Ask a Christian Theologian

[hellthins]

Dean! I found your response!

ok listen. Good and evil are what we decide they are.
But we have decided that certian things are god and bad. Society as a whole is unimportant, it is all about the individual and choice. However, i'm saying i wouldn't exploit people because i don't think it's very nice.
Good and bad aren't real, they are perception, but what i'm saying is people shouldn't do things that they wouldn't want others to do to them.

Ok, this is a slight rephrasing of your last sentence but with the same meaning:

"There is no such thing as good or bad, but people shouldn't do certain things because it's bad."

Does that not strike you as totally contradictory? I'm not saying you don't have a moral framework, Dean. I'm just saying that you have no basis for it, and you've only proven thus by only responding with 'just because'.

It makes sense to me!
I'm not saying it is "bad" to do certian things, because no one really has the right to decide what is good and bad. I'm just saying it isn't nice to do things that hurt others. And i think we shouldn't do that. Not because it's bad, but because it's fair.

Ah, but fairness is basically what is right and wrong, good and bad. And you want a grounding for morality in a non-biased, non-religious manner? Good and bad is what helps or hurts the species. We are a social species, good and bad comes from that pretty easily. We rely on each other because compared to everything else that's all we have. Ingenuity and massive social organization. Good is what helps the species, kindness, charity, invention, medicine, things that build us up. Bad is what hurts the species, murder, rape, theft, discouraging of invention, so on and so on.

At least, from the view point of an atheist that doesn't buy into all that moral relativity stuff.

Sorry for jacking the topic a little.

 

[Baby Tea]

ok,it's simple in my messed=up mind. Here goes:
It means nothing to me, but it DOES mean something to some people.I'm saying the kid shouldn't be baptised for a silly reaosn, he should be able to make choices aobut religion for himself.

I agree that a child shouldn't be baptized for a silly reason (Like thinking it'll get him or her into heaven or something). And I also agree that the child should be able to choose for him or herself what worldview they'd like to follow (even if I would consider an opposing worldview 'wrong' or 'incorrect').

But when I, Lord willing, have a son or daughter, I will baptize them because it will be my dedication to raising my child in the Christian faith. When they are older, they may choose to leave it behind them, and that is their choice to make (I wouldn't love them any less). I certainly don't consider that a 'silly reason'.

Now in the case we're both talking about (That is, the guy who mentioned it earlier): I agree that it does seem like a silly reason for a child to be baptized. Baptisms done 'just in case' are meaningless.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ah, but fairness is basically what is right and wrong, good and bad. And you want a grounding for morality in a non-biased, non-religious manner? Good and bad is what helps or hurts the species. We are a social species, good and bad comes from that pretty easily. We rely on each other because compared to everything else that's all we have. Ingenuity and massive social organization. Good is what helps the species, kindness, charity, invention, medicine, things that build us up. Bad is what hurts the species, murder, rape, theft, discouraging of invention, so on and so on.

At least, from the view point of an atheist that doesn't buy into all that moral relativity stuff.

Sorry for jacking the topic a little.

But is all murder bad? All theft? Is all invention good?

You say morality isn't relative, but from a non-theist stand point you haven't a leg to stand on!
Let's run with this idea about 'good and bad' for the species.
Who decides what's good or bad for the species?
What if something is good for one group of people, but bad for another? Who chooses the course of action?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the propagation, and the excelling of, the species is always a good thing. Does that sound ok? Therefore, was Hitler right when he started killing off those with disabilities? They aren't helping the species at all. They use up resources. So? Was Hitler right or wrong?

Most sane people would say, of course, that Hitler was WRONG. BUT, when you look at it from the perspective of 'the good of the species', you echo the very propaganda that Hitler used to justify these terrible acts.

Besides, how can you not think morality is relative? Some cultures love their neighbors, while others eat them. Which are you? Some people feel it's perfectly OK to steal, rob, even murder on occasion!
Can you tell the man trying to kill the drunk driver who killed his family that he's wrong?
How about the man trying to kill the man breaking into his home?
How about the man trying to kill his boss for firing him because of 'downsizing'?

These people feel justifies in their acts! Who are you to say they are wrong? And if you think these are 'extreme' cases, go take a tour of the overcrowded prison system. Start asking how many people felt justified in what they did.

Look at the threads right on this forum that talk about how downloading software and movies and music illegally isn't stealing. They are getting something they are supposed to pay for for free, and they feel totally justified not paying.

When you stand in the worldview of the non-theist, there is no place for a morally relative framework, there is only room for the individual.

 

[Baby Tea]

"There is no such thing as good or bad, but people shouldn't do certain things because it's bad."

Does that not strike you as totally contradictory? I'm not saying you don't have a moral framework, Dean. I'm just saying that you have no basis for it, and you've only proven thus by only responding with 'just because'.

It makes sense to me!
I'm not saying it is "bad" to do certian things, because no one really has the right to decide what is good and bad. I'm just saying it isn't nice to do things that hurt others. And i think we shouldn't do that. Not because it's bad, but because it's fair.

'Fair' and 'Unfair' is synonymous with 'Good' and 'Bad'. The two are one and the same. You cannot break them apart.

So no, it doesn't make sense. Unless you care to tell me how 'fair' and 'unfair' are different then 'good' or 'bad'?

 

[hellthins]

Ah, but fairness is basically what is right and wrong, good and bad. And you want a grounding for morality in a non-biased, non-religious manner? Good and bad is what helps or hurts the species. We are a social species, good and bad comes from that pretty easily. We rely on each other because compared to everything else that's all we have. Ingenuity and massive social organization. Good is what helps the species, kindness, charity, invention, medicine, things that build us up. Bad is what hurts the species, murder, rape, theft, discouraging of invention, so on and so on.

At least, from the view point of an atheist that doesn't buy into all that moral relativity stuff.

Sorry for jacking the topic a little.

But is all murder bad? All theft? Is all invention good?

You say morality isn't relative, but from a non-theist stand point you haven't a leg to stand on!
Let's run with this idea about 'good and bad' for the species.
Who decides what's good or bad for the species?
What if something is good for one group of people, but bad for another? Who chooses the course of action?

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the propagation, and the excelling of, the species is always a good thing. Does that sound ok? Therefore, was Hitler right when he started killing off those with disabilities? They aren't helping the species at all. They use up resources. So? Was Hitler right or wrong?

Most sane people would say, of course, that Hitler was WRONG. BUT, when you look at it from the perspective of 'the good of the species', you echo the very propaganda that Hitler used to justify these terrible acts.

Besides, how can you not think morality is relative? Some cultures love their neighbors, while others eat them. Which are you? Some people feel it's perfectly OK to steal, rob, even murder on occasion!
Can you tell the man trying to kill the drunk driver who killed his family that he's wrong?
How about the man trying to kill the man breaking into his home?
How about the man trying to kill his boss for firing him because of 'downsizing'?

These people feel justifies in their acts! Who are you to say they are wrong? And if you think these are 'extreme' cases, go take a tour of the overcrowded prison system. Start asking how many people felt justified in what they did.

Look at the threads right on this forum that talk about how downloading software and movies and music illegally isn't stealing. They are getting something they are supposed to pay for for free, and they feel totally justified not paying.

When you stand in the worldview of the non-theist, there is no place for a morally relative framework, there is only room for the individual.

No, there is not 'only room for the individual', and of course people are going to feel justified. Feeling justified doesn't make you justified. Not when we can measure the loss. What happens when you kill some one? Short of cases of self defense, what we have is a loss of a human life. A human life is a loss of ingenuity, potential, and labor. And please don't pull out Godwin's law. Just because some one thinks they're right doesn't make them right. Passion and emotion are not proof and they are not justifications, they are reasons.

Again, when it comes to killing, I said murder. The killing of the innocent when unprovoked. Now then, would killing some one who killed some one else when they are not a threat be bad? Yes. Would it be as bad as, say, killing some one innocent? No. They've killed already, and what potential they have is degraded by showing the same potential to kill again. But it's still wrong because you're cutting off a potential avenue for human growth. Unless there is significant risk they will cause harm again, killing them is wrong. One could also apply this abortion, I suppose, but abortion comes down to conditions for the child usually. Or hopefully, anyways. But this is a case of at what point are we ending a growing mass of cells and at what point are we snuffing a human life, with all the potential that brings?

As for who decides what's good and bad, you're right. No one can perfectly decide but the most unbiased are usually the best people to go to. And we get muddled up in those discussions, and in the end all we have to answer our questions is history. Was X good for the species over time, was Y bad for the species over time? We're trying to observe morality and help each other with flawed perception, but just because we have difficulty perceiving something doesn't mean its effects are suddenly completely negligible or redefinable. We are a bunch of people struggling to find what is best for the species, and we certainly are passionate about what we think is right.

 

[Baby Tea]

No, there is not 'only room for the individual', and of course people are going to feel justified. Feeling justified doesn't make you justified. Not when we can measure the loss. What happens when you kill some one? Short of cases of self defense, what we have is a loss of a human life. A human life is a loss of ingenuity, potential, and labor. And please don't pull out Godwin's law. Just because some one thinks they're right doesn't make them right. Passion and emotion are not proof and they are not justifications, they are reasons.

Again, when it comes to killing, I said murder. The killing of the innocent when unprovoked. Now then, would killing some one who killed some one else when they are not a threat be bad? Yes. Would it be as bad as, say, killing some one innocent? No. They've killed already, and what potential they have is degraded by showing the same potential to kill again. But it's still wrong because you're cutting off a potential avenue for human growth. Unless there is significant risk they will cause harm again, killing them is wrong. One could also apply this abortion, I suppose, but abortion comes down to conditions for the child usually. Or hopefully, anyways. But this is a case of at what point are we ending a growing mass of cells and at what point are we snuffing a human life, with all the potential that brings?

As for who decides what's good and bad, you're right. No one can perfectly decide but the most unbiased are usually the best people to go to. And we get muddled up in those discussions, and in the end all we have to answer our questions is history. Was X good for the species over time, was Y bad for the species over time? We're trying to observe morality and help each other with flawed perception, but just because we have difficulty perceiving something doesn't mean its effects are suddenly completely negligible or redefinable. We are a bunch of people struggling to find what is best for the species, and we certainly are passionate about what we think is right.

Please. Basing morality on 'what's best for the species'? We should get a poll running on how many people think about the 'species' as a whole from day to day.

If people did, then by that logic:
- Poverty should either be gone (Since we should all be helping the rest of the species to make sure we have labor and ingenuity for future generations), or we shouldn't help them at all as it would be a waste of labor and ingenuity to try and 'bring them up'.
- We should be killing people with disabilities, since they offer nothing to the species except more people with disabilities (You never answered that question form before, either).
- AIDS and Cancer research should be getting a crazy amount of funds to help get a cure, plus medicine in general should be free since everyone should be healthy for the species to grow stronger.

What happens when the 'best thing for the species' involved killing an innocent person? or 10? or 10000? who makes THAT choice? What if it was you who had to die? Or your family? Would you be singing the 'for the species' song then? Yeah, chances are: No.

And why do so many people have such different views on morality, if it's so relative? Not just from culture to culture, but from person to person! And if people aren't justified when they feel justified, who tells them when they ARE justified? Why do THEY get to choose? You claim human life has value. Who decides that value? HERE is a slippery slope!
When is one person worth more then another?
Does education make one more valuable?
How about income?
How about race?

The last question might seem like a stretch, but there are plenty of people who still think this way! And you claim morality isn't relative? You haven't even shown me in any way that it is!

 

[hellthins]

No, there is not 'only room for the individual', and of course people are going to feel justified. Feeling justified doesn't make you justified. Not when we can measure the loss. What happens when you kill some one? Short of cases of self defense, what we have is a loss of a human life. A human life is a loss of ingenuity, potential, and labor. And please don't pull out Godwin's law. Just because some one thinks they're right doesn't make them right. Passion and emotion are not proof and they are not justifications, they are reasons.

Again, when it comes to killing, I said murder. The killing of the innocent when unprovoked. Now then, would killing some one who killed some one else when they are not a threat be bad? Yes. Would it be as bad as, say, killing some one innocent? No. They've killed already, and what potential they have is degraded by showing the same potential to kill again. But it's still wrong because you're cutting off a potential avenue for human growth. Unless there is significant risk they will cause harm again, killing them is wrong. One could also apply this abortion, I suppose, but abortion comes down to conditions for the child usually. Or hopefully, anyways. But this is a case of at what point are we ending a growing mass of cells and at what point are we snuffing a human life, with all the potential that brings?

As for who decides what's good and bad, you're right. No one can perfectly decide but the most unbiased are usually the best people to go to. And we get muddled up in those discussions, and in the end all we have to answer our questions is history. Was X good for the species over time, was Y bad for the species over time? We're trying to observe morality and help each other with flawed perception, but just because we have difficulty perceiving something doesn't mean its effects are suddenly completely negligible or redefinable. We are a bunch of people struggling to find what is best for the species, and we certainly are passionate about what we think is right.

Please. Basing morality on 'what's best for the species'? We should get a poll running on how many people think about the 'species' as a whole from day to day.

If people did, then by that logic:
- Poverty should either be gone (Since we should all be helping the rest of the species to make sure we have labor and ingenuity for future generations), or we shouldn't help them at all as it would be a waste of labor and ingenuity to try and 'bring them up'.
- We should be killing people with disabilities, since they offer nothing to the species except more people with disabilities (You never answered that question form before, either).
- AIDS and Cancer research should be getting a crazy amount of funds to help get a cure, plus medicine in general should be free since everyone should be healthy for the species to grow stronger.

What happens when the 'best thing for the species' involved killing an innocent person? or 10? or 10000? who makes THAT choice? What if it was you who had to die? Or your family? Would you be singing the 'for the species' song then? Yeah, chances are: No.

And why do so many people have such different views on morality, if it's so relative? Not just from culture to culture, but from person to person! And if people aren't justified when they feel justified, who tells them when they ARE justified? Why do THEY get to choose? You claim human life has value. Who decides that value? HERE is a slippery slope!
When is one person worth more then another?
Does education make one more valuable?
How about income?
How about race?

The last question might seem like a stretch, but there are plenty of people who still think this way! And you claim morality isn't relative? You haven't even shown me in any way that it is!

Nor have you shown me in any way that it is relative, other than that people think it's relative and saying I don't have all the answers for every specific situation.

Clearly you're either very deeply involved in moral relativity or you're trying to make some sort of theistic point, I'm not sure which, I but I get the impression this debate is going no where fast.

 

[Baby Tea]

Nor have you shown me in any way that it is relative, other than that people think it's relative and saying I don't have all the answers for every specific situation.

Clearly you're either very deeply involved in moral relativity or you're trying to make some sort of theistic point, I'm not sure which, I but I get the impression this debate is going no where fast.

What I've shown is that, in a non-theist worldview, morality IS relative! It changes from person to person. That's 'relative'. I bring up these situations because it just goes to show that there would be a pile of different answers from different people, which shouldn't be the case if morality is not relative. But it is! Hence the different answers!

If I had a theist point, which I sort of do, it would be that only with God can you have a true moral framework. Otherwise you are merely trying to fit a moral framework into an amoral universe where it doesn't fit. Especially in today's post modern 'you for you and me for me' belief mentality.

 

[hellthins]

Nor have you shown me in any way that it is relative, other than that people think it's relative and saying I don't have all the answers for every specific situation.

Clearly you're either very deeply involved in moral relativity or you're trying to make some sort of theistic point, I'm not sure which, I but I get the impression this debate is going no where fast.

What I've shown is that, in a non-theist worldview, morality IS relative! It changes from person to person. That's 'relative'. I bring up these situations because it just goes to show that there would be a pile of different answers from different people, which shouldn't be the case if morality is not relative. But it is! Hence the different answers!

If I had a theist point, which I sort of do, it would be that only with God can you have a true moral framework. Otherwise you are merely trying to fit a moral framework into an amoral universe where it doesn't fit. Especially in today's post modern 'you for you and me for me' belief mentality.

You have made only claims that people feel justified in what they do. You have made no claims about the validity of this justification, or what even makes such feelings valid in the first place.

And while people view morality differently, I argue that events have objective impacts. They have measurements, even if we have difficulty measuring them. And I know I said I'd stop, but there really is nothing to do.

 

[Milford Cubicle]

If I had a theist point, which I sort of do, it would be that only with God can you have a true moral framework. Otherwise you are merely trying to fit a moral framework into an amoral universe where it doesn't fit. Especially in today's post modern 'you for you and me for me' belief mentality.

I'm not really understanding you. Can you explain your belief in an atheist's morals (or lack of) to me a bit more?

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Scientists still have struggled over THE MISSING LINK, and the so called GREAT LEAP FORWARD. Why? CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE!!

Science has proven that Great Leap Forward exists, heck there is more evidence of Mao existing than Jesus.

You mean how there's more evidence of Jesus living than Shakespeare?

Okay obviously you failed to understand my post and what it had to do with evolution so I guess I gotta do it the old good way.. With pictures!



Here is your regular unevolved farmer. Obviously he is discontent to his life as can be seen from his expression but fortunately for him there are higher forces in the world trying to change his life completely.



Introduce a little influence from Mao Zedong (theistic folk can replace him with God) and the evolutionary process shall begin.

Irrefutable proof about existance of the missing link [link:] that scientist are supposedly struggling with



An artistic view about Great Leap Forward producing modern civilized people out of unevolved farmers. You can read more about GLP from Encyclopedia Galatica [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward]



There you have it! A farmer evolved into a happy communist through influence by divine being causing evolution to happen. It doesn't get any simple than this folks... Any futher questions? No? Good

Your analogy is flawed first of all because Communism is by definition and Atheistic belief just ask Karl Marx. Also, how is the government Controlling every aspect of life progression?

 

[Baby Tea]

You have made only claims that people feel justified in what they do. You have made no claims about the validity of this justification, or what even makes such feelings valid in the first place.

And while people view morality differently, I argue that events have objective impacts. They have measurements, even if we have difficulty measuring them. And I know I said I'd stop, but there really is nothing to do.

If morality is not relative, as you say, then it must be collective. BUT, since morality changes from person to person, then it is NOT collective and therefore relative to each individual.

And if events have measured impacts then who measures it and by what authority?

I'm not really understanding you. Can you explain your belief in an atheist's morals (or lack of) to me a bit more?

I'm not saying a non-theist can't be moral. What I'm saying is that there is no basis for morality within the non-theist worldview. Meaning there is no reasoning behind morality and being such. As Dawkins himself put it: There is no right or wrong, we're all just dancing to our DNA.

I, as a theist (Christian, in this case), have a basis for morality, which is God.

 

[hellthins]

You have made only claims that people feel justified in what they do. You have made no claims about the validity of this justification, or what even makes such feelings valid in the first place.

And while people view morality differently, I argue that events have objective impacts. They have measurements, even if we have difficulty measuring them. And I know I said I'd stop, but there really is nothing to do.

If morality is not relative, as you say, then it must be collective. BUT, since morality changes from person to person, then it is NOT collective and therefore relative to each individual.

And if events have measured impacts then who measures it and by what authority?

Ahh, but one could just as easily argue that our PERCEPTION of morality changes from person to person. You've said it yourself, they're acting on feeling justified, but not acting on any real proof of being justified.

As for who measures it, the most unbiased person. Which is a problem, since everyone is biased. But just because we're working with flawed tools neither means that there is some one with better tools nor that we aren't on to something.

 

[Milford Cubicle]

I, as a theist (Christian, in this case), have a basis for morality, which is God.

I'm still not sure I follow. I've never really analysed what the basis for my morals is, but I am sure I don't do something or not do something because of something a dead Jewish cabinet maker said 2000 years ago.

For example, I wouldn't sleep with a prostitute. Not because God says it's wrong, but because I say it is wrong! I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up about things.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ahh, but one could just as easily argue that our PERCEPTION of morality changes from person to person. You've said it yourself, they're acting on feeling justified, but not acting on any real proof of being justified.

As for who measures it, the most unbiased person. Which is a problem, since everyone is biased. But just because we're working with flawed tools neither means that there is some one with better tools nor that we aren't on to something.

Well you still arrive at the same problem. If EVERYONE has a different perception of morality, which is right? And what I said was they felt justified in their actions, and neither you nor anyone else could tell them they weren't.

Besides, you're arguing 'right' and 'wrong' when they don't exist outside the individual in a non-theist worldview. According to the naturalist, the universe is amoral. Which means right and wrong and fair and unfair, to the naturalist, exist only to the individual.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'm still not sure I follow. I've never really analysed what the basis for my morals is, but I am sure I don't do something or not do something because of something a dead Jewish cabinet maker said 2000 years ago.

For example, I wouldn't sleep with a prostitute. Not because God says it's wrong, but because I say it is wrong! I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up about things.

Like I said: a non-theist can be moral. They just have no BASIS for that morality. You have no legitimate answer to the question 'why?' when you say something is bad.

 

[hellthins]

Ahh, but one could just as easily argue that our PERCEPTION of morality changes from person to person. You've said it yourself, they're acting on feeling justified, but not acting on any real proof of being justified.

As for who measures it, the most unbiased person. Which is a problem, since everyone is biased. But just because we're working with flawed tools neither means that there is some one with better tools nor that we aren't on to something.

Well you still arrive at the same problem. If EVERYONE has a different perception of morality, which is right? And what I said was they felt justified in their actions, and neither you nor anyone else could tell them they weren't.

Besides, you're arguing 'right' and 'wrong' when they don't exist outside the individual in a non-theist worldview. According to the naturalist, the universe is amoral. Which means right and wrong and fair and unfair, to the naturalist, exist only to the individual.

No, according to your STRAWMAN of a non-theist there is no morality. As for an amoral universe, the universe isn't alive. It's not even amoral, it's nothing-moral. The absence of morals in the sense that it can't even have morality because it isn't a feeling thinking thing. But outside of semantics, that doesn't mean I don't think that suddenly actions only have relative impacts.

However, you're right, we do have difficulty determining right and wrong in some cases. But doctors in the past thought the black death was caused by sin and other nastiness. Does that suddenly make the black death relative to each person's sin because they felt justified in determining it that way and just because they were right that there was indeed a black death?

 

[Milford Cubicle]

I'm still not sure I follow. I've never really analysed what the basis for my morals is, but I am sure I don't do something or not do something because of something a dead Jewish cabinet maker said 2000 years ago.

For example, I wouldn't sleep with a prostitute. Not because God says it's wrong, but because I say it is wrong! I'm big enough and ugly enough to make my own mind up about things.

Like I said: a non-theist can be moral. They just have no BASIS for that morality. You have no legitimate answer to the question 'why?' when you say something is bad.

So your answer of "God says so" IS a legitimate answer?!

 

[Baby Tea]

No, according to your STRAWMAN of a non-theist there is no morality. As for an amoral universe, the universe isn't alive. It's not even amoral, it's nothing-moral. The absence of morals in the sense that it can't even have morality because it isn't a feeling thinking thing. But outside of semantics, that doesn't mean I don't think that suddenly actions only have relative impacts.

However, you're right, we do have difficulty determining right and wrong in some cases. But doctors in the past thought the black death was caused by sin and other nastiness. Does that suddenly make the black death relative to each person's sin because they felt justified in determining it that way and just because they were right that there was indeed a black death?

What are you even talking about?
First off, amoral means neither moral or immoral. Just there. I didn't even know we were arguing semantics in the first place. And I'm not saying actions can't impact more then one person (Which it seems you think I am saying), but that has nothing to do with morality which is the 'knowledge' of what is right or wrong.

Which therefore bring me to your perplexing counter-point example which makes little sense. You're talking about justification and the black death being relative to each individual's sin (Which makes no sense) for some reason. Could you reword that point?

 

[Baby Tea]

So your answer of "God says so" IS a legitimate answer?!

What I'm saying is that a moral framework only makes sense when God is present. Without God, morality does not exist, save to the individual (Which isn't morality at all). So yes, it is a legitimate answer.