Why should we need revelation if morality is objective?

[Elf01]

Other religions conflict less with contemporary reality.

That’s actually one of the things that helps me recognize Catholicism as true. Jesus warned us that following him was not easy.

 

[o_mlly]

So what is your answer to: ‘Are your children hiding in the house?’

Is it: ‘I’m a Catholic so it’s reasonable for me to refuse to answer that’. Or ‘No’.

I’ve got an idea you might take option 2. But if there’s another option then let me know.

There are many other options that avoid the lie but withhold the truth. Try to be creative. Is the cellar a part of the house? “No, they are not hiding in the house.” Are the children hiding or are you hiding them? “No, the children are not hiding in the house.”

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

I would suppose that the “grounding problem” belongs to you and not to the “religious thinkers” precisely because doubt, thought, questions, perspective and everything else associated with the problem are not essentially material to begin with, so seeking to “materially ground” what is not, substantively speaking, material in the first place, makes the post-modernist doubter the one who is utterly incapable of resolving the “grounding problem.”

But what your missing in your theosophic triumphalism here is the realization that for a society that is religiously pluralist, objective reasons to be Catholic vs virtually anything else don’t exist.
Other religions are older,
Other religions are bigger,
Other religions conflict less with contemporary reality.

The grounding problem leads to a genuine dilemma of choice:
Picking none puts you at a cultural and metaphysical disadvantage, but the major ones to pick between have absolutely no clear, intrinsic advantage over each other.

And projecting your psychological dilemma onto others doesn’t exactly resolve it for you.

Stating that no religion is demonstrably more true than another is a psychological issue?

I just appreciate faith communities. They provide proof-positive the power of ideas, even if those ideas may not be true.

Well, now you are moving goalposts. The question being addressed was whether religious believers have a “grounding problem” that materialists do not. That was resolved.

Whether or not one religion can be more demonstrably true than another is a different issue, but not the issue you make it out to be. The entire religious and philosophical history of mankind, ironically, argues against you.

And that problem isn’t resolved by a mere assertion that “no religion is demonstrably more true than another,” which, as it happens, is demonstrably false. Unless you want to argue that Aztec polytheism is no more or less demonstrably false than philosophical theism. The other comparisons are a tad more subtle and nuanced, but most certainly are not resolved by bald assertion.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Other religions conflict less with contemporary reality.

That’s actually one of the things that helps me recognize Catholicism as true. Jesus warned us that following him was not easy.

Gently, the line of “You’ll be oppressed for the faith, but that’s just a marker of the truth of your faith” has been used by other religions before and is used today.

Respectfully, I’m a bit torn about continuing this line of discussion. On one hand, the critiques of and specific faith are generally easy to make through secular thought.

On the other hand, I have no desire to damage your faith, but I enjoy the engagement.

Paradox.

 

[Vonsalza]

Well, now you are moving goalposts. The question being addressed was whether religious believers have a “grounding problem” that materialists do not. That was resolved.

No it wasn’t. You just dismissed it as a rational concern, which only “gets the job done” for you, personally.

The core question remains - why believe in your god over someone else’s god? Especially as you’re no more successful at objectively rooting the basis for your god than your other religious rivals?

Rational folks love a “why” that can be somewhat verified (a la “material”). Religions categorically can’t provide these, as you accurately point out. So faith seems a perpetual problem for the rationalist.

Whether or not one religion can be more demonstrably true than another is a different issue,

No, it’s the reason folks look for some sort of objective basis. They’re trying to find why a religion (especially one they like) has a rational “edge” over a rival claimant.

I don’t think there are any within a given religion. At least, I haven’t seen one. The “edges” that I find are usually incidental and always external, with the biggest being “it’s what everyone around you is already doing”. As such you participate in society in a more meaningful way in Saudi Arabia as a Muslim than you do as anything else, religiously.

It’s why I’ll generally posit that I’m a convinced theist and don’t go a lot further with much certainty. Where ever I attend has much more to do with acculturation and orthopraxy than theological certainty.

but not the issue you make it out to be. The entire religious and philosophical history of mankind, ironically, argues against you.

First; grandiose, broad-brush statements like this are generally meaningless “No True Scotsman” fallacies. “Religious and philosophical history” is incapable of forwarding an argument on its own behalf. It simply has no agency.

But I agree that social history indicates “one religion, one society” generates less turmoil and dysfunction in society as a whole. However the unintentional pluralism of the wider, more inter-connected world disrupts this harmony. This is especially true for folks who treacherously weight the alternatives simply because they realize alternatives are available.

And that problem isn’t resolved by a mere assertion that “no religion is demonstrably more true than another,” which, as it happens, is demonstrably false.

As long as the religion only makes metaphysical claims, it’s not falsifiable - as the metaphysical is not subject to empirical testing.

This is something Christianity, more specifically Catholicism, learned as we entered the European Renaissance and pushed further into the Enlightenment. The scope of the faith was forced to retreat from claims about how the solar system functions and how life came to be on the planet because older positions were proving to be potentially falsifiable.

So as long as they don’t try to make claims than can be tested - No. “No religion is demonstrably more true than another.”

 

[laylow]

As long as the religion only makes metaphysical claims, it’s not falsifiable - as the metaphysical is not subject to empirical testing.

How is a religion claiming an intervening God, only making metaphysical claims, if the “miracles” involve physical intervention?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

As long as the religion only makes metaphysical claims, it’s not falsifiable - as the metaphysical is not subject to empirical testing.

How is a religion claiming an intervening God, only making metaphysical claims, if the “miracles” involve physical intervention?

The view survives because it’s not falsifiable. You can’t prove that god didn’t heal my loved one of cancer, even if the reality is more akin to “chemo healed my loved one of cancer” or “the cancer was never there and was misdiagnosed” or “the cancer is still there, we just can’t detect it”.

 

[Vonsalza]

But to be sure, I’m not 100% convinced that god is in the intervention business. If he’s there, he was also “at the wheel” when my loved one got cancer in the first place.

A much better prayer in my view is “Lord, prepare me for what you’ll have come” rather than “Lord, heal my loved one of their cancer”.

 

[laylow]

The view survives because it’s not falsifiable. You can’t prove that god didn’t heal my loved one of cancer, even if the reality is more akin to “chemo healed my loved one of cancer” or “the cancer was never there and was misdiagnosed” or “the cancer is still there, we just can’t detect it”.

Ok, but this then allows for absolutely no limit to the claims that can be made. One would then likely conclude that a deist position is as far as someone should likely go.

 

[Vonsalza]

One would then likely conclude that a deist position is as far as someone should likely go.

On a purely rational basis, I think you’re right.

But we’re not purely rational animals, and I think we need more answers to large metaphysical questions of meaning beyond “the metaphysical exists”, which is all deism would be capable of providing on its own.

Enter religion:

It works great - brilliantly, in fact - until you know there’s more than one.

 

[laylow]

On a purely rational basis, I think you’re right.

But we’re not purely rational animals, and I think we need more answers to large metaphysical questions of meaning beyond “the metaphysical exists”, which is all deism would be capable of providing on its own.

Enter religion:

It works great - brilliantly, in fact - until you know there’s more than one.

Ok, but for me, that is just an appeal to emotion. Although impossible, I try to keep emotion out of decision-making.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

On a purely rational basis, I think you’re right.

But we’re not purely rational animals, and I think we need more answers to large metaphysical questions of meaning beyond “the metaphysical exists”, which is all deism would be capable of providing on its own.

Enter religion:

It works great - brilliantly, in fact - until you know there’s more than one.

Ok, but for me, that is just an appeal to emotion. Although impossible, I try to keep emotion out of decision-making.

For rational decisions, that’s advice to live by. But again, we’re not purely rational beings. “What is the meaning of life?” isn’t a rational question because it assumes that there is a meaning. But if we don’t ask it and try to answer it, we experience crises of meaning.

On a personal and societal basis, I’m convinced that those crises are destructive. Religion saves the day, here.

 

[laylow]

On a personal and societal basis, I’m convinced that those crises are destructive. Religion saves the day, here.

For some, possibly. For others, it can work oppositely. Back when I was a practicing Catholic, I never thought indepthly about eternal life. After I began more arduous religious and philosophic studies, my view morphed into realizing that it would be undesirable. At some point, all possibilities would be learned and experienced, with nothing else to desire or pursue. Seems like “hell” to me.

Meaning is the here and now, so make it happen now!

 

[Vonsalza]

For some, possibly. For others, it can work oppositely. Back when I was a practicing Catholic, I never thought indepthly about eternal life. After I began more arduous religious and philosophic studies, my view morphed into realizing that it would be undesirable. At some point, all possibilities would be learned and experienced, with nothing else to desire or pursue. Seems like “hell” to me.

A few thoughts;

First, I’m sure that would be a misunderstanding of the Catholic view on heaven as they would seem to say that it wouldn’t be more defined than eternal bliss alongside god. And the Catholic Church gets to control the ins-and-outs of Catholic heaven - not you or me.

Second, repeat experiences aren’t always a bad thing.
I won’t get into specifics, but there’s this little thing my wife and I do periodically after the kids are asleep that I seem to never get tired of.

Meaning is the here and now, so make it happen now!

One of the biggest functions religion inherited from tribalism is controlling the self-seeking egoist. It uses morality to tune your credo to “Make it happen now, but within reasonable limits”.

But we largely agree.

 

[laylow]

First, I’m sure that would be a misunderstanding of the Catholic view on heaven as they would seem to say that it wouldn’t be more defined than eternal bliss alongside god

I understand it and disagree with it. To me, it’s an overly-optimistic fairy-tale concept, that quite frankly is not very well thought out. Saying it is above comprehension is unhelpful.

Second, repeat experiences aren’t always a bad thing.
I won’t get into specifics, but there’s this little thing my wife and I do periodically after the kids are asleep that I seem to never get tired of.

When you get to 1 billion, let me know.

One of the biggest functions religion inherited from tribalism is controlling the self-seeking egoist. It uses morality to tune your credo to “Make it happen now, but within reasonable limits”.

But we largely agree.

Of course it is a controlling mechanism. The goal, in my mind, should be to progress to a point where it is no longer necessary, realizing of course it will not be perfect for everyone, much as it is now.

 

[Vonsalza]

I understand it and disagree with it.

1000 pardons, I’m not trying to say you don’t. I’m just indicating that their perspective on Catholic heaven would be the only “right one” as a matter of tautology.

Of course it is a controlling mechanism. The goal, in my mind, should be to progress to a point where it is no longer necessary, realizing of course it will not be perfect for everyone, much as it is now.

I don’t think it’s possible as it would require the end of selfishness, which is a useful trait in evolution.

Dualities, paradoxes and catch-22s everywhere…

Alright, I’ve got to do some work.

 

[laylow]

I don’t think it’s possible as it would require the end of selfishness, which is a useful trait in evolution.

Dualities, paradoxes and catch-22s everywhere…

Alright, I’ve got to do some work.

Fair enough, but I’m not sure religion is that effective on curbing selfishness.

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

So what is your answer to: ‘Are your children hiding in the house?’

Is it: ‘I’m a Catholic so it’s reasonable for me to refuse to answer that’. Or ‘No’.

I’ve got an idea you might take option 2. But if there’s another option then let me know.

There are many other options that avoid the lie but withhold the truth. Try to be creative. Is the cellar a part of the house? “No, they are not hiding in the house.” Are the children hiding or are you hiding them? “No, the children are not hiding in the house.”

I’m just imagining God ruminating on whether the basement is part of the house or not to decide if you have commited a sin.

I think it more likely that He’d be slowly shaking His head and wondering how people can tie themselves into semantic knots and play word games with axe wielding murderers intent on death and destruction because the wording of a part of the catechism has you internally debating whether a certain phrase will save your kids’ life AND allow you to comply with your interpretation of it.

Me? I’d lie through my back teeth to protect them and take any opportunity to beat the guy to a pulp with the nearest blunt instrument. Just in case.

Then I’d go to confession.

 

[o_mlly]

Me? I’d lie through my back teeth to protect them and take any opportunity to beat the guy to a pulp with the nearest blunt instrument. Just in case.

Then I’d go to confession.

Can you cite in the New Testament Jesus lying under the threat of death? Or do you find that He withholds the truth with HIs enigmatic “Son of Man” response until the listeners are ready for the truth?

 

[Wozza]

Wozza:

Me? I’d lie through my back teeth to protect them and take any opportunity to beat the guy to a pulp with the nearest blunt instrument. Just in case.

Then I’d go to confession.

Can you cite in the New Testament Jesus lying under the threat of death? Or do you find that He withholds the truth with HIs enigmatic “Son of Man” response until the listeners are ready for the truth?

OK. So your argument is that because you have no evidence of Jesus having lied, then you can risk your children’s lives by playing word games with an axe muderer on the off chance he thinks the basement is in fact part of the house.

Two things spring to mind. Firstly, the more bizarre the examples in these discussions get, the more bizarre the answers. And secondly, we seem to have different priorities.