Catholic v Protestant: Robert George v Cornel West

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
161

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Religion is just man’s interpretation of the divine. No one has the complete picture. Christ had a good message. The divisions between Christian churches is based on greed/power/politics.[/quote]

Read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, you’ll enjoy it…

And after that read:

  • Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
  • Summa Contra Gentiles: God by Thomas Aquinas
  • The Minds Road to God by Saint Cardinal Bonaventure
  • The Divine Comedy by Dante
  • The Confessions by Saint Augustine

After reading all that, and if you still disagree with the Church, then I suppose you will always disagree with the Church. But, those five (there is six in the list, but I am not including Mere Christianity) will give you a base in understanding the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Nice suggestions - I would also recommend Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man - I might even put it before Orthodoxy.

162

So you’re saying that morals are supernatural because they are absent from the natural world? That’s only a definitional argument; you aren’t presenting any logic or evidence to support your claim that morals must come from a supernatural source.

“Or maybe he doesn’t”?

What is that supposed to mean? Are you claiming that it is literally impossible for an atheist to put the interest of someone else ahead of his own interest? It only takes one such person to disprove your claim that people need a belief in the supernatural in order to live morally.

163

[quote]forlife wrote:
So you’re saying that morals are supernatural because they are absent from the natural world? That’s only a definitional argument; you aren’t presenting any logic or evidence to support your claim that morals must come from a supernatural source.[/quote]

Why should I go through the trouble? If we agree that Morality (with a capital M) exists, but you contend it exists in the natural universe, you must prove this. If you can’t, then you’re going on nothing but faith. If you admit that you can’t put forth Morals from the natural universe, and that it’s a leap of faith you’ve taken, welcome to the fairty tale club.

So prove it. Proving it doesn’t equal a picture from a newspaper accompanied by what we’re told to be the underlying motivation. Show me the bottom line motivation.

164

If you’re seriously taking the position that atheists cannot be altruistic, self-sacrificing, and committed to their fellow men, all I can say is…wow. Even in my fundamentalist Christian period, I recognized that atheists could be good people with just as much or more commitment to their fellow men that I had.

I doubt you’re actually that close minded, but if so…again, wow.

165

as far as i understand it, that’s not what Sloth is saying.

he makes the following point :

if atheists are altruistics (and some of them certainly are), that means they accept or value some kind of “fairy tale”, just like christians do. since the “value of atruism” is found nowhere in nature.

nature being made of facts, not values.

in other words :
moral need some kind of faith, even if it is not a faith in God.

166

[quote]kamui wrote:
as far as i understand it, that’s not what Sloth is saying.

he makes the following point :

if atheists are altruistics (and some of them certainly are), that means they accept or value some kind of “fairy tale”, just like christians do. since the “value of atruism” is found nowhere in nature.

nature being made of facts, not values.

in other words :
moral need some kind of faith, even if it is not a faith in God.[/quote]

Not seeing anything I disagree with. When an atheist works in jabs like “fairy tale,” it implies a completely skeptical and materialistic outlook. When the same atheist then begins to talk about Morality as if he had it on his peron…Or, as if it was the same isotope of the same element…as if we could all go out and find it, this same morality-element, well, things just start getting weird.

Yes, I can see people not going down the theism route, sure. I was grateful for your, Kamui’s, question about buddhism and etc. Ultimately, the good and sustaining society needs faith in some absolute that stands outside of our ability to measure, to display, to standardize, and to formulate. We don’t even feel morality! We experience feelings, emotions. But the nature of the act, or the thought those emotions have become tied to…who knows.

So yes, an atheist can have morals, if he’s willing to take a leap of faith. Perhaps different than my own, but a leap nonetheless.

167

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Religion is just man’s interpretation of the divine. No one has the complete picture. Christ had a good message. The divisions between Christian churches is based on greed/power/politics.[/quote]

Read Orthodoxy by G.K. Chesterton, you’ll enjoy it…

And after that read:

  • Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
  • Summa Contra Gentiles: God by Thomas Aquinas
  • The Minds Road to God by Saint Cardinal Bonaventure
  • The Divine Comedy by Dante
  • The Confessions by Saint Augustine

After reading all that, and if you still disagree with the Church, then I suppose you will always disagree with the Church. But, those five (there is six in the list, but I am not including Mere Christianity) will give you a base in understanding the Catholic Church.[/quote]

Nice suggestions - I would also recommend Chesterton’s The Everlasting Man - I might even put it before Orthodoxy.

[/quote]

Of course, because he’s a dirty Catholic! Kidding, I put that out there because a lot of people have a problem with the fact that the Church has been teaching the same things for a long time. And, now it seems that new churches are finding out these tid bits of truth, but not recognizing that the Catholic Church has been doing it since the start.

168

[quote]forlife wrote:
If you’re seriously taking the position that atheists cannot be altruistic, self-sacrificing, and committed to their fellow men, all I can say is…wow. Even in my fundamentalist Christian period, I recognized that atheists could be good people with just as much or more commitment to their fellow men that I had.

I doubt you’re actually that close minded, but if so…again, wow.[/quote]

This is the trouble in having this conversation. You lay out a scenario we’re supposed to accept as a heroic morality tale, an atheist giving his life for someone. But you haven’t shown us why this an ultimate act of ‘good,’ instead of the act of a foolish man. One whose own survival instinct was so dull he stupidly traded one life for another. Ultimately, not even saving a life in the final calculation. Worse yet, it’s his life that is now lost. Perhaps to even further compound the stupidity, he was a fertile young man, a producer (of wealth) and a potential or actual reproduer (of the species)–yet the potential victim was an elderly person, living off the wealth of others, producing none anymore (if ever), far past their fertile years.

So why? Don’t say for the act itself, it makes zero sense. “I gave up my life for another, to give up my life for another.” And don’t try to tell me “Because I’d want someone to do it for me.” Well, now you’re dead! You should’ve kept walking and hoped some other fool would give up his own, if ever your life was in danger.

So why? Faith. Nothing but faith.

169

You can love people without needing a supernatural reason to do so. I’m glad you agree atheists can be moral, even if they don’t share your view of the supernatural.

He didn’t give up his life for another to give up his life for another. He gave up his life for another because he loves that person, and cares about her well being. He has no anticipation of a divine reward for his sacrifice. He gives up his life because her happiness is as important to him as his own happiness.

What about that requires faith? He doesn’t have faith in anything. What he does have is a commitment to take care of the happiness of others, in addition to and sometimes in place of caring for his own happiness.

170

[quote]forlife wrote:

He didn’t give up his life for another to give up his life for another. He gave up his life for another because he loves that person, and cares about her well being. He has no anticipation of a divine reward for his sacrifice. He gives up his life because her happiness is as important to him as his own happiness.

[/quote]

You fail to understand that you’re not answering any questions. You haven’t said why that’s any less moral or immoral than doing nothing. Why is it even any more moral than not only having done nothing, but deciding to put your foot ontop of the drowning man’s head as he scrambles to get out of the water. Besides, I’m sure there’s pimps who love their mothers.

Are you a moral relativist, then? Does it come down to what the indiviual feels and decides is right or wrong? Meanging, there is no right or wrong.

171

I think it could go either way.

An atheist might believe in moral laws, like karma, which are universal just like gravity is universal. You can’t physically observe these properties of the universe, but you can view their effects and thereby infer their presence.

Or

An atheist might believe there are no universal moral laws dictating cause and effect. He may recognize that someone could literally get away with murder, and never be held accountable for the act. However, that doesn’t mean he lacks moral values. He may value love as much as any Christian. The difference is that he doesn’t see evidence for supernatural accountability. As a result, if anything he is more committed to holding murderers accountable in this life, because he doesn’t believe in some hypothetical future life where all will be made right.

172

[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m glad you agree atheists can be moral, even if they don’t share your view of the supernatural.
[/quote]

By the way, I’m saying “moral atheists” are supernaturalists. Or, what I’d call non-theist. An atheist today pretty much means, “if it can’t be falsified…”

173

[quote]forlife wrote:
I think it could go either way.

An atheist might believe in moral laws, like karma, which are universal just like gravity is universal. You can’t physically observe these properties of the universe, but you can view their effects and thereby infer their presence.

Or

An atheist might believe there are no universal moral laws dictating cause and effect. He may recognize that someone could literally get away with murder, and never be held accountable for the act. However, that doesn’t mean he lacks moral values. He may value love as much as any Christian. The difference is that he doesn’t see evidence for supernatural accountability. As a result, if anything he is more committed to holding murderers accountable in this life, because he doesn’t believe in some hypothetical future life where all will be made right. [/quote]

And which is yours?

174

[quote]forlife wrote:

“Or maybe he doesn’t”?

What is that supposed to mean? [/quote]

It means that if an atheist chooses not to value human life and well being, etc., you have no authority to tell him is wrong. His choice to not value human life, etc. is morally indistinguishable from your choice to value human life, etc., absent a legitimate hierarchy of Morality. Both ideas are equal, just different.

There is no atheistic “morality” because “morality” implies a rule that transcends situation and individual preferences, not merely a suggestion.

This, of course, is tangled up in the irony that you purport to believe in “civil rights”. As a moral relativist, you can’t - those rights don’t exist. You merely have an opinion equal to an opinion that completely disagrees with your view of “civil rights”.

175

Ok, I’ll speak to both.

[quote]forlife wrote:
I think it could go either way.

An atheist might believe in moral laws, like karma, which are universal just like gravity is universal. You can’t physically observe these properties of the universe, but you can view their effects and thereby infer their presence.[/quote]

This should flat out destroy any smugness about “fairy tales.” Faith is (purposefully ignoring the gravity comparison) all this is. I’m not going to beat you up over faith.

Ahhhh! But then he doesn’t have morality. He has a sort of moral emotion about some act, thought, or circumstance. Those are his feeling, his opinions. And, they can change! However, the moral relativist, aware of his outlook, KNOWS his feeling are baseless. Intellectually, he knows morality doesn’t actually exist. He would have to agree with me.

But, if he would continue to argue that his morality is real, if only for him, because he can FEEL morality…Then he’s stuck with a whoooole bunch of religious folk that would flat out tell him they FEEL the prescence of God. So their, the religious, God is no less false than the morality of the relativist. And the morality of the relativist no more real than their God.

176

I have a scenario that I would like folks to answer honestly.

If two men were standing on a planet, that no one else inhabited. Both were grizzly warriors, scared and broken from several wars. And, one was to kill the other, and no one was there to deliver civil punishment. Is it still wrong that he killed the other man?

177

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

“Or maybe he doesn’t”?

What is that supposed to mean? [/quote]

It means that if an atheist chooses not to value human life and well being, etc., you have no authority to tell him is wrong. His choice to not value human life, etc. is morally indistinguishable from your choice to value human life, etc., absent a legitimate hierarchy of Morality. Both ideas are equal, just different.

There is no atheistic “morality” because “morality” implies a rule that transcends situation and individual preferences, not merely a suggestion.

This, of course, is tangled up in the irony that you purport to believe in “civil rights”. As a moral relativist, you can’t - those rights don’t exist. You merely have an opinion equal to an opinion that completely disagrees with your view of “civil rights”.[/quote]

Exactly.

Forlife, you’re throwing out scenarios as if we should just accept the moral goodness of them. As if moral goodness even exists . That’s fine to me. No, it really, really is. See, if you want to take a leap of faith and set your feet firmly to the ground, stick your chest out, lift up your chin, looking me straight in the eye and declare the existence of universal moral right and wrong, good and evil…heck man, I can respect that.

I don’t know if you’re reluctant to admit it for what it is (faith), because you think I’d ridicule you…I mean, I live by a faith! If you respond that, ok, you believe in the existence of universal moral laws–I’m not in any way, shape, or form, interested in attacking such a statement. I wouldn’t have an issue with you being capable of holding a faith in something for which you’re incapable of simply plopping down in front of me. “Yeah, remember what I said about self-sacrifice? Written right there. Told ya!” Or, “here’s the formula for right living that panel of mathematicians and physicists published.”

So please, if you’re not outright willing to claim this faith (though your language betrays it, just being honest), because I might be a jackass…that’s not going to happen. Again, I can relate to faith in something.

Now, if you’re unwilling to out right state such a thing–though your assumptions and words scream out a fervent belief in universal moral laws–because you’ve guessed at what I’ve kept in waiting…I’d understand. However, in case you haven’t, I don’t want to play my hand yet. I’ll wait on a response. After all, it would be wasted on a moral relativist.

178

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

“Or maybe he doesn’t”?

What is that supposed to mean? [/quote]

It means that if an atheist chooses not to value human life and well being, etc., you have no authority to tell him is wrong. His choice to not value human life, etc. is morally indistinguishable from your choice to value human life, etc., absent a legitimate hierarchy of Morality. Both ideas are equal, just different.

There is no atheistic “morality” because “morality” implies a rule that transcends situation and individual preferences, not merely a suggestion.

This, of course, is tangled up in the irony that you purport to believe in “civil rights”. As a moral relativist, you can’t - those rights don’t exist. You merely have an opinion equal to an opinion that completely disagrees with your view of “civil rights”.[/quote]

I think you’re confusing universal accountability with universal morality. You don’t need to believe that someone who fails to live according to your morals will ultimately, unavoidably be punished for his sins (universal accountability), in order to believe that your morals are so critical to human happiness and well being that people should follow them universally.

I believe love is universally important, not because I think a supernatural being will hold people accountable for loving one another, but because I believe love is in the best interest of humanity. The authority of my moral values comes not from a supernatural source, but from the conviction that it is important to help rather than hurt people in their pursuit of happiness. I am as committed to my moral values as you are to yours, but for different reasons.

179

[quote]forlife wrote:

I think you’re confusing universal accountability with universal morality. You don’t need to believe that someone who fails to live according to your morals will ultimately, unavoidably be punished for his sins (universal accountability), in order to believe that your morals are so critical to human happiness and well being that people should follow them universally.[/quote]

You’re sidestepping the point. You keep focusing on your belief. Fine. You believe in a universal morality that says certain things are bad and certain things are good. But a person, under your regime of non-morality, is free to reject that and come up with a different belief in a universal morality. And he is no more right or wrong than you in his belief.

And, most importantly, the existence of this “equality” of beliefs is a concession that there is no universal morality. “Universal” means it exists whether I choose to believe it in or not. If that belief is situational and subject to individual preference, it is definitionally not universal.

This is the part you can’t get past. And atheistic morality - a contradiction in terms - is an impossibility, because a moral, by its definition, exists independent of a person’ choice to believe in it (or not).

Good for you. You keep repeating the same thing - your morality derives from yoursel, your belief. It does not find its moorings in anything outside of your individual belief. Thus, if someone has a moral belief that is opposite of yours that derives from the same place - his individual preferences - you have no basis to tell him he is wrong. Yours and his are equal, just different.

The issue is not what an atheist is “capable of believing” - atheists can very well believe in peace, love, and harmony with their fellow man. But they can also believe in conquest, evil, torture and downright meanness as guiding lights of existence, and you have no basis to complain, because he is just as “right” as you are.

Moral relativism dines on itself. Moral relativism does not permit any accommodation for anything “universal”, because that stands in direct opposition to the entire concept of “relativism”.

180

Sloth, again I don’t think you need a belief in universal accountability per a supernatural law in order to have moral values that you believe everyone should follow.

Think about it. Let’s say Zeb is right that morality is hardwired into our brains. Why would you need to believe in the supernatural in order to perceive and operate according to that hardwired morality? You recognize that the wiring of some people may be different than your own wiring, either regarding the morals themselves or regarding compliance with those morals. But that doesn’t mean you can escape your own wiring.

I believe in love, period. I don’t know why I do. Maybe it’s my genetic makeup, maybe it’s social programming, or maybe (although I think it’s unlikely) it’s because some supernatural being makes me feel that way. I recognize that not everyone believes in love, and that even among those who do, many don’t demonstrate it in their lives. I don’t believe they will be held accountable by a divine being, but that doesn’t mean I can escape my own moral view or the conviction that it is important for others to follow it.

Does that make sense?