustrate.

 

[RobbyS]

Dead is dead.
You rot either way:shrug:

How do you know that?

 

[RobbyS]

That is flat out wrong.
The Puritans were a relatively grim and dour people who thought fun and (especially) public entertainment distracted people too much from God. That’s why they banned dancing, drinking, theatre, and gambling when they briefly (from a historical perspective) took over England (source: faculty.ucc.edu/egh-damerow/glorious_revolution.htm).

Its also worth noting that they were rabidly anti-Catholic.

Nonsense. This is a stereotype. They certainly were more"moral" than “cavaliers,” but within boundaries, they were less prudish about sex than the ordinary person today. BTAIM, they certainly liked to drink. Hence the huge rum trade with the West Indies. They regarded thing such as Shakespeare as frivilous, buit after all Milton was a Puritan, and Bunyun also. You probably would think a three hour sermon as boring, and they did have to prod people to stay awake. But they were much more adpt in theology than you or I, which meant that they could follow theological arguments and profit from the word-play. By and large, the yeomen, we but more grave versions of more ordinary Englishmen.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

They are not insulting but intended to elicit statements of fact:

1. No one has any a priori moral obligations.

1. All moral obligations have a rational foundation - if they are worthy of adherence.
2. Without an objective rational foundation one is necessarily committed to one’s own values.

That is precisely your interpretation of morality because your moral code is based your personal standards - and those aspects of the law which are consistent with your personal standards.

Well I am glad you admit that there is no such thing as Natural Law.