Theism and Morality

[john_doran]

divine command morality doesn’t work, and is not the basis for catholic moral philosophy.

the problem with the euthyphro dilemma is that even if god commanded moral dicta, one would still require the stipulation that one ought to do what god commands. and where would that come from?

moral good and bad are the same as nutritional good and bad: it is bad for us to murder, lie, cheat, steal, rape, etc. in the same way that it is bad for us to consume hydrochloric acid, or sand, or…, namely because it’s the way we are put together. in the same way that our physical well-being follows from our biology, our moral well-being follows from our rational animality.

so. to answer your original question: neither.

 

[davidford]

1979 Schaeffer & Koop on the a-moral implications of atheism
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-b1c67abe.0504061225.4c675814%40posting.google.com

1916/ 1922 Nordau; infanticide, slavery, and genocide
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132847220.475151.206790%40z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com

Reagan’s allegation that there exists
some [Reagan]“natural law,” some [Reagan]“higher law of morality.”
groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-1132849740.419205.114320%40g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

…theism doesn’t get us anywhere we can’t go with atheism.

Not so. Atheism does not get us to the next world.

Atheism has neither eternal reward of heaven nor eternal punishment of hell to offer as an incentive to do good and avoid evil.

Exactly what does atheism offer as an incentive to do good and avoid evil?

Nothing.

On the other hand, does it provide an incentive to do evil? Yes, if you believe there are no ultimate consequences neither in this world (if you are not caught) nor in the next world (where there is no one to catch you).

 

[EnterTheBowser]

john doran:

divine command morality doesn’t work, and is not the basis for catholic moral philosophy.

the problem with the euthyphro dilemma is that even if god commanded moral dicta, one would still require the stipulation that one ought to do what god commands. and where would that come from?

moral good and bad are the same as nutritional good and bad: it is bad for us to murder, lie, cheat, steal, rape, etc. in the same way that it is bad for us to consume hydrochloric acid, or sand, or…, namely because it’s the way we are put together. in the same way that our physical well-being follows from our biology, our moral well-being follows from our rational animality.

so. to answer your original question: neither.

Given that, I guess you would agree with the point I’m trying to make: that theism does not get us anywhere (morally) that we can’t get with atheism.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

…theism doesn’t get us anywhere we can’t go with atheism.

Not so. Atheism does not get us to the next world.

Atheism has neither eternal reward of heaven nor eternal punishment of hell to offer as an incentive to do good and avoid evil.

Exactly what does atheism offer as an incentive to do good and avoid evil?

Nothing.

On the other hand, does it provide an incentive to do evil? Yes, if you believe there are no ultimate consequences neither in this world (if you are not caught) nor in the next world (where there is no one to catch you).

The sort of moral system you’ve offered is just egoism with some new incentives. Why do good? Becuase it benefits me. That sort of justification is available to atheists and theists alike. An evil act, on your view, is simply an act which does not benefit me, and a good act is one which does.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I had what might be an insight (or perhaps is just a bad case of indigestion) earlier today. So I want to try and restate the discussion, as it were.

Oftentimes theists make the charge that atheism entails relavism, nihilism, egoism, what have you. The reason for this is the metaethical problem of justification. Pretty simply, it’s the general problem of trying to justify a moral rule to someone who disagrees with you.

Imagine an atheist philosopher, confronted with a theist intent on challenging her. He provides the set of moral rules he lives by. The theist, trying to prove her point, asks him why he lives by these rules. He provides some sort of moral justification - an appeal to another moral precept. The theist asks why that rule should be accepted. And so on and so forth. If the atheist retreats to a justification based on, for example, self-interest, the theist either argues that this is an insufficient basis for morality (and therefore the atheist is stuck with nihilism) or that the atheist is ultimately just an egoist. The theist points out that only God can be a justification for a moral system. The atheist has been unable to give a good answer to the question “Why this moral system and not some other?”

But let’s imagine that another atheist philosopher, this one much cleverer, has got herself an audience with God (be warned, anthropomorphization ahead). So she asks God what the good life is, and God tells her. And she asks God why this is the good life. God has two basic answers: one is to point out some reasons why this is a good life (for example, it is how to be a human qua human, or something like that). If God says that, this atheist can return to the previous theist and give these reasons - which would be a sufficient justification for whatever moral system. On the other hand, God can reply, “What are you talking about, foo? I’m God, and I am Goodness, and I am the transcendent standard which is the only possible and final justification for morality.” Now, this atheist, being the curious sort, asks why God has “picked” these standards and not some other. “God,” she says, “what if this were a different world, and there was a different God, and this other God grounded a completely different standard of morality?” Now, if God were silly, God might reply “I am the only possible God, so that’s not a problem.” But God wouldn’t say this, because God is not silly, and it is more or less impossible to show that this particular God is the only logically possible God. “Why this particular transcendent ground of morality, and not some other?”

At this point, I hold that God would be as stumped as the previous atheist. He can’t turn to some kind of rule external to himself (ex hypothesi). And he’s got no good answer to the same question that convinced the theist that the atheist must necessarily be a nihilist.

The point I am making is that the problem of justification bears as heavily on theists (or God, for that matter) as it does on atheist. Eventually, when it comes to morality, it seems that we’ve got to come to some first principles. If these principles are as indubitable as the ones of logic, then the existence of God is a moot point. If it is possible that these principles are false (if there is some possible world where they are false), then adding in a God doesn’t get us anywhere, because that doesn’t really answer the question: “Why this and not something else?”

 

[EnterTheBowser]

I should have added in the post before last, about heaven and hell and motivations, that the debate really isn’t about providing a motivation to do good or do evil - it’s about justifying why an act is good or evil in the first place.

 

[Catherine_S]

EnterTheBowser:

I had what might be an insight (or perhaps is just a bad case of indigestion) earlier today. So I want to try and restate the discussion, as it were.

Oftentimes theists make the charge that atheism entails relavism, nihilism, egoism, what have you. The reason for this is the metaethical problem of justification. Pretty simply, it’s the general problem of trying to justify a moral rule to someone who disagrees with you.

Imagine an atheist philosopher, confronted with a theist intent on challenging her. He provides the set of moral rules he lives by. The theist, trying to prove her point, asks him why he lives by these rules. He provides some sort of moral justification - an appeal to another moral precept. The theist asks why that rule should be accepted. And so on and so forth. If the atheist retreats to a justification based on, for example, self-interest, the theist either argues that this is an insufficient basis for morality (and therefore the atheist is stuck with nihilism) or that the atheist is ultimately just an egoist. The theist points out that only God can be a justification for a moral system. The atheist has been unable to give a good answer to the question “Why this moral system and not some other?”

But let’s imagine that another atheist philosopher, this one much cleverer, has got herself an audience with God (be warned, anthropomorphization ahead). So she asks God what the good life is, and God tells her. And she asks God why this is the good life. God has two basic answers: one is to point out some reasons why this is a good life (for example, it is how to be a human qua human, or something like that). If God says that, this atheist can return to the previous theist and give these reasons - which would be a sufficient justification for whatever moral system. On the other hand, God can reply, “What are you talking about, foo? I’m God, and I am Goodness, and I am the transcendent standard which is the only possible and final justification for morality.” Now, this atheist, being the curious sort, asks why God has “picked” these standards and not some other. “God,” she says, “what if this were a different world, and there was a different God, and this other God grounded a completely different standard of morality?” Now, if God were silly, God might reply “I am the only possible God, so that’s not a problem.” But God wouldn’t say this, because God is not silly, and it is more or less impossible to show that this particular God is the only logically possible God. “Why this particular transcendent ground of morality, and not some other?”

At this point, I hold that God would be as stumped as the previous atheist. He can’t turn to some kind of rule external to himself (ex hypothesi). And he’s got no good answer to the same question that convinced the theist that the atheist must necessarily be a nihilist.

The point I am making is that the problem of justification bears as heavily on theists (or God, for that matter) as it does on atheist. Eventually, when it comes to morality, it seems that we’ve got to come to some first principles. If these principles are as indubitable as the ones of logic, then the existence of God is a moot point. If it is possible that these principles are false (if there is some possible world where they are false), then adding in a God doesn’t get us anywhere, because that doesn’t really answer the question: “Why this and not something else?”

**Atheism is a dieing fish floating belly up! **

**Theistic Revolution:
**seattlecatholic.com/a051116.html
.
Atheism’s Gods:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9502fea3.asp

**A Rebel Against Rebellion: My Exodus From Atheism:
**catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501dr.asp
.
Shalom,
Catherine

 

[EnterTheBowser]

**Atheism is a dieing fish floating belly up! **

**Theistic Revolution:
**seattlecatholic.com/a051116.html
.
Atheism’s Gods:
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9502fea3.asp

**A Rebel Against Rebellion: My Exodus From Atheism:
**catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0501dr.asp
.
Shalom,
Catherine

I suppose there’s a lot I could say about these articles. But I’ll restrict myself to this only: why did you even bother to quote that long post of mine? You responded to nothing in it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

The sort of moral system you’ve offered is just egoism with some new incentives.

Why are heaven and hell egoistic incentives? Does the prospect of going to hell puff one up with self importance? I don’t think so.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

Eventually, when it comes to morality, it seems that we’ve got to come to some first principles. If these principles are as indubitable as the ones of logic, then the existence of God is a moot point.
A mighty big IF.

First you have to establish that moral principles without God are as indubitable as the principles of logic.

The world today is full of conflicting moral principles. It is also full of conflicting logic.

Likewise, the inherent individualism (egoism) of atheism make a folly of anything indubitable. That is even the war cry of atheism … to be freed from the certainty (indubitability) of religious principles. Why do you want to restore the indubitability you have already thrown out? Because yours will be based on logic? Then how do you account for the hundreds of contradictory moral systems proposed by hundred of philosophers down through the centuries? Each one of them no doubt thought his system was logical and indubitable.

But this is the same fatal flaw of Protestantism …that a thousand branches of conflicting Christian sects can all be teaching the same way, the same truth, and the same life that Christ taught.

 

[bear06]

I’ll admit that a genuine revelation from God would seem like a genuine revelation from God - but a fallible human could certainly mistake a false revelation for a true one.

You’re quite correct. This is why God has sent his Holy Spirit to guide the Church so that the Truths (Doctrine) cannot be corrupted. If he had not sent his Holy Spirit to be with the Church always then we’d be like Protestants, Aetheists, etc. who try and change Truth quite often to suit their situation which, of course, is moral relativism. There is no mistake in this area - Why? Because God himself has said so.

So aetheism more often will always have to contain relativism unless somehow all of the beliefs of the aetheist conform to God’s Truths. Of course, if that was the case, then the aetheist would be a Catholic.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

Eventually, when it comes to morality, it seems that we’ve got to come to some first principles. If these principles are as indubitable as the ones of logic, then the existence of God is a moot point.
A mighty big IF.

First you have to establish that moral principles without God are as indubitable as the principles of logic.

I think you did not really get what I was saying. I considered two possible options: that moral principles are indubitable in the way that logic is indubitable (no one can coherently assert that it is possible for a world to exist where there are square circles), and that they are not. IF they are apodictic, then there’s no need for God - in every world, theistic and atheistic, they are true. IF there are worlds where they are false, adding God as a justification for these rules gives us no real justification - it doesn’t explain why these rules and not some others. I don’t mean to argue either position as true, just that in either case, theism and atheism are equivalent with regards to morality.

The world today is full of conflicting moral principles. It is also full of conflicting logic.

Likewise, the inherent individualism (egoism) of atheism make a folly of anything indubitable. That is even the war cry of atheism … to be freed from the certainty (indubitability) of religious principles. Why do you want to restore the indubitability you have already thrown out? Because yours will be based on logic? Then how do you account for the hundreds of contradictory moral systems proposed by hundred of philosophers down through the centuries? Each one of them no doubt thought his system was logical and indubitable.

…

Is the charge then that because there is much disagreement in ethics that do not include God, there is no real truth in atheist ethics? Is that the argument you are making?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

bear06:

You’re quite correct. This is why God has sent his Holy Spirit to guide the Church so that the Truths (Doctrine) cannot be corrupted. If he had not sent his Holy Spirit to be with the Church always then we’d be like Protestants, Aetheists, etc. who try and change Truth quite often to suit their situation which, of course, is moral relativism. There is no mistake in this area - Why? Because God himself has said so.

So aetheism more often will always have to contain relativism unless somehow all of the beliefs of the aetheist conform to God’s Truths. Of course, if that was the case, then the aetheist would be a Catholic.

First: I am willing to discuss the charge that atheism is morally bankrupt, but it would be good if you’d make an argument to that effect first (as opposed to just making an assertion).

I’m trying to say that the individuals that make up the Church can, in fact, mistake true guidance for false guidance. Moreover individuals can mistake the meaning of statements made by the Church. Moreover individuals can misremember statements made by the Church. The point is that epistemic uncertainty remains.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I think that a problem that you have with this:

God has two basic answers: one is to point out some reasons why this is a good life (for example, it is how to be a human qua human, or something like that). If God says that, this atheist can return to the previous theist and give these reasons - which would be a sufficient justification for whatever moral system. On the other hand, God can reply, “What are you talking about, foo? I’m God, and I am Goodness, and I am the transcendent standard which is the only possible and final justification for morality.”

is that you have set up a false dicotomy. Where did you come up with the idea that there were these two, and only these two answers? I think that you have to take into consideration that, God being God, there are going to be things which HE understands fully which WE cannot, not now, not here. Human beings are not gods, and will not ever be gods in the sense that no human being will ever be an infinite, self creating omnipotent being,

One problem that you attempt to impose (so to speak) on God is insisting that He LIMIT Himself down to the very limited andimperfect knowledge of Joe and Jane Average Human Being by claiming that UNLESS He makes Himself absolutely and totally clear on point X, this proves He isn’t really God. When you think about this, really think, it is an absurd claim. While there is really no way to compare God with, say, Stephen Hawking, except to say that Mr. Hawking is made in God’s image. . .let’s compare Stephen Hawking to these three people: One is a bright 12 year old in an accelerated math program in New York City. One is a bright 44 year old businessperson in Uruguay. One is a bright 76 year old homemaker in Namibia.

Now, none of the three is going to be able to comprehend Mr. Hawkings in science. However, in trim the 12 year old may perhaps equal, or even surpass, Mr. Hawking’s achievements. The 44 year old may increase his personal knowledge, and further, the 44 year old may have business insights, particularly, which surpass Mr. Hawking’s in that area. Finally, the 76 year old homemaker might not even be literate beyond a rudimentary level, but again, her insights and achievements, for her age, sex, and location, might rival Mr. Hawking’s.

And this comparison is between human beings in one broad area. There is no human being who, across every aspect of human life, is so extraordinary or superlative that his or her actions, faultless, impeccable, brilliant beyond belief, in every breath of his or her life, could even be the merest atom like God. And there is no human being so perfect in knowledge or action that other human beings cannot meet, match, or even exceed those actions or that knowledge.

On the one hand you have those for whom humanity is “all”–even those for whom humanity is a limited, or even an ultimately doomed, degraded, and depraved all. If you limit yourself to this view, then you limit God to this standard, and, because of imperfect understanding in this way, either find humanity so “good” that the idea that God would limit ANYONE from heaven makes God into a cosmic blue meanie (therefore not god), or you find humanity so 'bad" that the idea that a good God could create such dreck makes Him into either an idiot who couldn’t “foresee” the future or some kind of puppet meister who gets his jollies watching people jump through hoops to please Him, then yelling" gotcha!" and sending EVERYBODY to hades just for fun. . .

On the OTHER hand, if you have those who think of humanity as a creation of beings with free will, made by a loving God who somehow has a plan, can somehow make things good even if we can’t understand (much as parents, in denying their children things which are bad for them are keeping their children safe, or who, rather than doing things for them, help the child learn to do things themselves, even when it is HARD work or the effort doesn’t get as good grades, or look as nice, etc), people who look about and see the good as well as the bad in every person, place, and thing, who try to increase the good, heal and help the bad, all in order not to just make things nice for themselves and their friends, but even for others, even for those they don’t like, even for those who don’t care. . .well, THERE you have a Christian view. It’s really both simpler and more complicated than I have set out. SImplest in the words of God Himself? Love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, and love your neighbor as yourself–more complicated in that, as with any situation where you deal with fallible, yet lovable even in their fraility, people, you will have questions, questions, and questions.

Start by just trying to love God and seek His will. It won’t happen overnight–what worthwhile task or effort DOES?–and see what happens.

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Tantum ergo:

I think that a problem that you have with this:

is that you have set up a false dicotomy. Where did you come up with the idea that there were these two, and only these two answers? I think that you have to take into consideration that, God being God, there are going to be things which HE understands fully which WE cannot, not now, not here. Human beings are not gods, and will not ever be gods in the sense that no human being will ever be an infinite, self creating omnipotent being,

One problem that you attempt to impose (so to speak) on God is insisting that He LIMIT Himself down to the very limited andimperfect knowledge of Joe and Jane Average Human Being by claiming that UNLESS He makes Himself absolutely and totally clear on point X, this proves He isn’t really God.

…

Is this your claim: God has reasons for the moral system he grounds/commands/whatever, but these reasons are incomprehensible to humans, so in an atheistic universe, we could never gain any ethical knowledge?

 

[EnterTheBowser]

Gilbert Keith:

BOWSER

The sort of moral system you’ve offered is just egoism with some new incentives.

Why are heaven and hell egoistic incentives? Does the prospect of going to hell puff one up with self importance? I don’t think so.

It’s egoism because it is self-interest that motivates “moral” behavior on this view. Why should I take action X, which God has commanded? Because if I do, I will be rewarded - NOT because it is a good action. That’s why the moral system you’ve presented is a form of egoism.

 

[Catherine_S]

EnterTheBowser:

I suppose there’s a lot I could say about these articles. But I’ll restrict myself to this only: why did you even bother to quote that long post of mine? You responded to nothing in it.

**Exactly **nothing in it !!

I once heard a professor state…"if you hear a couple of people argueing one for and one againt the existance of God know that you are dealing with a couple of light weights."

Round and round and round like a cat chasing it’s tail .

Shalom,
Catherine
.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

Because if I do, I will be rewarded - NOT because it is a good action. That’s why the moral system you’ve presented is a form of egoism.

Doing a good action because it is the action God wants us to do necessarily results in reward. Why not? This too is part of God’s plan, that we be rewarded by holding up our end of the moral contract. If it is egoism, it is an egotism that plays into God’s hands, where He holds us safely from ultimate harm. But if we do not hold up our end, there is no egotism because there is assurance that the alternative to heaven is not one that will puff us up with good feelings about ourselves.

With atheism there is no ultimate mercy or justice. Just fate. True, this doesn’t seem egositic. It really seems more resignation to ultimate despair and defeat when the chips are down and you have no option left but to die and enter eternal nothingness.

In the short run, then, the atheist is egoistic because all morality is defined by his own whim, not God’s. The ego gets to decide what is right and wrong. But in the long run that egoism turns and swallows itself as the snake swallows its own tail.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

BOWSER

Is the charge then that because there is much disagreement in ethics that do not include God, there is no real truth in atheist ethics? Is that the argument you are making?

No.

The argument I am making is that there is no certainty of ethics in the atheist system because there is no fixed authority for right and wrong. Just as there are many different logical systems, there are many different moral systems. Which one is the atheist to choose, and how is he to know (without the presumption of divine authority) that he has chosen the right one and not just one that suits his personal whim at the moment of choosing it?

The atheist may on occasion discover a true moral principle … such as the rare atheist who vigorously opposes the immorality of abortion. That is God natural law at work planted in his breast. But when the atheist says he has no moral obligation to obey the Creator and tip his hat to the Creator because the Creator does not even exist … the natural law to worship that God planted in him has been rooted out by his own treachery to himself and well as to his God.

That treachery done, many other treacheries are bound to follow. A way is found to justify homosexuality, euthanasia, abortion, pedophilia, pornography, you name it. There being no God to contradict him, the atheist become the ultimate moral egoist and (9 times out of 10) hedonist.