Why should one follow the moral law?

[reggieM]

But why must we imagine some ultimate judge for morality to have meaning in the first place? If morality is an issue of not angering God, then there must be a judge, but if morality is the term we use to describe our concerns for others, then we need not think of there being a judge that stands outside the world and says what we ought to do.

We must make an answer to my question, “Who is the ultimate judge of morality?”

You can choose a Judge, or you can say “there is no ultimate judge”.

I believe you’re saying “why should I imagine that an ultimate judge has meaning”? Therefore, you’ve answered the question by saying that there is no ultimate judge of morality.

Back to my example of the Holocaust – since there is no ultimate judge of morality, then the Holocaust is justified.

You might point to yourself as a judge of moral laws, but these are private and changeable and I cannot have access to the inner workings of your mind. You might change your mind tomorrow and side with the Nazis. There’s no fixed moral law that you provide for me to reference.

Believers refer to an ultimate judge of morality because morality is given to humanity with fixed norms and one’s conscience points to God, who judges our actions. Otherwise, it would be illogical for one’s conscience to accuse oneself.

With no ultimate judge of morality, then any person is free to do whatever they want. There are no moral commands given and nobody is ultimately answerable for one’s actions. There is not even an ultimate judge of what was moral or not and no need to even talk about morality.

 

[reggieM]

Sure there is: our own consensus regarding morality.

You’re pointing to the source of moral laws as “our consensus”. The consensus of the Nazi community was that the Holocaust was a good thing. Thus, it is justified in this view.

Saying that you need a god to define right and wrong is like saying that you need god to determine whether apple pie is better than cherry.

Certainly, if killing all of the Jewish people in your nation is not different than eating a piece of pie, then you’re right. Actually, that’s a very consistent position with materialism. Eating something is merely an action determined by genetics and environment and evolutionary/natural processes. It is not morally better or worse than a genocide.

According to my own personal standards, the holocaust was a very evil act, and my standards seem to fit the normal at least in this regard.

Hitler’s personal standards fit the norms of the Nazi community. Your personal norms cannot be the moral standard, since it would mean that anyone’s norms would have equal value. Actually, that could be true for you, but there would be no way to condemn any action on that basis without rejecting the rights of other people to establish norms.

I can provide a detailed explanation as to why my standards are what they are, but ultimately it comes down to this: I don’t wish to live in a world where genocide is considered acceptable.

The Nazis did wish that, and they created that world. So, they followed their self interest. That is the problem when there is no God who establishes fixed norms for human beings.

But even if the holocaust was a violation of some objective morality, what does that change?

It changes a lot. The Holocaust is condemned because it was a crime against God and man. Crimes against mankind are morally wrong (in the Catholic view) because they unjustly harm people who are precious in the eyes of God, who created them. So, we show respect to people because God, the source of all good and all moral laws, loves those people. In the materialist view, people are material products – the outcomes of evolutionary processes. The Holocaust is perfectly justified in that context.

Either way, the holocaust still happened didn’t it? Whether it was a violation of god’s will or just a violation of my own moral position is somewhat irrelevant, as Nazi Germany happily committed several acts of genocide

Well, the Nazi’s were stopped in their quest – for one thing, because some people thought what they were doing was immoral. But if more people supported the Nazi’s then the Holocaust would have continued – and that would be perfectly justified for them.

So…what exactly are you suggesting to be the benefit of having a god based morality?

As I pointed out, a God-based morality gives fixed norms that are not dependent on the community, consensus, popularity vote, or the whims of individuals. We can point to a reference higher than human laws.

Oh yeah, when we die god will dole out the appropriate eternal reward/punishment based upon our state of grace at the moment of our death (meaning that if Hitler were contrite at the moment of his death then he ended up going to heaven and that if Mother Teresa abandoned her faith moments before her death then she now burns in hell). Personally, I’ll stick with a secular based morality. Thanks anyway.

Here you’re complaining about something that seems “unjust” to you. But in the materialist view, there can be no ultimate justice. Hitler and Mother Teresa arrive at the same condition after death. So, your outrage here actually works against the atheistic argument. In the materialist view, Hitler does not get punished. He was quite smart – he had his rule, did what he wanted, had immense power and glory and then killed himself when he was done. He receives no punishment at all. Millions killed and there is no justice for them. Mother Teresa, however, sacrificed her life – gave up every pleasure and lived in painful, difficult conditions for years and gave of herself in poverty. With her death, she gains nothing more than Hitler did.

That shows the injustice and evil of that philosophical approach, as I see it.

 

[Thales]

Quick comment…what does the fact, that most of the German population at the time of WWII being Christian, supposed to infer? Are you saying Christians are easily manipulated or that they were somehow culpable in the regime’s atrocities? I think whoever makes this statement is trying to make a connection that has no bases. Theists, atheists, or anyone in between don’t have a monopoly on being duped. I don’t blame the innocent atheists of Maoist China for the 50 - 70 million Mao was involved in killing. If kings, presidents, or other heads of state use there power to commit crimes it doesn’t necessarily reflect on the people of that country.

 

[Thales]

Tell me if I have an accurate read on where we all are in this discussion. The Christian stance says, without transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s and with no arbiter neither is definitively correct, and we have no morality. The atheist responds by saying they would never commit murder, rape, etc. and condemn the holocaust as much as any Christian. They basically have the same moral codes without having to believe in anything transcendent. I agree with both sides for the most part. The subtlety, for me, is not that atheism destroys morality, it doesn’t, what it does is leaves the door open for justification of immorality by making morality relative. It allows for an ever questioning and reassessment of morality based on given scientific evidence, experience, reason, and sometimes just convincing arguments. The theist says these things are insufficient to the revelation and authority of God. However, Christianity cannot altogether do without evidence, experience, and reason.

Is this somewhat close to where we’re at? It would be nice if we could state our position in a manner that doesn’t include attacking the other position directly. This only seems to prompt an emotional rebuttal and sending the discussion of into tangents. I’m very guilty of this myself.

 

[severntofall]

Tell me if I have an accurate read on where we all are in this discussion. The Christian stance says, without transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s and with no arbiter neither is definitively correct, and we have no morality. The atheist responds by saying they would never commit murder, rape, etc. and condemn the holocaust as much as any Christian. They basically have the same moral codes without having to believe in anything transcendent. I agree with both sides for the most part. The subtlety, for me, is not that atheism destroys morality, it doesn’t, what it does is leaves the door open for justification of immorality by making morality relative. It allows for an ever questioning and reassessment of morality based on given scientific evidence, experience, reason, and sometimes just convincing arguments. The theist says these things are insufficient to the revelation and authority of God. However, Christianity cannot altogether do without evidence, experience, and reason.

Is this somewhat close to where we’re at? It would be nice if we could state our position in a manner that doesn’t include attacking the other position directly. This only seems to prompt an emotional rebuttal and sending the discussion of into tangents. I’m very guilty of this myself.

Here’s what I am saying (can’t speak for the other non-theists): Even with a “transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s”. This god has no demostrable effect upon our behavior and that is evidenced by the fact that most of the inhabitants of Nazi Germany were devote christians. In terms of our morality, god’s opinion seems irrevelevant. At best we can speculate as to how it is god wants us to behave (and such views seems to vary wildly)…and that’s assuming he even exists. Our morality is either based upon our consensus as to what we believe to be right and wrong or our consensus as to what we believe god thinks is right and wrong. One way or the other, we are determining our morality. All religion does is add the false dimension of an eternal reward or punishment.

 

[Oreoracle]

You’re right for the most part, Thales, but we don’t make morality subjective, we just consider it to be so (through common sense, really). Asking me if I believe morality should be subjective is like asking me if I believe 2 plus 2 should equal 4. There’s no “should” about it–it just is.

 

[severntofall]

Quick comment…what does the fact, that most of the German population at the time of WWII being Christian, supposed to infer? Are you saying Christians are easily manipulated or that they were somehow culpable in the regime’s atrocities? I think whoever makes this statement is trying to make a connection that has no bases. Theists, atheists, or anyone in between don’t have a monopoly on being duped. I don’t blame the innocent atheists of Maoist China for the 50 - 70 million Mao was involved in killing. If kings, presidents, or other heads of state use there power to commit crimes it doesn’t necessarily reflect on the people of that country.

I believe that a people strongly dedicated to a greater cause can be lead to do just about anything. The Nazi aspect of this debate arises at the insitence of your fellow theists who assert that Hilter is the best example of non-belief in action. This is of course absurd as A) it’s doubtful that he was an atheist B) he was put into power by the vote of a christian nation who agreed with his hatred of the Jews (Hitler was very vocal about the matter) and C) Hitler often spoke publicly about his faith.

 

[severntofall]

You’re right for the most part, Thales, but we don’t make morality subjective, we just consider it to be so (through common sense, really). Asking me if I believe morality should be subjective is like asking me if I believe 2 plus 2 should equal 4. There’s no “should” about it–it just is.

Agreed.

 

[EphelDuath]

This is of course absurd as A) it’s doubtful that he was an atheist

It was very clear, actually.

B) he was put into power by the vote of a christian nation who agreed with his hatred of the Jews (Hitler was very vocal about the matter)

Hitler came to power by bypassing all democratic institutions in the Weimar Republic through intimidation. He only had 38% of the vote.

and C) Hitler often spoke publicly about his faith.

And? Am I a Christian just because I say I am?

 

[severntofall]

It was very clear, actually.

Perhaps demonstrates that he wasn’t a chrisitan, not an atheist. A pretty strong argument could be made the other way (that he was in fact a chrisitan). For the record I suspect he was a non-chrisitan theist. The comment that Hitler planned to wipe out all of chrisitanity is pretty silly. I have serious doubts about the veracity of the comments on the link.

I suggest you view this one: secularhumanism.org/library/fi/murphy_19_2.html

[Hitler came to power by bypassing all democratic institutions in the Weimar Republic through intimidation. He only had 38% of the vote.

He was legally placed into power. He was adored by the masses.

[And? Am I a Christian just because I say I am?

No, but claiming that he was just to gain the approval of the population of his nation seemed to work pretty well for the man.
[/quote]

[/quote]

 

[EphelDuath]

Perhaps demonstrates that he wasn’t a chrisitan, not an atheist. A pretty strong argument could be made the other way (that he was in fact a chrisitan). For the record I suspect he was a non-chrisitan theist. The comment that Hitler planned to wipe out all of chrisitanity is pretty silly. I have serious doubts about the veracity of the comments on the link.

I have yet to hear a good argument for suggesting that Hitler was at all influenced by Christianity. He persecuted Christians, almost all of his private thoughts indicate a total contempt for Christianity. No respected scholar on Nazi Germany has ever said that Hitler was a faithful Christian.

Really, how could you say he was a Christian when he forced all school children to sing “Hitler is Lord?” Nazi war prisoners, when asked what their religion was, often replied, “Hitler.” But yes, he did most certainly plan to de-Christianize society. This is why Alfred Rosenberg attained such prestigious positions in the German government.

He was legally placed into power. He was adored by the masses.

The mass followings of Hitler came after he gave himself total control over the media and banned political opposition. When he became Chancellor, he only had roughly a third of the country under his belt; and not all of them legitimately liked his policies, but perhaps only voted out of fear of communism or voter intimidation.

As for the claim that he was “legally placed into power.” Yes, but only because the Weimar Republic had the most illogical constitution you could imagine. He never had a majority in the Parliament. He only became Chancellor by manipulating a senile president.

No, but claiming that he was just to gain the approval of the population of his nation seemed to work pretty well for the man.

What evidence is there to suggest that the few people who did vote for the Nazi Party, back when elections were at least partially fair, did so because he claimed he was a Christian?

 

[tonyrey]

(Rape is wrong because it causes misery and is an infringement of a person’s right to happiness.)
Precisely, and we didn’t need a god to figure that out.

Who said we did? Who confers the right to happiness? Human beings?

Concepts of morality vary from person to person.

There’s the rub! Which version of morality is closest to the truth? Or are they all stabs in the dark?

I agree about the importance of morality (and its enforcement) to our species’ achievement of happiness (as a whole).

Why put the species first? What about individual happiness? I wonder if you put happiness of the species before your own?

I would prefer to exist in a natural disaster free environment. Certainly we would have that if it were the will of your creator.

Can you produce a blueprint of a natural disaster-free environment? If so let us have it…

So much immorality has been committed in the name of a “loving father” that if every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

So you deduce that He doesn’t exist. A non sequitur.

I’m more afraid of those who are obsessed with their god.

Say that when you are confronted by a thug.

Belief is an obsession, and atheists are not obsessed by the non-existence of god.

Are you saying atheists don’t believe but **know **God doesn’t exist?

Most people with this lust for power you speak of are on your side.

What evidence can you produce?

I meet few Christians who disagree with the decision (I’m sure they exist).

So from your personal experience you deduce that the majority of more than two billion Christians support the decision to drop the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki!:clapping:

 

[reggieM]

Tell me if I have an accurate read on where we all are in this discussion. The Christian stance says, without transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s and with no arbiter neither is definitively correct, and we have no morality. The atheist responds by saying they would never commit murder, rape, etc. and condemn the holocaust as much as any Christian. They basically have the same moral codes without having to believe in anything transcendent. I agree with both sides for the most part. The subtlety, for me, is not that atheism destroys morality, it doesn’t, what it does is leaves the door open for justification of immorality by making morality relative. It allows for an ever questioning and reassessment of morality based on given scientific evidence, experience, reason, and sometimes just convincing arguments. The theist says these things are insufficient to the revelation and authority of God. However, Christianity cannot altogether do without evidence, experience, and reason.

Is this somewhat close to where we’re at? It would be nice if we could state our position in a manner that doesn’t include attacking the other position directly. This only seems to prompt an emotional rebuttal and sending the discussion of into tangents. I’m very guilty of this myself.

My argument is different than this.
Your summary:

The Christian stance says, without transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s and with no arbiter neither is definitively correct, and we have no morality.

I wasn’t arguing that. Without transcendent authority … people make their own rules, yes. Thus, the final judge and arbiter of those rules is people. My argument does not add “therefore people will commit atrocities”. I’m not trying to predict behavior, but rather point out that if people make their own rules there is no way to “condemn atrocities”. The Nazi community, by consensus, made the rules for the Holocaust. This is justified under the atheist-materialist view of morality.

The fact that atheists do not act in a manner consistent with their philosophy is merely another argument. Atheists will be horrified by things like the Holocaust. We normally would praise that as a good, human reaction. But it’s inconsistent with the belief that individuals can make their own morality and that there are no transcendent moral standards or an ultimate judge.

If atheists said (and some rare few do), that the physical laws of nature do not command or prohibit any moral behavior and therefore any human action is justifiable – then that would be consistent. Atheists may still choose not to commit genocide, but there would be no philosophically consistent reason not to.

While believers also commit crimes and sins, in the Catholic view, these are violations of God’s law. In the atheistic view, “crimes” are merely one person’s judgement about an action versus another.

So, without God, there is no external reference point for judging actions and no ultimate judge.

How does that affect behavior? Well, it means that when Christians go against God’s law, they are doing something sinful. For atheists, it is not possible to commit a sin, and it is not possible to violate any fixed moral laws (because none exist).

There is no philosophical or theoretical reason why an atheistic society would be forbidden from doing or legislating anything at all. There can be no appeal to a higher law.

This can have a big impact in situations where people are oppressed by a powerful government. This is what happened in Ancient Rome where the Christians appealed to a higher law and pointed out that the Roman emperors were in violation of the fixed morals given by God.

Actually, Pope John Paul II used the same idea when dealing with Soviet Communists. If morals rightly emerged from individuals, then the strongest individual could oppress the rest and there would be no higher law to appeal to.

The highest law and ultimate authority would be a human being.

With Catholicism, the highest law and ultimate judgement comes from God. So, we can look at a fixed reference point. If a society or individual is acting immorally, it’s not just a human opinion that judges the person. All humans are subject to the law of God and morality is not invented by individuals or even societies.

True, there will be debates about how the moral law is interpreted, but these debates refer to the teachings given by God. Otherwise, we would have to debate whether one person has more authority than another one does.

Under atheism, Hitler is free to choose his own morals. This does not mean that all atheists will become tyrants, or even want to. But it does mean that there is no way to condemn a person’s moral choices because it is based entirely on personal, private decisions.

 

[Thales]

One conclusion I’ve drawn so far about this topic is that there looks to be a diconnect in the beliefs one holds about morals and translating them into behavior. The argument so far has become about whether it is better to have a divine source for moral code or a material source and if it’s possible to derive morality from the material world alone. Should the question be instead, what compells us to follow our moral laws, be them derived from a theism or atheism? Though I think origin and source is important for other reasons, since atheist can clearly have moral standards (maybe not all quite the same, but in general similar), what is it that influences us to act on our morals. Does the source of them figure in greatly as to how we practice?

 

[Leela]

Leela, you’re an extremist It is absurd to think we can ever achieve a complete description of reality but to give up all attempt to describe reality is equally absurd.

That’s not what I am saying. Of course we will continue to come up with descriptions of reality. My point is that we don’t need to think of any of these descriptions as being the true representation of reality. Every description should be used for whatever it is useful for. For example, materialistic reductionism may pay off in certain scientific situations, but we don’t need to apply such descriptions when writing poetry.

Antiessentialists decide to use numbers as a model for everything, not only things but persons as well. Why? Because it fits their preconceived ideas of reality.

It’s just a useful analogy.

It is an arbitary decision because numbers are generally considered to have an existential status quite different from physical objects and persons. Do you think of yourself as a number? I certainly don’t!

No, of course I don’t think of myself as a number, The point is that just as there is no seventeen-ness, some essence of 17 that all the realtions between other numbers and seventeen are supposed to adhere to, there is no essence of Leela that is independent of my relationships with my loved ones. Without those realtionships I would not be myself.

It is not a revealed truth for the Mormons and Muslims that Christianity is totally false, or vice-versa. They agree on basic principles which you yourself accept, e.g. the Golden Rule. Only a minority of Christians believe all non-Christians will be damned.

It is part of the religious scriptures of Islam and Mormonism that Catholicism is false. Maybe not “totally” false. But wrong enough that believers in Catholicism will not be saved from eternal damnation.
tonyrey;5202810:

(Every individual has to apply general rules to particular situations and make his/her own decisions. The ultimate authority is our own conscience.)
Believers are in a different position from atheists because they share fundamental beliefs and values. Christians, for example, believe the unborn child has a right to life. If a member of the Church has an abortion she would normally be excommunicated but she still has the right and the obligation to obey the dictates of her conscience. If giving birth would lead to her death and she is convinced it is her duty to have an abortion for the sake of her husband and other children she is morally obliged to have an abortion. In such cases atheists and believers are in the same boat but in most cases atheists rely entirely on their own conscience because they do not recognize any moral authority other than their own.

Athesists are likely to look to a broader community in making difficult moral decisions as well. They will ask friends and family and other respected aquaintanances for advice. They recognize the moral authority of other humans, they just don’t the Church has any special status in that regard. Why Catholics can get the advice of the Church, there moral choices are still ultimately based on their own consciences.

I haven’t said atheists have a problem in having to decide for themselves what is good! They can pick and take from mankind’s heritage of moral wisdom, without having to acknowledge the source - which is mainly religious. But they are at a disadvantage because they do not belong to a specific moral community. There are relatively recent humanist and secular societies but they do not fulfil the same communal functions as a Church which has existed for centuries. Their only common bond is a negative one: a denial of God and a rejection of religion. Humanism is inadequate even from a non-religious viewpoint. Why confine rights to human beings and exclude animals and persons on other planets?

I agree that an issue that we will have to deal with as unbelief continues to become more widespread is forming communities that fulfill some of the functions that churches currently do for people as community centers. Changes are rarely 100% positive. Something may have to be sadly lost when something better is found. But it is not always the unbeliever who is turning away from the advantages of such communities. It is also the communities that reject the unbelievers for their unbelief.

 

[reggieM]

I would say that there could or should be no disconnect in the atheist view of morals and the behavior that follows. Physical laws do not command or forbid any human behavior. Evolution occurs through such laws and any behavior that is possible through natural selection, DNA combinations and random mutations simply happens. There can be no moral commands there.

If atheistic philosophy embraced that logical conclusion, then it would be perfectly consistent with any human behavior. But there would be no “moral standards”.

The fact that atheism proposes some kind of morality is inconsistent – that’s the disconnect between profession and behavior.

For Catholics, the disconnect is explained in the nature of temptation, sin, imperfections, free choice, death and God’s mercy and justice. It’s part of the plan of human life.

There is a fixed standard of moral goodness. All fall short of the goal, although many make great progress towards it.

In atheism, goal and purpose should be meaningless concepts (evolution does not have a goal – it just “is”).

It’s difficult to see what the moral goals are in materalistic-atheism. This is especially true if all human behaviors are dictated by natural laws. There’s not even the possiblity of free choice.

 

[Leela]

We must make an answer to my question, “Who is the ultimate judge of morality?”

You can choose a Judge, or you can say “there is no ultimate judge”.

I believe you’re saying “why should I imagine that an ultimate judge has meaning”? Therefore, you’ve answered the question by saying that there is no ultimate judge of morality.

You can take it that way if you want, but you are begging the question.

By the way, does your husband still beat you? Ooops! Maybe that’s not fair. Should I insist that you must answer this question with a yes or no? Do I have any right to insist that you accept the premise of my question?

Back to my example of the Holocaust – since there is no ultimate judge of morality, then the Holocaust is justified.

Obviously I think that the Holocaust was wrong. What I don’t understand is why you keep insisting that such conclusions are the only ones possible for people who do not believe in God.

You might point to yourself as a judge of moral laws, but these are private and changeable and I cannot have access to the inner workings of your mind. You might change your mind tomorrow and side with the Nazis. There’s no fixed moral law that you provide for me to reference.

Why do you think that I could change my mind but you can’t change your mind? And do you really think that the Church has never changed its mind on a moral issue?

Let me ask you and the other Catholics here a serious question for consideration. How would you behave differently if you stopped believing in God? You seem to think that you would have to instantly turn into a sociopath. That you would eat. drink, and be merry and stop depriving yourself from all the stealing, raping, and murdering that you wish you were doing but are constrained from by your Catholicism. I think if you are honest with yourself you will realize that you will still love your children as much as you do now. That you will still go to work and take care of your family. Your life would be pretty much the same. Perhaps you would stop voting for Republicans, but you wouldn’t turn into a sociopath unless you were one before you became a Catholic.

 

[Thales]

My argument is different than this…

Well said and I am in agreement. You’ve established a justification for having moral standards, not necessarily that they have come from our Christian God. However, by virtue of your statement whether God exist or not (I believe He does) it is necessary to believe in order to perpetuate moral standards by rooting them in transcendance, away from man. Also it’s clear from this the standards don’t necessarily translate into action and behavior.

 

[Leela]

Tell me if I have an accurate read on where we all are in this discussion. The Christian stance says, without transcendent authority(God) people make there own rules and therefore will commit atrocities like the holocaust because it’s basically there personal view against another’s and with no arbiter neither is definitively correct, and we have no morality. The atheist responds by saying they would never commit murder, rape, etc. and condemn the holocaust as much as any Christian. They basically have the same moral codes without having to believe in anything transcendent. I agree with both sides for the most part. The subtlety, for me, is not that atheism destroys morality, it doesn’t, what it does is leaves the door open for justification of immorality by making morality relative. It allows for an ever questioning and reassessment of morality based on given scientific evidence, experience, reason, and sometimes just convincing arguments. The theist says these things are insufficient to the revelation and authority of God. However, Christianity cannot altogether do without evidence, experience, and reason.

Is this somewhat close to where we’re at? It would be nice if we could state our position in a manner that doesn’t include attacking the other position directly. This only seems to prompt an emotional rebuttal and sending the discussion of into tangents. I’m very guilty of this myself.

That sounds about right, though I have to deny any accusations of relativism.

I would put it this way. While the theists see eternal moral law as handed down by God to man who is in perpetual moral decline, I see moral progress and have hope for an even better future. It can be argued that lending our past moral practices the prestige of the eternal may be useful in preventing moral decline, but if we are to believe the theists it hasn’t, we have declined and continue to decline anyway. What we have done in reifying orthodox morality is to impede moral progress.

Consider Leviticus 21:16
The LORD said to Moses, 17 “Say to Aaron: 'For the generations to come none of your descendants who has a defect may come near to offer the food of his God. 18 No man who has any defect may come near: no man who is blind or lame, disfigured or deformed; 19 no man with a crippled foot or hand, 20 or who is hunchbacked or dwarfed, or who has any eye defect, or who has festering or running sores or damaged testicles. 21 No descendant of Aaron the priest who has any defect is to come near to present the offerings made to the LORD by fire. He has a defect; he must not come near to offer the food of his God.22 He may eat the most holy food of his God, as well as the holy food; 23 yet because of his defect, he must not go near the curtain or approach the altar, and so desecrate my sanctuary. I am the LORD, who makes them holy.”

Should we keep “defectives” from our churches? Should we keep slaves according to the Old Testament guidelines? Or can we just admit that we know more about morality than people did thousands of years ago?

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

By the way, does your husband still beat you? Ooops! Maybe that’s not fair. Should I insist that you must answer this question with a yes or no? Do I have any right to insist that you accept the premise of my question?

I think the answers are similar to what I proposed. Yes, he does. No, he doesn’t still - or no, there is no husband-beater.
Who is the ultimate Judge? There is one (God, Individual or community). Or there is none. Or you could say “I don’t know”.

Why do you think that I could change my mind but you can’t change your mind?

Good question. If I changed my mind and became a Nazi, I would violate fixed moral norms. I would betray a vow I made at Baptism to follow God. I would commit a sin against the moral standard that I proclaimed. I could choose a different standard, but that violates my consecration and committment - I’d be going against my word. For you, your mind is the source of the moral law and you would not be violating any fixed standard. How could I discuss what your mind said to you some years ago and what it says now? You’d be justified. If you made a promise to follow whatever your mind tells you to do, then you could become a Nazi one day and be consistent with your moral standard. I could not do that, on the contrary.

And do you really think that the Church has never changed its mind on a moral issue?

Some issues require interpretation. But this is done with reference to external teachings, not the private moral thoughts of a Pope, for example. The debate points to the texts and revelations. Beyond that, the Church has never changed teaching on some basic moral principles – unchanged since the Old Testament revelations. We can refer to these teachings and that is something different than morality emerging from popular vote or an individual.

How would you behave differently if you stopped believing in God? You seem to think that you would have to instantly turn into a sociopath. That you would eat. drink, and be merry and stop depriving yourself from all the stealing, raping, and murdering that you wish you were doing but are constrained from by your Catholicism. I think if you are honest with yourself you will realize that you will still love your children as much as you do now. That you will still go to work and take care of your family. Your life would be pretty much the same. Perhaps you would stop voting for Republicans, but you wouldn’t turn into a sociopath unless you were one before you became a Catholic.

There are many more things that Catholics deprive themselves of than stealing, raping and murdering. But most importantly, there would be no consistent, logical basis in which to condemn any human behavior. People might still act politely, but what about when some don’t? Like when people bring guns into public places or actually kill themselves and others?

In the atheist view, it would be most consistent to merely say that such things were the private, moral choices of individuals. There would be no ultimate judge of such matters.

Of course, nobody would say that, but it’s not consistent with the teaching.

Many people do want to have as much pleasure as they can and then kill themselves. How does atheism constrain or argue against such behavior?

For myself personally, I always struggle to live up to the fixed moral standards of the Church. I have to push myself. The tendency, without God, would be to slip backwards into less-moral behavior. What about all the little “secret” things we do? These are hard to stop even knowing that God does not approve. It takes effort – but there’s also a moral goal to achieve for God’s sake.