Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

Why Do You Remain A Christian?


Antlerman

Recommended Posts

How does one determine a law condemning slavery is any more just than one condoning it? Sorry after re-read your posted thoughts were on racism not slavery but I believe my question is still valid

 

Sorry bear with me as I am struggling a bit negotiating the site and am severely technologically challenged. You made several points which might be best addressed one at a time.

 

I believe there are certainly degrees of moral culpability in any wrong act which deminish or increase regarding the situation. Stealing an apple to feed the poor or from a theif would would of neccesity be less than say for fun or to show off, but it would'nt make stealing right. stealing is wrong. IMO.

So... you say that "absolute" is "relative?" If you argue that there are degrees of morality, then you are not talking about absolute moral right or wrong. You start wrapping your head around this, because I can see you don't have a complete understanding of the difference between "absolute" and "non-absolute."

 

Think about it this way: an absolute wrong would be something that is always wrong, in every situation, and should always be punished, if justice should be served. So there's no degree in that statement. If you admit the stealing has degrees, you're admitting that it's not absolute. Simple as that.

 

What about stealing from the thief? If someone took the food from your child, and proclaimed it was his, then you took it back, and the cops arrested you for theft because you couldn't prove it was yours to being with. To you, it wasn't theft, but to the court and the justice system it was, because you couldn't prove it. But was it right to "take it back?" At what level is something considered to be taken back and not stealing? I agree that in most cases stealing is wrong, but the problem is sometimes there could be situations where it's hard to know, and only the person who did it knows. Some people take stuff and don't even understand it's wrong, because they don't have the understanding of "mine and yours." Are they intentionally stealing, or are they just delusional? Should they be severely punished, or helped?

 

Lets say you're in a car accident, and someone next to you is really hurt. You're looking for a blanket to cover the person and warm him, and you find one in one of the cars. But it wasn't yours. Is that stealing? In practical terms it is, since you took something which wasn't yours, and you didn't ask permission for it. Extreme circumstances sometimes requires extreme measures.

 

I contend the act of stealing is wrong If the act of stealing is not wrong please help me understand. The examples you gave serve only to reduce culpability not justify the position that stealing is not wrong.

Again, if it is supposed to be absolutely wrong, then there's no reduced culpability. It's full responsibility, and full punishment, each and every time.

 

During the Catrina disaster, people were looting houses to get food and blankets, just so they could survive. Do you consider them to deserve prison? If not, then you are relative in your judgment, because you consider context, and you're not consider it in absolute terms.

 

It's seems to me you attempt to justify a set of conditions that would somehow create allowance for "rightful-stealing" I wonder if I had chosen to use rape as the exampled crime if you could provide me with some set of conditions which would somehow justify a "rightful-rape" ? Rape is wrong as is stealing and no set of contributing conditions can change the fact that they are indeed wrongs, which would lead to certain rights ie; I have the right not be raped because rape is wrong.

The reason why rape is wrong is because you hurt another person. Rape is just as wrong as murder or hitting someone, and I agree it is wrong. However, the thing is, how did we decide that rape was wrong? It wasn't with the help of the Bible. And it sure wasn't because someone prayed over it. But because people reasoned and agreed upon that this is bad for society as a whole, and bad for the victims. That means, this particular "wrong" is wrong because we used rationality, reasons, logic etc, not because it is written in the stars. It is something that is wrong towards our own identity and species. Anyway, I agree, rape is wrong. But not because it's sex, but because it's violence against another person. In other words, the harm principle used to deduce it as wrong is rather based on consequentialism than duty or divine command.

 

Now think about when Europe and America was overgrown with Christian churches, in the middle ages until the renaissance. Did they have laws against rape then? Why not? If it is an absolute, undeniable wrong, and they were led by God, then wouldn't it be something they would have known to be absolutely wrong too? It seems to me that this "wrong" became raised to a question of justice when our society became secular and rational, and not when it was led by God. How can it be absolute, if it's so new? The Bible doesn't make a big thing out of rape, no it actually instructs that the rapist should marry the victim to restore her fathers honor. So the "absolute" wrong done at that time was not against the woman, but against the father and honor of the family.

 

---

 

Let me ask you this. Is it wrong to hit your child when they do something wrong? According to the church I used to belong to, the answer was "no". They considered it a correct way to educate and raise a child. But in society we have decided that hitting a child is considered abuse, and not far from on the same level as rape. In the old days, rape was just as much of a non-issue as hitting your child was just a few years back. Our view of right and wrong changes with the times, and we adjust the view based on reason and more advanced understanding of what harm is to us. Some hundred years ago they didn't know about emotional trauma or PTSD. No one considered beating up a child would cause the child to grow up with a distorted view, while today they know better. So is the understanding of psychology the same thing as having a divine revelation from God? Where does this understanding of right and wrong come from, when we realize them based on logic and reason? ... well the answer is simply... from logic and reason. So if you're argument is that these modern views of right and wrong is the same as revealed by God, then Logic, Reason, and Rationality, is the true trinity of God, not Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

---

 

I heard on the radio a few years back, a preacher who argued that driving an SUV was immoral. Do you agree that it's immoral? In the future the majority of humanity might say so, but today we don't. How can that be absolute wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Ouroboros

    296

  • the stranger

    237

  • JayL

    226

  • Citsonga

    176

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Moving to address the second camp of thought, I wonder how any particular human right could be determined if ruled by the principle you present. If the determining agent is the better good of the co-operative, then the objective of the provided example would be to ensure a society that had less stealing. If this is the case than the "justice" served by aboloshing the afforded rights expressed above held by most Christian influenced western nations in favour of a significantly more effective "justice" held by most islamic nations would be neccesary. Clearly the theft deterant of having ones hand cut off particularly with out the absolute assurance of a "fair trial" is far more effective, at least it seems witnessable by how little theft they have in their society as compared ours.

What makes any society particularly more "just" is it's relative alignment with an actual right and wrong, not it's alignment to the betterment of the pack.

 

I must be missing something. I don't see how this answer demonstrates that there is a force outside of nature that determines universal values of right and wrong. On the contrary, by contrasting Islamic and Christian justice it seems to me you undermine your case. What do you mean by "actual right and wrong?" God's mandate? How does it get to this point from the observation that in different human cultures there is a different meaning to justice?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not yet want to move to Christian apologetics with out the hashing out of the existance of an objective right and wrong, I believe I would be wasting both our time.

If you are basing your beliefs starting there (since you would be unable to base your arguments for Christianity without that foundation), then you must be willing to accept that if you can't establish that premise of objective right and wrong, then you have no basis on which to argue for God. Is this what you believe? If so, that's pretty thin ice for such a monumental structure to be built on - an Absolute God, with Divine authority over every aspect of your life.

 

Since you seem to understand the symbolic nature of things within your faith, you may wish to drop insistence on a literal "Truth", in the same way you view the book of Genesis and the age of the earth as non-literal, figurative representations. If you wish to argue for the "message" of your beliefs in a non-literalistic way, that's fine. Your premise of a literal right and wrong, universal and absolute really sets your faith up for a fall the same way the anti-science folks from Christian Fundamentalism do.

 

P.S. Two finger typing? Yikes! Take the time to learn where to put your fingers on the keyboard. It'll be well worth the few minutes of your time. You give all of us the advantage by virtue of speed alone... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Good morning all again;

 

Thank you again for the respect you have shown in dialouguing. I just briefly read through the posts and promise to address them as best I can, when I can.

Firstly, I am thankful that Han has posted that rape is wrong, I can debate in charity with a realist, an idealist and yes even an atheist but not a nominalist. That does'nt mean I can't treat them charitably, just that I can't debate with them. If words have no association to any particular meaning how can I retain the postition that my opinion is any more "right" than yours. How can a nomalist? I am not accusing Han of being one, it just innitialy seemed to me that might be his position.

If there does exist certain things that are wrong and right, is their anything (some might suggest a conscience) that would bind us to doing or being more right and less wrong? The truth of the matter is that no one is actually bound by an individual or collective conscience we are all free to willfully choose to do and be more wrong than right. When you analize any partucular moral or ethical question after first using your intelect to weigh the facts, what steers your descision, your conscience or a percieved duty to the advancement of the tribe?

 

peace; Jacques

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you probably could call me a nominalist, I just haven't made up my mind yet (I might be a conceptualist too...) . I'm just like many others: still in search of myself and still trying to come to a better understanding of myself and the world I live in. As Descartes did, I have to start at the point where I doubt everything, and not accept anything a priori. But eventually you have to, and when you do, you do it knowingly.

 

Jacques, you have a valid question there. Why would I then accept one thing as being right, and another as being wrong, if it's all depends on the framework I'm in? (With framework, I mean a culture, social setting, a life style, etc. An abstract entity which encapsulates certain aspects of life. The frameworks evolve through interaction between the parties involved.) And if I had a choice of framework, which one would I choose? I think it would take some time to discuss this, but I'll try to make it short, and as simple as I can. First of all, our basic drives are different needs and desires. We have a strong need to protect ourselves, from harm, from death, from pain, etc. And we desire and strive for pleasures, contentment, tastes, and self-fulfillment. Based on the things we value most, we will be attracted to different frameworks. And when I'm attracted to whichever framework, I will (most likely) unconsciously agree on the price to be there. I have to give up some of my desires and need, in lieu of the gain of other desires and needs. When it's a small price to get a big benefit, we are willing to pay. When the price is high, we are less likely to pay. And the process is usually slow, and not something that just happens over night (even though I could). We judge the world, and ourselves, out of what we have learned, our experiences, and the frameworks we live in. Does this make sense at all? I know it's very short, but I tried...

 

Maybe we should get back to what this topic is about: why do you remain a Christian? So Jacques, would you say that you are a Christian because you believe there are absolute rights and wrongs, and only religion can give you the "tools" you need to discern those things? Are you Christian because that's the only way you can act good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Han, I'm not sure if you have, but, If you can come to believe in an infinite universe, You can come to believe in an infinite power. How could the finite ever completely discern with certainty the infinite. So if one does accept the universe is infinite they do it with faith, no one could supply proof of it,it can only be accepted by faith as a result of analyzing and discerning the signs.

I attempt to answer the question of why I remain a christian by submitting some of the signs (not proof) that help me discern and accept my faith. Through the example I've presented of human written law, I planned to start with some of the churches teachings on the subject of Natural law, which is subject to divine law, because it is an important aspect to me retaining my faith. I probe the answers given in opposition here to see if they are more or less convincing than those presented by a group of individuals that make the amazing claim of being infallibly correct when teaching on faith and morals. In order for me to accept this claim, it must be able to hold up this statement in a format such as this. I believe it will, and that it would be more effective to discuss morals as they may be something we both might agree exist and have validity but not necessarily agree completely on.

There would be little point in me starting the discussion with an atheist on the subject of faith aside from maybe the challenge I've presented in the opening sentence of this post.

Peace; DD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you analize any partucular moral or ethical question after first using your intelect to weigh the facts, what steers your descision, your conscience or a percieved duty to the advancement of the tribe?

What shapes your conscience, is your question? If you are trying to suggest that our conscience is shaped by some external, universal "conscience" force, then you should be able to see universal morals as evidence it exists. Do you? What are they? You were asked that question before and haven't yet offered one example.

 

Truth be told, the difference between your perceived duty (or responsibility) to the advancement of the tribe (or to yourself by effect), is pretty entwined, if not completely formed by it. What is ones' sense of conscience? Why do some lack one altogether, such as a sociopath? Basically, you're looking at abstract "mystery" things like thought, conscience, personality, and doing what the ancients did in creating a way of perceiving or describing these things as "spirit", or "soul", which then must live in some "ether", etc. In other words, you're mythologizing things you don't have a handle on scientifically. We are in fact gaining better understandings in all these things, and so far have not run into a wall where we must say "miracle" or "supernatural".

 

Our conscience is programmed into us. It doesn't just seep up from the ground or the sky. Culture and family, along with personality. We are marvelous, living computer machines and software bundles. "I", my personality and conscience is a product of biology, environment, and society; hence we are "mostly" unique; yet not entirely so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does one determine a law condemning slavery is any more just than one condoning it?

Maybe you fight a war over it. You know trial by combat. For absolute right must be on the side of the victor -- right? You certainly wouldn't turn to Christian God's law to determine that slavery is unjust.

 

Sorry bear with me as I am struggling a bit negotiating the site and am severely technologically challenged. You made several points which might be best addressed one at a time.

 

Put a space between paragraphs. Indenting the first line doesn't work.

 

I contend the act of stealing is wrong If the act of stealing is not wrong please help me understand. The examples you gave serve only to reduce culpability not justify the position that stealing is not wrong.

 

Theft depends on context. For example if you are American you are living on stolen land without any qualms. And the stealing of that land was largely based on the story of the theft of land from the Canaanites by Israel, a theft sanctioned by Christian God. Christian God considers usury theft, but the elite portion of our modern society thrives on it. Usury is considered so important that the government is willing to spend $700 billion + to make sure it stays in place. If you have any friends in the banking industry, by God's "absolute" standards they are thieves and will die for it (Ez. 18)

 

Rape is wrong as is stealing and no set of contributing conditions can change the fact that they are indeed wrongs, which would lead to certain rights ie; I have the right not be raped because rape is wrong.

 

Rape is wrong in your mind (thankfully). Rape is wrong in Muslim society too, but there the evil person is the rapee, not the raper.* In scripture raping a maid is not very wrong. You just have to pay the father reparation and marry the woman. In scripture Rape is a property crime. It is an offense against the father or the husband, not the woman. Rape as we understand it in western culture was not a consideration let alone a crime. Until very recently it wasn't even considered possible that a man could rape his wife. It would seem to me that absolute laws would not change in context.

 

Edit: * You will "know" this to be wrong, but your Muslim counter part will "know" it to be right. Both of you will claim this knowledge as evidence of an absolute law to be ascribed to God. As Han has already pointed out, Absolute law is moot in human affairs, because no human can ever access it. Humans are "subject" to their genetic line and the context of their experience. Moral values will always be relative because they regulate by necessity the subjective. (see this link) This will be born out in your inability to write out an actually absolute moral law -- that is if you actually attempt the task.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe this is too simplistic for the arguement, but, as a child of about 9yrs old, all we had in the house was one half can of shortening and one whole potato. I found a dollar that day...it was at a place called the TG&Y. I bought some candy, not for myself, but for the 6 of us. Knowing it wasn't enough, I took other things that I could slip into my shirt. Things like Beenie Weenie's and corn..anything I could make out of the store, undetected. We ate that night, under the gleeming lights of other's x-mas trees. Was that wrong of me, as a nine year old child..to want to feed my family?

 

Sincerely,

Hineni

 

IMHO the fact that you knew that you would be busted if caught, made the act noble. Maybe something closer to absolute is "family is first".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Han, I'm not sure if you have, but, If you can come to believe in an infinite universe, You can come to believe in an infinite power.

Sure. I do. But it's not necessarily an infinite mind, or infinite consciousness, or infinite awareness. You see the difference? A rock is a rock, but a rock is not necessarily aware of it's own essence as being a rock.

 

How could the finite ever completely discern with certainty the infinite.

Infinite and finite are two attributes of existence, and can never be equated to each other.

 

Just like each integer is a finite, the infinite set of integers is infinite. But the infinite set of integers is not a number, and can't be. The infinite consist of an infinite amount of finites. They co-exist because one cannot exist without the other. All finites exist, because they're part of the infinite, and the infinite only exists because it is the containment of all finites. Do you understand?

 

I = { 1, 2, 3, 4, ... ∞ }

 

So if one does accept the universe is infinite they do it with faith, no one could supply proof of it,it can only be accepted by faith as a result of analyzing and discerning the signs.

Everything is a form of trust or faith. Even knowledge, but it's different levels of faith, or certainty. Belief as we see it is when you have a lot less of certainty or evidence for being convicted. While knowledge is based on a higher degree of certainty. I'm very certain that the universe is infinite, while I'm not as certain that a omniscience, omnipotent and benevolent consciousness exist.

 

I attempt to answer the question of why I remain a christian by submitting some of the signs (not proof) that help me discern and accept my faith. Through the example I've presented of human written law, I planned to start with some of the churches teachings on the subject of Natural law, which is subject to divine law, because it is an important aspect to me retaining my faith. I probe the answers given in opposition here to see if they are more or less convincing than those presented by a group of individuals that make the amazing claim of being infallibly correct when teaching on faith and morals. In order for me to accept this claim, it must be able to hold up this statement in a format such as this. I believe it will, and that it would be more effective to discuss morals as they may be something we both might agree exist and have validity but not necessarily agree completely on.

There would be little point in me starting the discussion with an atheist on the subject of faith aside from maybe the challenge I've presented in the opening sentence of this post.

Peace; DD

Ok. So it sounds like one of the pillars of your faith (one of the arguments to give you a reasonable trust in your belief) is that morality, law, rights and wrong, must have a divine source. Correct? If you had been around in different congregations and different Churches, you would know--just as I--that there's no more morality or better people in Church than there's in society in general. On the contrary, I find repressed feelings and many who go on "sin" splurges because they can't contain their inner desires. They are frustrated by unreasonable regulations and rules which are set up by the elders, old books, or "divine inspirations." It doesn't help people to invent "absolute laws" which are the result of some senile pastors twisted view of the world, it's better to reason your way to what is the best for you and the whole group.

 

And I thought about rape as the example of an "absolute" wrong, and I realized there are some other problems with it, which is, how do you define rape? And is there other kinds of rape, i.e. non-sexual rapes (it would basically be violence against a person's body and/or integrity)? If so, are they always wrong, or does it depend on context? All those questions, and probably more, needs to be addressed before "rape" can become a true candidate for "absolute wrong." You see the problem is that language and definitions are in the way for us to even begin to make a complete and coherent system which wouldn't have to change. But unfortunately we don't have an "absolute language" or an "absolute grammar", so we can't even begin to laws, rights, wrongs, or justice fully coherent. (Unless we could invent a mathematical language to describe it, but then, would that moral-math-language be divine or just logical?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you analize any partucular moral or ethical question after first using your intelect to weigh the facts, what steers your descision, your conscience or a percieved duty to the advancement of the tribe? peace; Jacques

 

Easy way to learn typing: With your 8 fingers in the proper home row position, start typing the alphabet over and over until you can do it with out looking. If you do this 20 minutes a day for 2 weeks you'll be pleasantly surprised at your ability to find the letters. It is boring so put on some good tunes.

 

Now for your very good question: All of these things are part of the steering mechanism of moral behavior. The actuator of the system is conscience. Conscience is emotion. Maybe I could say moral emotion, but I'm not sure there is any amoral emotion. All of your emotions either constrain or encourage your acts. You act morally all the live long day without giving your actions much if any moral intellectual thought. You become morally aware when someone violates your values, or you are emotionally conflicted by a situation. These things have been established through the examination of and experiments with brain damaged people. If the emotion producing areas of the brain are defective, a person cannot act appropriately even if he/she can still reason to the the proper action.

 

The death of one is a tragedy. The death of a million is a statistic.

 

I think that if you are honest you will "feel" that the above statement is true even if intellectually you know it to be false. You are biologically unequipped (see this link) to feel either moral outrage or warm fuzzies for others outside of your perceived group -- your cooperative if you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Han, I'm not sure if you have, but, If you can come to believe in an infinite universe, You can come to believe in an infinite power.

I know this is addressed to Han, but I will respond as well.

 

Believing in an infinite universe, is a different use of the word believe, than believing in an infinitive power (or Being, as you would have it). "Accepting" the weight of observable evidence about the nature universe is not belief with a capital B. Belief in products of human mythology as actual, literal Beings, is belief with a capital B. I believe that George Washington existed, based upon strong, verifiable evidence. I don't believe in Elves for the reason they have no verifiable evidence.

 

Even in science, there are certain theories, which because they lack any sort of corroborating evidence to back up the hypothesis, when accepted is largely called a religious belief. Strangely, String Theory is by many scientists not considered scientific, and that acceptance of it is more a philosophy or religious belief, until such a time as supporting evidence comes along.

 

Regarding an "infinite universe": I don't know that I would accept that it is infinite. I believe the evidence supports that it has boundaries, doesn't it?

 

As far as believing an infinite power: Define what this is? Can we observe it with any measurement devices that anyone can see it, or is it only accessed through belief?

 

How could the finite ever completely discern with certainty the infinite.

It's not possible, therefore we can't speak with absolutes. :)

 

So if one does accept the universe is infinite they do it with faith, no one could supply proof of it,it can only be accepted by faith as a result of analyzing and discerning the signs.

Let me correct you here. Modern science is not simply about trying to interpret the data. It's about verifying that the explanation of the data actually explains it. It's not faith at that point. For instance, you should be able to make predictions based on that model, and anyone, critic and believer alike, should be able to dispassionately corroborate the accuracy of that explanation! Does religious faith work like this, or does it require a purely subjective "intuitive" corroboration accessed only through a religious faith?

 

I attempt to answer the question of why I remain a christian by submitting some of the signs (not proof) that help me discern and accept my faith.

You speak of objectivity. Do you believe someone else can look at the same things you are, and interpret it differently? I don't me just differently, but with an equally legitimate interpretation that isn't the same as yours? In other words, because you have no proof and it's all subjective, do you feel others are wrong when you are "right"?

 

There would be little point in me starting the discussion with an atheist on the subject of faith aside from maybe the challenge I've presented in the opening sentence of this post.

Why? I'd be more than happy to talk with you about the nature of faith, and why religions who try to find objective truth don't understand what it is. I probably understand faith better than most modern Christians - as an atheist. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There would be little point in me starting the discussion with an atheist on the subject of faith aside from maybe the challenge I've presented in the opening sentence of this post.

 

You may have noticed that the name of Dave's site is Ex-Christian. Most of us have had experience with faith somewhat as you know it. There are even Ex-Catholic Christians here, so that the content of their experience of faith would be even closer to yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding an "infinite universe": I don't know that I would accept that it is infinite. I believe the evidence supports that it has boundaries, doesn't it?

If we talk about space, I think the correct way could be to say that it has boundaries (the borders of the uttermost stars/galaxies and traveled light), but infinite potential, i.e. it can expand infinitely (theoretically). Also in time (future), it could continue indefinitely. But there is a possibility that there are laws of nature we don't know about which could affect the outcome of the future universe. So this is theory, and not knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Just briefly reviewed the comments and cannot fully respond right now, but hope to soon. Just for clarity of the catholic position and paring it down to the two most succinct explanations I could find on the topic at hand, the first quote is from Aquinas' Summa the second from the C.C.C.

 

"Properties

Human acts are imputable to man so as to involve his responsibility, for the very reason that he puts them forth deliberatively and with self-determination. They are, moreover, not subject to physical laws which necessitate the agent, but to a law which lays the will under obligation without interfering with his freedom of choice. Besides, they are moral. For a moral act is one that is freely elicited with the knowledge of its conformity with or difformity from, the law of practical reason proximately and the law of God ultimately. But whenever an act is elicited with full deliberation, its relationship to the law of reason is adverted to. Hence human acts are either morally good or morally bad, and their goodness or badness is imputed to man. And as, in consequence, they are worthy of praise or blame, so man, who elicits them, is regarded as virtuous or wicked, innocent or guilty, deserving of reward or punishment. Upon the freedom of the human act, therefore, rest imputability and morality, man's moral character, his ability to pursue his ultimate end not of necessity and compulsion, but of his own will and choice; in a word, his entire dignity and preeminence in this visible universe."

 

"1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."

 

I will try to cut and paste as little as possible, but thought this might help bring clarity to my position;

 

Peace; jacques

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, but it still isn't absolute.

 

The law is always approximated, like your quote says, which actually means: even if there are absolutes, we can not know them. Even if there are absolute laws, human laws, by necessity, are only approximations of such absolute laws. Hence, we could say, laws are realizations of abstract ideas. If the absolute are only abstract, then God is only abstract. If God is only abstract, he doesn't exist more than the concept of Pi, or e, or infinite integers. So the God you're suggesting is the God of the imaginary mind. So I don't see how the idea of unproven absolutes would prove God's existence. We judge good and bad based on what we have learned and established. We have, as humanity evolved to judge things good or bad. And mostly based on what is most beneficial for the general survival of the group (monkey-sphere ;) to Chef).

 

The earliest society did not have as advanced moral code as we do. They did not have much law, but they did have some. The earliest law, the Hammurabi Code, is older than the OT. It's considered the oldest written law, and it's from the Babylonian ear. Most likely the Sumerians had laws too, but I'm not sure if they're saved or not. But if any law would be closest to God's law, it would be that one, not some later redaction modified by human relativistic influence. Right? Or do you feel that God's law is discovered through trial and error, research, and reasoning, over time? Well, then it's no difference between your law and mine, because we would come to the same results, regardless if we believer there is some "template" for it in Heaven or not.

 

You think our reasoning is based on divine influence, while I think most of our understanding of right and wrong ultimately comes from our need to survive and thrive. In nature, animals usually don't kill the members of their own tribe. How come? Do they have a moral code? Or is it because that if animals would evolve to be self-species-destructive, they wouldn't simply survive as a species? And when it comes to my needs, or desires, does it make sense that if I please the person I want something from, I'm more likely to get it? So to me, it's a matter of rationalization, and not divine inspiration (unless a logical/mathematical mind is the same as a spiritual mind).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."

 

I don't know what this C.C.C. you are quoting here is but....

 

I just think this is flat out wrong. The consequences of an act are the VERY things that define its morality or immorality. I don't see how one can argue otherwise. No action is evil in itself, actions are merely viewed as evil because the results of said action are viewed as negative by the person making the judgment.

 

Can you list one thing you think is immoral even though you feel it has no negative consequences, and tell me why this act is immoral?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good morning all,

 

Addressing the first camp I would argue that if pressed, most if not all would abandon this position if they felt their rights had been violated (affirming their validity). If Hans Solo where accused of a crime, lets say stealing something and arrested, he would be read his rights "You have the right to remain silent, right to an attourney, judged by your peers,.....etc." Unless I am mistaken, I would think he would, especially if innocent, cheer their validity. This example is a good for two reasons, first because accomanying the opening sentences right to "remain silent" is the inerrant right to "remain vocal" I believe all here would hold their right to freely retain and express their opinion. If not I doubt one would remain to dialougue very long. Secondly the example proves valuable because it brings into the dialouge the concept of justice. A concept I believe is unreatainable without an objective right and wrong.

 

You are describing the "Miranda warning", "rights" is misleading. They were mandated in 1966 by the US Supreme Court decision Miranda v. Arizona. The "rights" described in them refer to the "Fifth Amendment" the right to avoid self incrimination.

 

You are also alluding to the "First Amendment" right to free speech. It is a US constitutional right that the Government cannot censor or impede any public opinion. Individuals are not the government. If, for instance, you say something someone doesn't like, in a private context, they can censor your opinion and not violate any right.

 

Rights afforded US citizens, under the US Constitution, are not universal rights. Nor are they always extended to non-US citizens, even those within the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Han , "the idea of unproven absolutes" can't prove God's existance, nothing can. I've already admitted I can't prove God's existence, anymore than I could prove the universe is infinite. Just a question though, as a self-described nominalist how do you cling to integers as absolutes? or are you saying that they don't exist as absolutes in this last post where earlier in our dialogue I believe you did use them as absolutes? Can a nominalist retain absolutes? Sorry, but as I've already stated I can treat a nominalist charitably but cannot debate with them. I may have to move on to addressing other posts if you cannot solidify your positions better to me.

 

To all others that have posted a response, I am sorry this quick post to Han does not address much of what you've submitted,. Han was first to engage me in dialogue, so I continue with him, welcoming input from all others and attempting to address that input as I can.

 

I have more thoughts to share addressing the rest tomorrow good night from the west coast.....D.D.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit: I'd just like to add that human perception of probability is very poor. The probability that something is as it is is one and it is always one. The idea that "it could have been else wise" interferes with the the reality that something is indeed this. The probability all your ancestors having sex at just the right time and all those sperms finding the right eggs that eventually ended up being you is staggering. Nevertheless the system had to produce something and that something was you. You can think of it as a probability wave that when examined collapses to a point, and that point is one and all the other possible pre-examination points probabilities are zero.

 

Evolution is not random chance. It is a simple system of selection of random chances. The chances are random but the selection is conditional. The best short introduction to evolution and its probabilities I've ever read is Dawkins' River out of Eden.

 

True true, what you are speaking of is known as the Monte Carlo fallacy.

 

2 men are at a roulette wheel and red has come up 5 times in a row.

 

Monte says to himself "Boy reds have come up 5 times, what are the odds it will happen again?? I'm putting my money on black"

 

Meanwhile Carlo is witnessing the same game and says to himself "Boy reds sure are hot, they just keep coming, I'm putting my money on red"

 

Both men have the same data, that the previous 5 spins have come up red, and similiarly both men make the false assumption that anything in the past has anything to do with the next spin.

It doesnt. But you say, the Odds of turning up 2 reds in a row (not counting the non red/black slots in American roulette) is 1 in 4, 3 times is 1 in 8, 4 times is 1 in 16, 5 times 1 in 32 and 6 times is 1 in 64 etc., so you might say monte has his sh*t together, realizing that such odds are highly stacked against you.

 

The problem with this logic is the same as what you are referring to, looking at how the universe is now and saying it was a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 x 10 to the 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 POWER that things would end up so perfect and for me to be here blah blah!!!!!!!! SO there MUST be a GOD!!!!!!!!!!

 

The Fallacy is that the odds only count BEFORE you start the game.....once youve spun 5 reds in a row, then decide to make a bet, the odds are the same as EVERY OTHER BET, ONE in TWO!!!

 

So fine you've had 5 reds in a row, you want to bet on red or black each one has 50/50 chance because the game has no memory of what has happened..t.heres no "fair" or any other such calculation....baring the game isnt rigged of course....., even if its spun 20 reds in a row, the chance of being red next time is 1 in 2, always will be, so its the same with the Universe, you cant look back from here and give those odds, there are no odds to give, it already happened.......

 

Now this advice will help all the amateur gamblers out there if they are playing roulette...as well as the Fundies who are trying to prove AMWEH created the universe, by giving us odds to prove it....that aint that way sucka

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Han , "the idea of unproven absolutes" can't prove God's existance, nothing can. I've already admitted I can't prove God's existence, anymore than I could prove the universe is infinite. Just a question though, as a self-described nominalist how do you cling to integers as absolutes? or are you saying that they don't exist as absolutes in this last post where earlier in our dialogue I believe you did use them as absolutes? Can a nominalist retain absolutes? Sorry, but as I've already stated I can treat a nominalist charitably but cannot debate with them. I may have to move on to addressing other posts if you cannot solidify your positions better to me.

I see. I missed the part where you said anything about absolutes in relation to God's existence. Then... I don't understand why you even bring it up in a thread about, "Why do you remain a Christian?"

 

Integers are conceptual absolutes. They don't exist in themselves as entities in the world. Is there a "Number 1" as a big something, somewhere, in the universe, and that's why "1" is an absolute? No. So 1 is an absolute only in the sense of "Form". It's a concept, or an idea, and as such it isn't more than just an... idea. Is 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apple? Only because we consider those two apples to be of the same set. We defined the set, and that's when the concept of 1 suddenly can be of use and be absolute. But is 1 orange = 1 banana? No. So 1 isn't applicable universally for everything, the context has to be correct, and we invent the context.

 

But if "absolute right and wrong" has nothing to do with your faith or God, then maybe we should move this discussion outside this thread?

 

To all others that have posted a response, I am sorry this quick post to Han does not address much of what you've submitted,. Han was first to engage me in dialogue, so I continue with him, welcoming input from all others and attempting to address that input as I can.

Then go ahead and answer them. I can stay quiet for a while. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent's responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil."

 

I don't know what this C.C.C. you are quoting here is but....

 

I just think this is flat out wrong. The consequences of an act are the VERY things that define its morality or immorality. I don't see how one can argue otherwise. No action is evil in itself, actions are merely viewed as evil because the results of said action are viewed as negative by the person making the judgment.

 

Can you list one thing you think is immoral even though you feel it has no negative consequences, and tell me why this act is immoral?

 

I would argue that it is the intentions of the person, rather than the consequences or the action itself that define the morality. Though I doubt that's what Dogma was trying to say.

 

Perhaps an example of how an act is in and of itself evil or good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Open address to all who are not nominalists;

 

I will state that I am willing to accept as valid input any reputable dictionary definition of a word, to represent it's meaning. Terms such as absolute, conscience, etc. can be submitted for arguement and understood as accepted common ground.

 

What goes into making a specific act good or bad (right or wrong if you prefer)? The church says there are three elements of a moral act.

 

First element is the specific "thing" the action itself. This "thing" is called the object. This object can be good or bad (right or wrong), and our conscience tells us which is which. Stealing is wrong, charitable giving is right. Lying is wrong, telling the truth is right etc.

 

The second element is intention, it's purpose or end. Good intentions do not make a bad object good. Cheating on a test to improve a grade even if one's intention is to someday become a physician and save lives is still cheating and wrong. Stealing food to feed the starving remains stealing and you cannot steal something that has been freely given, that's called sharing. In addition we can ruin a good object by having a bad intention. Being kind to an aged parent solely for the benefit of an inheritance is not enough to make the kindness of any value. Giving money to the needy so one can boast is hardly true charity. We can also do a thing with many intentions or "mixed motives" aswell, these do not in themselves make a good act bad, but they can reduce it's goodness considerably.

 

The third element is the circumstances that affect an act. Again circumstances can not make an bad object good. They can however contibute significantly to making it less or more good or bad. Coercion for example is a circumstance, one could be coerced to rape a woman if a gun were were held to their head. A mother might steal a car to rush her dying child to the hospital. The responsability of the person doing them is far less than one who rapes for the thrill of it, or steals for a living. But they remain as they are stealing and rape.

 

 

more to come on Natural Law..... peace; Dear Dogma

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First element is the specific "thing" the action itself. This "thing" is called the object. This object can be good or bad (right or wrong), and our conscience tells us which is which. Stealing is wrong, charitable giving is right. Lying is wrong, telling the truth is right etc.

Well then. Then I'm out. Bye bye.

 

(Interesting approach. If you agree with me, then we can have a discussion about me being right. I doubt you'll find anyone agreeable here.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Dear Dogma

Han, you've made several attempts to mis-represent what I've stated. I posted that I could not dialougue with a nominalist, not anyone that dis-agreed with me. How can anyone effectively dialougue with a nominalist it is an impossibility.

Earlier you posted "But if "absolute right and wrong" has nothing to do with your faith or God, then maybe we should move this discussion outside this thread?" Absolute right and wrong has everything to do with my faith and God, It has been my contention from the start.

Good luck and happy tenure as master of your own universe of nominalism for there and there alone shall you remain as God.

 

regards; Jacques

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.