Why Catholics Fail to Convince Modern People

[PRmerger]

Looks like that you cannot tell the difference between “you are mistaken”, “you are incorrect”, “you are FACTUALLY wrong” and “you are MORALLY wrong”. That is OK. I am not surprised any more. If someone does not understand the difference between “absolute” and “relative” or “objective” and “subjective”… then there are no more surprises.

So you are an absolutist.

Which has been my point all along.

And I will continue to point this out, as necessary.

You cannot be here, asserting opinions, unless you believe in moral absolutes.

You believe your view to be correct–that is, for example, that it’s MORALLY WRONG to drag your woman around by her hair for burning your toast.

You DO NOT believe that it’s MORALLY GOOD for a man to do this, *even if he thinks it’s perfectly fine. *

That is, OBJECTIVELY, this action is WRONG, despite his personal feelings about the behavior.

See, Vera?

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I think most atheists can do that. The behaviour of the clergy (good or bad) proves something about the morality of Catholicism, but nothing about whether God actually exists or not.

What would be an example of something which proves God’s existence?

 

[XndrK]

You are wrong. I can tell anything to that person… he will not accept it. (If he is a Christian, he can even quote a few well-selected lines from the Bible as supporting evidence. ) Just like I can tell you that there is nothing wrong with masturbation, and you will reject it. Or you can tell me that it is mortal sin to have oral sex (all the way to completion) and I will just shrug it off.

Now what can I do? Call the police and let them handle the guy. That will not “prove” that he is (morally) wrong. Just like YOU calling the Inquisition and burn me at the stakes would not “prove” that you are (morally) right. There are many ethical systems. Some are more widely accepted than others. But the circle of acceptance is not a proof that the more widely accepted ones are “right”, and the rest is “wrong”. Why? Because “morality” is subjective.

Yes, that is my OPINION. What of it?

How do you plan to “prove” this?

If all ethical opinions are subjective, then what is the point of a police force? If I walked into your neighbor’s house and killed everyone in it, and you called the police, wouldn’t it be a legitimate moral defense that “my morality” allows me to kill other people? Since there isn’t an absolute morality, what justification did we have for getting involved in World War II, or any war for that matter? What should we care if some other country habitually executes homosexuals? That’s the way their morality works. Why get mad at the clergy who participated in the sex abuse scandal? Their morality permitted it.

 

[PRmerger]

What should we care if some other country habitually executes homosexuals? That’s the way their morality works

Trenchant thoughts, Xndr.

If Vera really believes what she’s claiming, then there would be no reason for her to stand up against such a vile concept as killing someone because of a disordered desire.

 

[Cheiron]

Could you explain to us how any human being or any human belief system can be morally neutral?
Given that morality is “the evaluation of human acts”.

Surely you are not claiming that atheists do not evaluate acts.

You’re right, I’m not. Atheism is morally neutral, because it’s just a position on the existence of God. That’s it. Nothing else. It doesn’t imply a preference for a particular economic, political, or social system. I’m not even sure atheism implies a preference for a godless political/economic/social system, because there are atheists who think religion is necessary, even if it isn’t true.

The moral system I personally adhere to is secular humanism and even among humanists we have lively debates about what that means.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You’re right, I’m not. Atheism is morally neutral, because it’s just a position on the existence of God. That’s it. Nothing else.

You have just defeated your own argument.

If atheism says nothing about morality that is not because it is morally neutral. It’s because it denies any Absolute Ground for morality. That is not a neutral position to take. That is a position that morality must be entirely personal or else subject to the authority with the biggest stick who can impose his morality on others.

Look to North Korea for the social consequence of collective atheism. Hardly neutral.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The moral system I personally adhere to is secular humanism and even among humanists we have lively debates about what that means.

You adhere to something that does not adhere. Secular humanism has no objective morality. It is a mish-mash of varied and even weird moral systems that offer no collective glue to hold society together. For secular humanism to even get a hearing it would require that public schools teach Secular Morality 101. And when you get through teaching that “lively debate,” kids will be more confused and cynical about morality than ever.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

If all ethical opinions are subjective, then what is the point of a police force?

There is a very good reason, which is that in THIS day and age, we prefer to live in an orderly society, AND - being the majority - we ARE ABLE to enforce our preference. Also the legal system has precious little to do with ethical considerations.

If I walked into your neighbor’s house and killed everyone in it, and you called the police, wouldn’t it be a legitimate moral defense that “my morality” allows me to kill other people?

What is “legitimate”? Is it a synonym for “legal”? By the way, this kind of defense would be counterproductive. If your morality allows you to kill others, then their morality would allow them to kill YOU. And then you will be SOL.

Since there isn’t an absolute morality, what justification did we have for getting involved in World War II, or any war for that matter? What should we care if some other country habitually executes homosexuals? That’s the way their morality works. Why get mad at the clergy who participated in the sex abuse scandal? Their morality permitted it.

And we do NOT respect THEIR morality, just like YOU do not respect MY morality, which allows consenting adults to express their love toward one another in any way they like. The only difference is that in THIS day and age, we can enforce our view, and you cannot. A few hundred years ago the “boot was on the other foot”. You could enforce your morality, which included to execute the heathens, the infidels and other “deviants”.

I hope you understand this.

Before we go any further, a short “test” is in order.

1. Do you understand that “absolute morality” means that an act is always moral or immoral under any and all circumstances?
2. Do you understand that “relative morality” means that an act can be moral or immoral depending on the circumstances?
3. Do you understand that an “objectively true” proposition is independent from the opinion of the individual?
4. Do you understand that a “subjectively true” proposition simply describes the opinion of the individual?

If your answer is not a resounding “YES” for all the four questions of this little quiz, then there is no reason to continue. The answer to this quiz is NOT optional.

Many people will LOVE to misunderstand this and will accuse me of advocating a “might makes right” or “the majority rules” type of morality. They will only exhibit their ignorance, but that is par for the course. We all have our own set of preferences, and hopefully there will be a time when these preferences will be based upon mutual respect and permissiveness. But that is not likely to happen any time soon, more is the pity.

And any ethical system is MUCH wider than a question about killing and robbing and torturing others. To try to narrow down the discussion to such questions is a “cheap shot”.

 

[goout]

You’re right, I’m not. Atheism is morally neutral, because it’s just a position on the existence of God. That’s it. Nothing else. It doesn’t imply a preference for a particular economic, political, or social system. I’m not even sure atheism implies a preference for a godless political/economic/social system, because there are atheists who think religion is necessary, even if it isn’t true.

The moral system I personally adhere to is secular humanism and even among humanists we have lively debates about what that means.

Whew. I’m glad that is settled.

Back to the point. Does Stalin speak for secular humanism’s morality?

 

[o_mlly]

Doesn’t the topic beg the question? Catholics are modern people. I think the postmodern principles of extreme skepticism block beliefs of any kind, not just Catholicism.

From allaboutphilosophy.org/characteristics-of-postmodernism-faq.htm

• There is no absolute truth - Postmodernists believe that the notion of truth is a contrived illusion, misused by people and special interest groups to gain power over others.

• Truth and error are synonymous - Facts, postmodernists claim, are too limiting to determine anything. Changing erratically, what is fact today can be false tomorrow.

• Self-conceptualization and rationalization - Traditional logic and objectivity are spurned by postmodernists. Preferring to rely on opinions rather than embrace facts, postmodernist spurn the scientific method.

• Traditional authority is false and corrupt - Postmodernists speak out against the constraints of religious morals and secular authority. They wage intellectual revolution to voice their concerns about traditional establishment.

• Ownership - They claim that collective ownership would most fairly administrate goods and services.

• Disillusionment with modernism - Postmodernists rue the unfulfilled promises of science, technology, government, and religion.

• Morality is personal - Believing ethics to be relative, postmodernists subject morality to personal opinion. They define morality as each person’s private code of ethics without the need to follow traditional values and rules.

• Globalization – Many postmodernists claim that national boundaries are a hindrance to human communication. Nationalism, they believe, causes wars. Therefore, postmodernists often propose internationalism and uniting separate countries.

• All religions are valid - Valuing inclusive faiths, postmodernists gravitate towards New Age religion. They denounce the exclusive claims of Jesus Christ as being the only way to God.

• Liberal ethics - Postmodernists defend the cause of feminists and homosexuals.

• Pro-environmentalism - Defending “Mother Earth,” postmodernists blame Western society for its destruction.

 

[PRmerger]

Before we go any further, a short “test” is in order.

1) Do you understand that “absolute morality” means that an act is always moral or immoral under any and all circumstances?
​

So do you believe it would be always immoral under any and all circumstances to execute a man for being homosexual?​

 

[Cheiron]

You have just defeated your own argument.

If atheism says nothing about morality that is not because it is morally neutral. It’s because it denies any Absolute Ground for morality. That is not a neutral position to take. That is a position that morality must be entirely personal or else subject to the authority with the biggest stick who can impose his morality on others.

Look to North Korea for the social consequence of collective atheism. Hardly neutral.

I see. If God is the Absolute Ground for morality, then I suppose atheism does deny that. Obviously, I don’t agree with that view of morality. I think morality is best measured by human well-being.

And North Korea is hardly a good example of an atheistic state. There is mythology and miracle-working involved in the personalty cult of the North Korean leaders. Technically, there are no deities in North Korea, yet the Kim’s are certainly revered as gods. Enver Hoxha is a much better example. I don’t want an atheist state. I prefer a secular state that doesn’t interfere with religion at all. A state that neither condemns, nor encourages religion. I’m quite envious of those living in the U.S.A. I think the world would look much better if more nations followed the American example in that regard.

You adhere to something that does not adhere. Secular humanism has no objective morality. It is a mish-mash of varied and even weird moral systems that offer no collective glue to hold society together. For secular humanism to even get a hearing it would require that public schools teach Secular Morality 101. And when you get through teaching that “lively debate,” kids will be more confused and cynical about morality than ever.

I’d like to see all kinds of philosophies and worldviews taught, so children can make up their own mind. I’d be very happy if they’d choose secular humanism. And if they choose Christianity as their worldview and moral system, that’s fine too.

Whew. I’m glad that is settled.

Back to the point. Does Stalin speak for secular humanism’s morality?

No. I’m not sure secular humanism even has a spokesperson. Most secular humanists I know are atheists and organising atheists is a bit like herding cats, as Richard Dawkins once said.

Atheism is a pretty broad word. It’s a bit like playing sports. If I tell you I’m playing sports, you still don’t know if I play an individual sport or a team sport. You don’t know whether it involves a ball, several balls or no ball. You don’t know if I need body protection or not. Atheism is much the same. I could be an atheist and a communist, like Stalin. Or I could be an atheist and a capitalist. There are atheists who support abortion and atheists who don’t. There are atheists who support the death penalty and those who don’t.

 

[TarkanAttila]

I love that analogy. I first heard it on the Atheist Experience.

Hah! Go figure.

I was surprised about the words “in the name of atheism”.

No offense, man, but I never said that. It is a commonly peddled meme among Christians, I admit, but I never said it…

They suggest there is a logical pathway from atheism to the horrible crimes some atheists committed. Atheism is amoral; it doesn’t contain any imperatives to do evil, nor any imperatives to do good… Atheism is morally neutral.

…And that’s why.

I only noted that there seemed, for some reason, to be a tendency of atheists towards a negative fascination with religion in my humble, humble experience. I never said it was because of atheism. I don’t know why it is; only that it is, in my experience.

So I agree there are good and bad atheists, but I don’t agree that atheism leads necessarily to an evil or good worldview.

I think we are on the same page.

That’s the difference with religion.

Unfortunately no religion (except deism) is as simple as atheism. Accepting the Catholic God does not automatically make one automatically believe and act the way He wants. Therefore Catholics are capable of ignoring, if not openly defying, what God and His Church say.

That seems to be the best way to me too. And yes, perhaps it’s better if that topic deserves a separate thread.

Thankfully, there have been thousands of threads on the topic. I say thankfully, as I’m a tad tired.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And North Korea is hardly a good example of an atheistic state. There is mythology and miracle-working involved in the personalty cult of the North Korean leaders. Technically, there are no deities in North Korea, yet the Kim’s are certainly revered as gods.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_North_Korea

Like I said, under secular atheistic humanism morals are decided by the dude with the biggest stick.

And if the dude is lunatic, watch out!

 

[Bradski]

…And that’s why.

This was in response to crimes committed by atheists and the response that atheism is morally neutral. Which it is. But that doesn’t mean that atheists are morally neutral.

Cheiron is not amoral because he does not believe in gods. In fact, he may believe that the morality that you would propose is correct. If he did I would be partly in agreement with him.

What I was taught about morality, as a Christian, seemed eminently sensible. I couldn’t fault it. It has remained with me to this day. Fine tuned by what I have learnt and read and been told and experienced since then, but it was a pretty good basis to begin with.

Just because I realised that I didn’t believe that God actually existed, it didn’t mean that I needed to drop all the lessons I had learnt. I didn’t wake up one morning, realised there was no God and immediately became an immoral person.

God is said to have done quite a lot that we would normally consider horrendous and the bible is replete with passages that tell us to do things that no reasonable person would consider, so let’s just stick with Jesus.

The guy seemed to have a lot of good things to say. Why wouldn’t anyone take those things to heart? Do you really need to believe that He was the son of God to be able to do so? It beats me to think that anyone should think that.

But then of course we have absolute morality. Oops, sorry. Absolute Morality (mustn’t forget those capital letters). Which means there is a right answer to all questions of morality (as opposed to universally accepted standards of morality). Let me know who has all the answers. Let me now where this Oracle can be found.

And please, we can skip the teachings of the church and the catechism and the bible. They are guides. I want to know who the best person is who can interpret all this correctly. I keep asking, but it remains a mystery.

 

[PRmerger]

This was in response to crimes committed by atheists and the response that atheism is morally neutral. Which it is. But that doesn’t mean that atheists are morally neutral.

Cheiron is not amoral because he does not believe in gods. In fact, he may believe that the morality that you would propose is correct. If he did I would be partly in agreement with him.

What I was taught about morality, as a Christian, seemed eminently sensible. I couldn’t fault it. It has remained with me to this day. Fine tuned by what I have learnt and read and been told and experienced since then, but it was a pretty good basis to begin with.

Just because I realised that I didn’t believe that God actually existed, it didn’t mean that I needed to drop all the lessons I had learnt. I didn’t wake up one morning, realised there was no God and immediately became an immoral person.

God is said to have done quite a lot that we would normally consider horrendous and the bible is replete with passages that tell us to do things that no reasonable person would consider, so let’s just stick with Jesus.

The guy seemed to have a lot of good things to say. Why wouldn’t anyone take those things to heart? Do you really need to believe that He was the son of God to be able to do so? It beats me to think that anyone should think that.

But then of course we have absolute morality. Oops, sorry. Absolute Morality (mustn’t forget those capital letters). Which means there is a right answer to all questions of morality (as opposed to universally accepted standards of morality). Let me know who has all the answers. Let me now where this Oracle can be found.

And please, we can skip the teachings of the church and the catechism and the bible. They are guides. I want to know who the best person is who can interpret all this correctly. I keep asking, but it remains a mystery.

I have no quarrel with any of the above (with some nuances that need to be explicated, of course).

However, with the atheistic framework for morality, there can be no SHOULDS. There are no obligations, or OUGHTS.

There is only, “I don’t like it when people execute others because they are homosexuals”.

NOT: “It is morally wrong to execute others because they are homosexuals”.
NOT: “No one SHOULD execute someone because he is gay”.
NOT: “One OUGHT not execute someone because of his disordered attraction”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

However, with the atheistic framework for morality, there can be no SHOULDS. There are no obligations, or OUGHTS.

Wrong… FACTUALLY incorrect. Of course the “should’s” and “ought’s” are part of CONDITIONAL propositions - in other words, they are relative (not absolute). Just two examples:

IF you want to be respected, you SHOULD respect others.
IF you wish to get good grades, you OUGHT to study the subject (or cheat).

And millions of others. Relative (or conditional) propositions, as usual. Savvy?

 

[Bradski]

I have no quarrel with any of the above (with some nuances that need to be explicated, of course).

However, with the atheistic framework for morality, there can be no SHOULDS. There are no obligations, or OUGHTS.

There is only, “I don’t like it when people execute others because they are homosexuals”.

NOT: “It is morally wrong to execute others because they are homosexuals”.
NOT: “No one SHOULD execute someone because he is gay”.
NOT: “One OUGHT not execute someone because of his disordered attraction”.

‘I don’t LIKE it…?’ No I believe that it IS morally wrong. I have zero problem in making that statement. But you keep on insisting that if someone makes a definitive statement like that, then that makes it absolute.

I have given up trying to explain why it is not so.

 

[Bradski]

Do you understand that “absolute morality” means that an act is always moral or immoral under any and all circumstances?

I would go further, Vera. I would say that absolute morality means that ALL acts that are available to be classed as moral/immoral are either one or the other under any and all circumstances.

Failing that, everyone has a get-out-of-jail card in claiming that what they are doing doesn’t come under either column and is amoral. So someone, somewhere, can tell us exactly which column ALL acts come under in any and all circumstances.

Any idea where this person can be found? Or do we, you know, make up our own minds?

 

[PRmerger]

‘I don’t LIKE it…?’ No I believe that it IS morally wrong.

Then you are an absolutist.

QED.



Now, if you want to say that it would be wrong for you to do it (or for your government), but not for someone else to execute a homosexual…then you are what you say you are: a moral relativist.

Are you willing to say this? If Iran executes a man for having sex with another man, is it morally permissible because they decided it was so?

Yes?