Objections to the kinds of things Catholics regard as sinful all tend to proceed along the same line of thought. "There's nothing wrong with what these people want to do. They're only sins according to the bible." This argument so grossly misses a critical point as to be embarrassing, however. Sin is defined by the bible. What the bible says to be a sin *is* a sin. That's just what sin is.
Opponents frequently protest: "You can't *prove* the existence of God and you can't *prove* the legitimacy of the bible, so you have no right to stop people from doing what they want to do." But are they really so blind as to adhere to this argument? Imagine some person (let's call him Jones) wants to kill some other person (let's call him Smith,) because Smith owes Jones 5 dollars but won't pay him. We we supposed to let this happen? No? Can you *prove* that murder is wrong? "But it's different. You're hurting somebody. It's clearly wrong." Clearly. Just like all sins are clearly wrong. When it comes down to it, though, what means have you to prove that it is wrong except for the same dogmatic faith that you pretend to disdain?
But I suppose this post won't accomplish anything. Despite Atheists' insistence that they possess superior powers of 'logic' and 'reason' I'm sure they won't bother actually trying to disprove these arguments in any rigorous way. They'll just maintain their hypocritical faith-based position and move on.
EDIT: I have posted responses to some select comments. If you didn't receive a response, you probably posted something uninteresting. To those of you who posted arguments of the form "but the bible says x is wrong and x is clearly not wrong!" you are missing the point. What criterion are we using for wrongness here? I offered one: something is wrong if the bible says we ought not to do it. Have you a criterion you can offer that you can back up with anything more than the same faith you deny as legitimate when coming from a Christian?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou're making 2 false assumptions:
ReplyDelete1. Morality comes from the bible
2. Morality cannot exist without religion
Why do people continuously try to make the argument that human beings could not figure out that they are not supposed to slaughter each other without some divine being having to tell us first?
And how can you justify that just because one thing in the bible is a sin, say murder, then everything in the bible is by default immoral, like homosexuality? How and why are these equal offenses? Because the bible tells us so?
A dog is amoral. It is neither good or evil. If the dog bites you discipline the dog. If the dog behaves your reward the dog. The dog remains amoral.
ReplyDeleteThe moral of this story is that deffering to authority, acting out of fear of retribution or promise of reward does not promote morality.
Religion promises rewards, punishment and attempts to speak with ultimate authority. It does not give us morality, it treats us as a dog.
Actually, most of what Judeo-Christianity calls "sin" is NOT "clearly wrong." In fact, the majority of moral people on the planet ignore the first, second and fourth commandments, and the US economy is more or less dependant on breaking the 10th. Every moral system on earth, religious or not, says don't lie, murder, or steal. It's pretty obvious, no jesus required.
ReplyDeleteThe assumption of Catholics that society could not ever grasp the idea of morals or law without the bible has been uttered so frequently as to become the kind of platitude that is almost nauseating to the ears(or more accurately, given the modern medium of communication, the eyes.)
ReplyDeleteI have been told that Mormonism is the only true way to live.
ReplyDeleteI have been told that Pentecostalism is the only true way to live.
I have been told that Catholicism is the only true way to live.
I have been told that being a Jehovah's Witness is the only true way to live.
I have been told that being a Scientologist is the only true way to live.
I have been told that being a Muslim is the only true way to live.
Do you understand that none of those folks had one whit of proof to back up their claims? And do you understand that your desire to be what you choose (whether forced upon you as a child or selected because you were an insecure adolescent or adult) does NOT mean you've chosen something which is real?
If yes, we have a problem. For, you see, the "bible" upon which your religion is based was originally started by ancient Canaanites who wrote the first five sections (The Book of Moses) in order to try and hide their real violent history with a fictional one.
If no, then you are severely confused.
Rick: do you have one whit of proof to back up your moral claims? Do you understand that your desire to endorse your societies moral values does not mean you've chosen something that matters?
ReplyDeleteIf your moral beliefs are founded on nothing other than faith, what's wrong with *my* faith? Why should I be tolerant?
It comes down to whether you want to take the word of one, single book over the collected knowledge of all humanity throughout time. Most, if not all, of morality can be boiled down to "do unto others as you would have done unto you", which is also something Jesus taught (he just wasn't the first one to do so). This principle works perfectly whether or not there is a God to punish you. It is, in a sense, a universal principle.
ReplyDeleteWrong and right ARE relative, in every imaginable way. There are no absolutes, not even in Christianity. God is the ultimate source of morality in your religion, but morality itself is RELATIVE to God. It is whatever God decides it to be. The idea that God's morality is any more absolute than man's is silly.
Atheists are not just "faith-critical". Some are, but not most. Personally, I'd rather call myself "unconvinced", because that's what I am. You, as a Christian, make a claim that God exists, and that a string of things follow from that. However, you haven't shown me anything to actually convince me that your claim is true. There IS no evidence for what you claim. None. There is nothing whatsoever but the existence of ONE, single book, a book which you CHOOSE to place your faith and trust in, but that is ultimately unverified in every way. This is all just too little to convince me. The same is true for every other religion, so don't go feeling special. You're not.
I'm convinced that hurting other people is "bad", because I wouldn't want to be hurt myself. That's where I get my morality from. Not from some book, not from some fruit in a garden, and not from some invisible man-in-the-sky that is supposedly omnipotent, but can't produce A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE for his existence.
There's a lot going on here. Break it down.
ReplyDeleteMorals are a collection of rules to determine if something is right/wrong. Those rules may or may not exist objectively/universally. Most religions say that the rules of morality ARE universal/objective, that we come to know them through a text; an appeal to authority (one of the types of logical fallacy).
Some people say morality is subjective to culture, that the rules of right/wrong are based on whatever cultural agreement one exists under. This is moral relativism, and is denigrated as not morality, because many assume that rightness/wrongness are universal properties, so if one thing is right in one culture and wrong in another, we have a logical contradiction (this is a reductio ad absurdum).
Some attempt to deconstruct morality and say that it is composed of rules devised to fill needs of a society and are only dressed up to be morals. While this is an explanation of where morals came from, it doesn't address the question of whether or not morality is universal, objective nor what its rules are.
Kant attempted to determine the rules of morality through logic through what he called the categorical imperative, which, paraphrased, is that an action is immoral if when said action is taken by all people universally, it undermines the ability to continue that action. In this way, murder is immoral, because if everyone murdered, no one would be alive to murder. If everyone lied, there'd be no trust, so everyone would know you're lying, hence lying wouldn't work. Etc.
Now, here's the rub. How does one define morality? This isn't really a question of "proving" it. One can't prove these types of statements. They are DENOTATIVE. One can't prove that the word "tree" means a particular organism, one merely enters into an axiomatic/denotative agreement with others that "tree" refers to that thing with bark and leaves and grows tall and slender.
So, what's all this about "proof". Rights and Values states that morality comes from the Bible. OK. We might disagree on this, but we can't start with "that doesn't show morality" we have to go deeper than that. WHY does the Bible give morality? Because it is the document by which you live your life? Or because there exists a supreme being and from that being all morality comes?
You see, this argument about universal morality is pretty much a question of subscription. You might look at something you believe to be wrong, and then attempt to abstract what the rules might be from that perspective, and attempt to come up with a completely consistent viewpoint of what morality is. But that doesn't take into account that someone might disagree with your assessment of what is right/wrong.
And that's why morals are best left to the realm of the personal. There's NO reason to impose morals on others against there will. One might find something morally disagreeable, for example, one might think that homosexuality is wrong. That's ok, don't engage in it. In fact, go ahead and tell someone you don't think they should do it; be prepared for backlash. Perhaps you disagree that tolerance is a moral value. Others might tell you "hey, be tolerant for morality's sake" but that's just not in the morality you subscribe to.
But don't think morality is ANY way to govern a country. It's too subjective, not grounded in anything. Instead, we have a society, and we have goals in that society, set by the members of that society. Those goals, things like prosperity, health, freedom, etc have NOTHING to do with morality. So when a group says that someone should be prevented from doing something BY LAW because of some SUBJECTIVE MORAL CODE, then we have an issue. The government must be an AMORAL ENTITY because it is NOT a human being. Each individual human being can make moral decisions. Permissiveness is not a sign of moral weakness; if it was then the Judeo-Christian god would be considered as morally deficient for allowing our free actions.
ReplyDeleteIn the U.S., let the gays marry, let the polygamists marry, let the druggies do their drugs. But THINK about the effects on society and MANAGE those effects through law GUIDED by the FOUNDATIONAL document, the U.S. Constitution. It is a written record of our BASIC AXIOMS that we all live under. All laws and all actions taken by the federal government must be logically consistent with the axioms set forth in the Constitution. Legislation of a subjective morality is OUTSIDE the scope of the realm of activity of the government.
But enough tangent. Back to Rights and Values. You don't have to have gay sex. You don't even have to keep your mouth shut about it. You don't value tolerance. And you know what, that's your prerogative.
But the rest of us will not stand by silently. We will admonish you for what we believe is immoral behavior. We believe tolerance of consensual activity between adults is a MORAL VALUE. And by denying that moral value, we will consider you an evil individual, one who does wrong and is wrongly guided. And further, we will view your reasons for believing as you do with the utmost suspicion. When you say "This book, which is the word of the most supreme being, contains within it the value that tolerance is not of high moral worth and further that particular brands of intolerance are!", we will say "then your book is not a good enough moral foundation for us!"
We will give reasons of all the harm that your intolerance causes others, and the lack benefit that such intolerance generates. We will explain that such intolerance serves no purpose to glorify your position, and as such is self-centered. You will say it is to glorify what you believe is the supreme being of the universe, but we will not be swayed because that remains an unanswered question to many of us.
In short, many of us value tolerance over intolerance. And yes, that might be dogmatic, but it's based in experience. The experience that tolerance leads to better human relationships, less suffering, and more personal fulfillment, more happiness. We believe that these ends are positive goals, and that they are to be promoted, and we may challenge you to a debate about these goals and how your moral values may harm these goals and whether or not you think that is acceptable.
And if you and others like you continue to choose to cause suffering in your fellow man due to the adherence to moral values put forth by an ancient book, while ignoring the plight of those that suffer due to your moral beliefs, we will label you an evil and immoral person and do our best to marginalize you and others like you, to prevent you from causing any further harm to our fellow humans.
It's nothing personal, that's just what we think is the right thing to do. And you're free to believe it, just keep it off my lawn.
y morals aren't nearly based on any religion. I've come to the conclusion that killing people is wrong because I don't want to be killed. I can't expect others to not kill me if I don't respect the same rules. Likewise, I don't think homosexuality is wrong because its existence does no harm to me.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I find religious people are very morally weak. Instead of thinking about issues and deciding what's right, they look at a nearly 2000 year old book and blindly follow it. Doing that is grotesquely IMMORAL, don't you think?
squeakypants appears to be saying that the base axiom for morality is "do unto others as you would have done unto you".
ReplyDeleteHe's also claiming that basing morality on a 2000 year old book, without some kind of critical thinking, is ALSO immoral. Oddly though, he says something that doesn't affect him (homosexuality) is not immoral based on the morality he follows.
I would say, why is deriving one's morality from a 2000 year old text without critical thinking immoral based on your "golden rule" formulation. That seems incongruous. Perhaps you might mean that when people take action on such beliefs so as to harm others, that might be immoral.
But what if someone says "If I was homosexual, I would want people to do everything in their power to save me from my sin". That would be covered by your golden rule formulation, and therefore, from the perspective of that person, according to the golden rule, they are behaving morally.
The golden rule is inherently subjective on a per person basis. It's just that many of us have a lot in common so it seems like an easy answer. It's not.
Clearly if the bible has moral authority it is morally right to derive ones morals from the bible.
ReplyDeleteHowever, if we consider a book with no moral authority containing moral claims (perhaps some satanist's text), including the claim that it has moral authority, we would recognise the circularity of the argument.
It follows that, since you decide that the bible has moral authority but the claim to moral authority within a book is not sufficient (since otherwise you would just as well follow the Quran, or similar), there is some source of moral authority outside the Bible; were this not the case there would be no way for us to determine whether the Bible is morally authoritative when first encountering it.
The question that then follows is, how do you support the non-biblical moral authority that you must believe in? Most likely in the same way as everyone else supports theirs, by crude assertion!
The position we find ourself in is that, although an absolute morality may exist, nobody can ever convince anyone else to adopt a moral they reject by reasoned argument. This is why we seek consensus, a process which occurs isomorphically within the Catholic church and within society at large. The Catholic rejection of seeking consensus in a broader picture is a childish retreat from a complicated world.
Catholicism's moral system is derived from a mix of Zoroastrianism, Ancient Greco-Roman and Judaic cultures, European shamanist and druidic traditions as well as others. Persian legal traditions, Hammurabi's code in Babylon, Greek Law... These are the origins of the concept of morality in contemporary Western society, and congruent with our practices of scientific rationalism. The primary pitfall of pro-Christian ideological arguments, is that they assume that without Christianity the world would be without a moral system and would fall into chaos. The truth is that Christian institutions and ideology have long been in violation with our modern concept of morality. Christians have proved time and time again that they have no problem breaking the "Thou shall not kill" rule. Do Catholics even remember the crusades? Or what about the Inquisition? Those tragedies were caused by religious zealots who could not comprehend or tolerate other cultures and traditions. You are not practicing "freedom of religion" if you are constantly imposing your religion upon others. Please leave the rest of us alone to believe what we want (while remaining moral human beings).
ReplyDeleteAtheism isn't faith based, twit - it's evidence based. There's no evidence that your god, or any of the thousands of alternatives, actually exists. That implies they don't exist.
ReplyDeleteAnd you're the hypocrite. You claim your morality comes from a 2000 year old book of fairy tales, and that anyone who ignores your fairy tale book can't be moral. You then proceed to ignore any fairy tale in your book that doesn't suit you. Seriously, when's the last time you and your merry band of delusional oxygen wasters stoned a woman who wasn't a virgin when she married. There's a fairy tale you're ignoring that says you must. You might start at home - there's bound to be a couple in your extended family.
Here's why your analogy fails.
ReplyDeleteIn it, you have a crime happening right in front of your face. There's no debate on whether that crime is happening. There's no argument, no angst, no questions, no uncertainty - it is there, right in front of you, and you cannot deny its existence. Given that level of proof, you HAVE to act.
God, on the other hand, has never once been that literal. No one has ever touched God, talked to God, videotaped God, recorded God or used any other reproducible and independently verifiable method of proving his existence. Unlike your crime, he is NOT staring you in the face.
And it doesn't get any simpler than that. When you start tossing off analogies like this, where you clearly haven't thought them through, or in which you are claiming something for your deity (to be as real as a crime happening right in front of you) that are clearly not true, it's difficult to take you seriously.
> Just like all sins are clearly wrong
ReplyDeleteWhat about masturbation? It is a "sin" but clearly not wrong.
Christ was tolerant of sin. Intolerance is itself a sin. This is a clear point Christ makes, that you are to forgive, tolerate, and live among sinners and know that you are yourself a sinner. All sin is the same. A murderer, a liar, and a prostitute are the same as the intolerant man who posts on the internet defending his intolerance.
ReplyDeleteyou are just as bad as a rapist, because all sin is the same in god's eyes. Defend your intolerance all you want, but its not what christ taught.
John 8:7 "So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said unto them, 'let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
cognitive dissonance. look it up... but you probably wont. oh the irony.
ReplyDeleteFundamental to all of this is not inflicting your beliefs on anyone else. We all have the right to our own beliefs. However, to claim that your belief is being attacked because you are not permitted to attack others is beyond reasonable. Why do you think that you have the right to harass others (and be free from persecution yourself)?
ReplyDeleteLet others deal with their own sins (however you perceive them), as it pertains to their existence and to their soul. We have laws to maintain order in society, and those laws are in place in part to protect people with different beliefs from each other. As a result of our collective laws, the argument above about how murder would otherwise be deemed acceptable is completely incoherent and unnecessary.
I'm sorry, but having sex for pleasure, for instance, is not "clearly wrong".
ReplyDeleteAl, as the only person who has engaged with my arguments on a philosophical level, I choose to respond to you. I will present quotes from your argument, and offer my responses.
ReplyDelete"WHY does the Bible give morality? Because it is the document by which you live your life? Or because there exists a supreme being and from that being all morality comes?"
The latter, although I'm not saying that this supreme being *created* morality (just as I wouldn't say that he made it such that 1 + 1 = 2.) Given, however, that He is the supreme being, I think he's a reliable source for moral information.
"Now, here's the rub. How does one define morality? This isn't really a question of "proving" it. One can't prove these types of statements. They are DENOTATIVE. [Consider the word 'tree']"
So you think right and wrong are merely words? Interesting Wittgensteinian line of thought. How are we to flush out their meanings, then? Does 'morally good' have a particular extension that it picks out (perhaps a different extension for each person) such that the word just *means* that act, or that act, etc.? But, if that's all that right *means* then why should we behave morally? You might respond by saying "because that's what ought means!" but I find it a little questionable to think that we behave the way we do merely because of the meaning of words (especially after we have, like you, become aware of this alleged fact.)
"And that's why morals are best left to the realm of the personal. There's NO reason to impose morals on others against there will."
So you wouldn't stop murder? Either way, I don't think you've grasped that, as a Christian, I care and love for *everybody's* eternal soul, and I am ipso facto obligated to try and help you all live the kind of moral lives Jesus Christ would want you to live.
"But don't think morality is ANY way to govern a country. It's too subjective, not grounded in anything. Instead, we have a society, and we have goals in that society, set by the members of that society. Those goals, things like prosperity, health, freedom, etc have NOTHING to do with morality. So when a group says that someone should be prevented from doing something BY LAW because of some SUBJECTIVE MORAL CODE, then we have an issue. The government must be an AMORAL ENTITY because it is NOT a human being. Each individual human being can make moral decisions. Permissiveness is not a sign of moral weakness; if it was then the Judeo-Christian god would be considered as morally deficient for allowing our free actions."
ReplyDeleteI can't quite extract the argument from this paragraph. Are you proposing that it is not the case that there ought to be a link between law and morality, and that murder, for example, should only remain illegal for pragmatic reasons? That a society should do whatever is in the best interests of its constituents?
Ignoring, for a moment, how you're going to flush out the aforementioned 'best interests' clause, I suspect the untenability of your position could be demonstrated by any number of reductio ad absurdums (e.g. the platitudinal case where framing and executing an innocent man will appease an angry mob; if you're okay with that, what about a government committing numerous atrocities to people *other* than its citizens?) When it comes down to it, given the nature of moral judgments, if you have any moral code whatsoever you're going to think that it's something all entities (including governments) should be subjected to (given that moral judgments are universalized.) I know you added the qualifier 'subjective' ("legislation of a SUBJECTIVE morality is OUTSIDE the scope of the realm of activity of the government") but unless you can flush out a distinction between objective and subjective morality, this clause won't do the work you need it to.
"You don't value tolerance. And you know what, that's your prerogative. But the rest of us will not stand by silently. We will admonish you for what we believe is immoral behavior."
So: we can't prove we're right, but we're going to force your assent. Real tolerant. The Lord will protect His flock.
"In short, many of us value tolerance over intolerance. And yes, that might be dogmatic, but it's based in experience. The experience that tolerance leads to better human relationships, less suffering, and more personal fulfillment, more happiness."
Interesting. While it may be true that tolerance increases happiness and personal fulfillment (and I'm not saying it is, although I'll admit that you're conjecture has prima facie plausibility,) why should I be so hedonistic as to accept that those are the only things that matter? What about Aristotelean eudaimonia? What about our eternal souls?
palebluegirl: "cognitive dissonance. look it up... but you probably wont. oh the irony."
ReplyDeleteI'm well aware of the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. That of which I am unaware, however, is how exactly this is supposed to be related to the question of faith-based morality. Care to enlighten me?
kadeity: "Christ was tolerant of sin. Intolerance is itself a sin. This is a clear point Christ makes, that you are to forgive, tolerate, and live among sinners and know that you are yourself a sinner. All sin is the same. A murderer, a liar, and a prostitute are the same as the intolerant man who posts on the internet defending his intolerance."
ReplyDeleteOf course. But that doesn't mean I have to be tolerant of them qua sinners. I can oppose sin while still loving the sinners. I am a Christian. I love everybody.
Gaki: You have, sadly, committed the very atrocity you at the end of your post accuse me of committing (you haven't thought your "argument" through.)
ReplyDeleteIn the case of a "crime" happening right in front of your face, there is no debate about the objective physical facts that are taking place. My issue isn't about the objective physical facts. My issue involves these alleged funny moral facts in which you atheists place faith. The same faith you refuse to accept for religious matters.
RandV: Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoughtfully.
ReplyDeleteRe: "merely words". Right and wrong, or more accurately good and evil, are only meaningful within a system of morals. If a system of morals does not exist, those words become meaningless. Would you not agree? If we struggle with this point, we will need to discuss it further. If you DO disagree, let me request that you review your arguments for disagreeing and make sure you're not being circular.
A particularly troubling thing you have asked is "then why should we behave morally?" You ask this question from what appears to be the assumption that in the case of showing a moral system, like the Judeo-Christian system, it seems obvious to you that we are compelled to live by it.
But as Nietzsche so famously sais, "God is dead". And he didn't say it to mean that god doesn't exist, he said it because even IF God were proven to exist AND he was the Judeo-Christian god AND heaven and hell existed, it still would not answer the question "Why should I follow you? Why should I adhere to your morality?" There doesn't seem to be any answer to this question. Given proof, that any particular moral system is objective and universal, why indeed should anyone choose to follow it. Those who follow it are moral, those who aren't immoral. But beyond that there seems to be almost nothing else of import UNLESS you bring in amoral things like desire, punishment, reward, etc.
So, at this point, we have to ask, do we simply have an axiomatic difference here? Are our base assumptions just that different? I have a feeling from your words that you think that I do have a compulsion to be moral, but that I downplay that compulsion. But if you want, we can google wave and really has that out.
http://i.imgur.com/fNASG.gif
ReplyDeleteRandV: Onto something else though. The concept of not tolerating intolerance.
ReplyDeleteAs I said, morality is not something that can be proven. The question of morality is "what objective laws exists that govern the good/evil spectrum of conscious intentions?" Many people, especially the permissive and the tolerant have an epistemological problem with this question. We're not sure we can ever know, but we certainly don't believe we know now. So, we have to do something else, and this is the realm of ETHICS.
Ethics is not about universal laws of morality (the study of morality is a subset of the study of ethics). Ethics is about how one should live there life. When we accept that we don't or can't know morality, we need to come up with some other way to govern our actions.
So we come up with assumptions about what's beneficial and what's not. Usually we start out with suffering is bad, so let's avoid that, and we branch out from there. Generally we come to the conclusion that tolerance of behavior that does not effect others (consensual adult behaviors) is a net positive behavior, because being intolerant can cause psychological suffering of those being oppressed.
So, when an intolerant person enters our midst, we have a dilemma. If we tolerate you, you will cause harm to others. If we do not tolerate you, we will cause harm to you. Most of us reconcile it by saying, you can believe what you want, but if you're going to shout, you're fair game for a shout-back. And certainly don't think you're immune to criticism, especially if you intend to run for a political office where you have the power to impose strict control on others.
The U.S. government set forth it's axiom in the U.S. Constitution. Since it does not provide any moral rules, and since it does not state that morality is a guideline for governance, then yes, even an objective morality is outside of the realm of the U.S. to legislate and enforce. It's up to the individuals to decide to live morally. However, it does state that all people in the world are created equally, and should be treated equally by the law with respect to their rights.
And re: "why should I be so hedonistic...." again, why should anyone accept a moral system, even if can be shown one exists. Maybe there are universal sould, maybe there is an afterlife of suffering afterwards, but you need these things to compel individuals to be moral. I'm not going to compel you to be hedonistic. But I'll be hard set against you becoming a judge unless you can demonstrate that you uphold the system you are sworn to protect, and not some other system that the U.S. does not recognize foundationally.
"Rights And Values" - You are clearly an irrational person. There is no point in trying to reason with you.
ReplyDeletePlease learn to be more than just another fool for the oldest con game in the world.