Ask a Christian Theologian

[hellthins]

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?

The semantics was just semantics. I see amoral often used to mean evil, such as a serial killer being 'amoral'.

The black death is being used as a metaphor for our understanding of morality. We can see and diagnose the problem, but we have difficulty determining what exactly makes this that or the other. It's also being used as a metaphor for just because people strongly believe in something doesn't make them right, just that they strongly believe in it.

 

[Milford Cubicle]

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.

I disagree. Why does everyone have to have the same moral guidlines based on God?! I believe the things I do because of how I was taught to behave by my parents. The standards that were instilled into me by them is why I behave as I do. It is not the fear of the "wrath of God". I simply don't see what God has to do with it.

 

[Baby Tea]

The black death is being used as a metaphor for our understanding of morality. We can see and diagnose the problem, but we have difficulty determining what exactly makes this that or the other. It's also being used as a metaphor for just because people strongly believe in something doesn't make them right, just that they strongly believe in it.

But that metaphor assumes that there is a problem to diagnose (That is: identifying morality). What I am saying is that within a non-theist worldview, there is no morality (save for the individual). It doesn't exist! There is no collective 'right' or 'wrong'.

Naturalism is not the dualistic opposite of Theism. There are many Atheist philosophies that include belief in metaphysical realities. All that Atheists have in common is disbelief in the Theistic *entity*, be it physical and/or metaphysical.

Naturalists/Christopher Hitchens/other assorted dimwits are merely a *subset* of Atheists. Other Atheists would say that *part* of the Universe is moral, the part made up of humans. They simply find the essential, metaphysical nature of humanity to be in something other than God. That they find a metaphysical, essential nature nowhere else in the Universe does not preclude that.

About the non-theist and naturalist part: Fair enough.
About humans being the 'moral part of the universe': Hardly. Morality assumes a moral framework with which to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. But a moral framework needs a creator for it to make any sense whatsoever. It cannot be done by humanity, since morality is so relative between individuals. Therefore, it only makes sense with God.

 

[hellthins]

The black death is being used as a metaphor for our understanding of morality. We can see and diagnose the problem, but we have difficulty determining what exactly makes this that or the other. It's also being used as a metaphor for just because people strongly believe in something doesn't make them right, just that they strongly believe in it.

But that metaphor assumes that there is a problem to diagnose (That is: identifying morality). What I am saying is that within a non-theist worldview, there is no morality (save for the individual). It doesn't exist! There is no collective 'right' or 'wrong'

And I'm saying that there is, and that morality is a method of guiding ourselves based on the impact our actions have and attempting to make that impact better for the collective, the community, the species, whatever you want to call it. Much like economics is attempting to guide non-materialistic thinking to have a better impact on self made market systems.

But your only complaint and argument against it is "Nuh-uh", at least from the way I see it.

 

[Baby Tea]

I disagree. I believe the things I do because of how I was taught to behave by my parents. The standards that were instilled into me by them is why I behave as I do. It is not the fear of the "wrath of God". I simply don't see what God has to do with it.

Ok, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you aren't a moral person or have morals. What I'm saying is: You have no reason for that morality. Outside of God, 'good' and 'evil' are relative, and therefore you cannot constrict them into a general moral framework.

 

[Milford Cubicle]

Ok, you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying you aren't a moral person or have morals. What I'm saying is: You have no reason for that morality. Outside of God, 'good' and 'evil' are relative, and therefore you cannot constrict them into a general moral framework.

No, I understand what you are saying. I just don't agree with it. Let us just leave it at that. We clearly aren't going to come to a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

 

[Baby Tea]

And I'm saying that there is, and that morality is a method of guiding ourselves based on the impact our actions have and attempting to make that impact better for all of species. Much like economics is attempting to guide non-materialistic thinking to have a better impact on self made market systems.

But your only complaint and argument against it is "Nuh-uh", at least from the way I see it.

You keep bringing up 'the species' which I find very odd, considering that, first of all, you've brought me no evidence that anyone (Besides you, apparently) actually thinks that way. And I can turn on my evening news and immediately tell that no one gives a rip about 'the species' as a whole. I especially had to chuckle at the economic analogy and how it's 'supposed' to guide us away from 'non-materialistic' thinking, when 'materialism' practically explains society completely.

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between 'good' and 'evil'. I am saying that since, from a non-theist standpoint, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is relative to every person, that means morality itself is relative. I'm not sure how you're factoring the 'impact of our actions' into this, since that has nothing to to with morality.

 

[Lord_Ascendant]

Do you think the version of Hell, Purgatory and Heaven thought up by Dante in the Divine Comedy is possible?

 

[hellthins]

And I'm saying that there is, and that morality is a method of guiding ourselves based on the impact our actions have and attempting to make that impact better for all of species. Much like economics is attempting to guide non-materialistic thinking to have a better impact on self made market systems.

But your only complaint and argument against it is "Nuh-uh", at least from the way I see it.

You keep bringing up 'the species' which I find very odd, considering that, first of all, you've brought me no evidence that anyone (Besides you, apparently) actually thinks that way. And I can turn on my evening news and immediately tell that no one gives a rip about 'the species' as a whole. I especially had to chuckle at the economic analogy and how it's 'supposed' to guide us away from 'non-materialistic' thinking, when 'materialism' practically explains society completely.

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between 'good' and 'evil'. I am saying that since, from a non-theist standpoint, what is 'good' and what is 'evil' is relative to every person, that means morality itself is relative. I'm not sure how you're factoring the 'impact of our actions' into this, since that has nothing to to with morality.

I'm using non-materialistic in the sense of thinking in abstract ideas instead of concrete things. I suppose abstract thinking would be more appropriate, but I'm tired.

Second, from a non-theistic standpoint nothing. You're trying to define a very very broad collection of people was one viewpoint. I'm non-theistic and I'm stating from my non-theistic viewpoint morality isn't relative, we just have different opinions on it. But people have different opinions on gravity, does that make gravity relative? No. It just means people have different opinions on what produces gravity. One of them may be right, they may all be wrong, but their opinion doesn't suddenly make gravity a changing relativistic thing.

As for species, natural selection is mostly where I'm coming from when I'm talking about "species as a whole". Since if you can't accept being good for the sake of being good, then you can probably accept being good for the sake of an internalized evolutionary mission of sorts, to work for the better of the species because that's how we survived as a species.

The impact of our actions is the only current measurement we have for morality, for determining what actions are good and evil. Just like we tell the breeze by the movement we feel when we lack the instruments to look at the individual atoms being moved by energy being transferred all over the place.

 

[Baby Tea]

Morality being relative between humans has not been establised. The *perception* of what is moral varies from individual to individual has been, but that no more proves that morality is relative than the story of the Three Blind Men and the Elephant proves that pachyderms are not entites with absolute existance.

And morality does not assume a 'framework'. What you are talking about is Divine Fiat, where 'don't eat pork' is no different from 'thou shalt not murder'--if god says it, it's the rules. That is not the only moral system one can have. One can have an emergent moral system that necessarily results from the essential nature of humans.

You just need to believe that the 'responsible for morality coming into existence' metaphysical entity(es) spring ex nihilo out of a perpetual physical creation as opposed to being entity(es) of perpetual existence themselves. It does not matter that morality sometimes does not exist as long as it exists at all times when beings capable of moral or immoral action exist.

Wait wait. If someone perceives something as immoral, and another person perceives that same thing as moral, we have a relative morality between two people. One says it's good, another says it's bad. Which is right?

And of COURSE morality assumes a framework. It's the framework in which to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. That is what defines morality! The ability to differentiate between the two. And who is to say what is immoral or moral anyways? I bet Stalin or Hitler didn't feel they were doing immoral acts. You and I certainly say they were terribly immoral, but not them. Who is right? As soon as you say 'we're right, they are wrong' you are subjecting them to YOUR moral framework, but on what authority? What grounds? They think they are right, you think they are wrong. Who is right?

 

[hellthins]

Morality being relative between humans has not been establised. The *perception* of what is moral varies from individual to individual has been, but that no more proves that morality is relative than the story of the Three Blind Men and the Elephant proves that pachyderms are not entites with absolute existance.

And morality does not assume a 'framework'. What you are talking about is Divine Fiat, where 'don't eat pork' is no different from 'thou shalt not murder'--if god says it, it's the rules. That is not the only moral system one can have. One can have an emergent moral system that necessarily results from the essential nature of humans.

You just need to believe that the 'responsible for morality coming into existence' metaphysical entity(es) spring ex nihilo out of a perpetual physical creation as opposed to being entity(es) of perpetual existence themselves. It does not matter that morality sometimes does not exist as long as it exists at all times when beings capable of moral or immoral action exist.

Wait wait. If someone perceives something as immoral, and another person perceives that same thing as moral, we have a relative morality between two people. One says it's good, another says it's bad. Which is right?

And of COURSE morality assumes a framework. It's the framework in which to say 'this is right' and 'this is wrong'. That is what defines morality! The ability to differentiate between the two. And who is to say what is immoral or moral anyways? I bet Stalin or Hitler didn't feel they were doing immoral acts. You and I certainly say they were terribly immoral, but not them. Who is right? As soon as you say 'we're right, they are wrong' you are subjecting them to YOUR moral framework, but on what authority? What grounds? They think they are right, you think they are wrong. Who is right?

On the grounds we didn't kill tons of people and thus cut off the potential growth that many people would have produced. And we'd be in our right to kill them because they have a greater potential to continue cutting off other's such potential than they do to contribute anything meaningful to society. Because they damage, they kill, and they destroy. Because that thinking and that method of dealing with things returns us to the natural order of things we have tried so hard to step out of. Because we have survived by promoting growth, by ingenuity, by working together, and it is when we turn on each other in such violent means that we tear down our society and that which separates us from the all or nothing rough and brutal life of nature.

Because we have, time and time again, seen the impact of murder on a mass scale and see it only causes societies and humanity as a whole harm.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'm non-theistic and I'm stating from my non-theistic viewpoint morality isn't relative, we just have different opinions on it. But people have different opinions on gravity, does that make gravity relative? No. It just means people have different opinions on what produces gravity. One of them may be right, they may all be wrong, but their opinion doesn't suddenly make gravity a changing relativistic thing.

Oh, you mean it's relative to each person?
And the problem with your gravity analogy is that you're trying to compare something that can be scientifically measured with a philosophical concept. Doesn't quite work that way.

 

[hellthins]

I'm non-theistic and I'm stating from my non-theistic viewpoint morality isn't relative, we just have different opinions on it. But people have different opinions on gravity, does that make gravity relative? No. It just means people have different opinions on what produces gravity. One of them may be right, they may all be wrong, but their opinion doesn't suddenly make gravity a changing relativistic thing.

Oh, you mean it's relative to each person?
And the problem with your gravity analogy is that you're trying to compare something that can be scientifically measured with a philosophical concept. Doesn't quite work that way.

No, I mean we each view it differently but that doesn't mean it's suddenly changing just because we each view it differently.

And you're right, we have difficulty measuring morality itself but we can measure and quantify the impact of events and classify them 'good' or 'bad' based on what they did. Much like economists can measure the impact of economic theories as 'good' or 'bad' based on how they fared in the real world. However, the impact of economic theories are more easily measured than the impact of morality, yes, because economics can mostly be quantified into money and morality is mostly measured in quality of life.

 

[Baby Tea]

On the grounds we didn't kill tons of people and thus cut off the potential growth that many people would have produced. And we'd be in our right to kill them because they have a greater potential to continue cutting off other's such potential than they do to contribute anything meaningful to society. Because they damage, they kill, and they destroy. Because that thinking and that method of dealing with things returns us to the natural order of things we have tried so hard to step out of. Because we have survived by promoting growth, by ingenuity, by working together, and it is when we turn on each other in such violent means that we tear down our society and that which separates us from the all or nothing rough and brutal life of nature.

Because we have, time and time again, seen the impact of murder on a mass scale and see it only causes societies and humanity as a whole harm.

Well Hitler imparticular was fighting your fight, man! He was trying to 'weed out' those who were 'inferior'. He was shouting 'for the race' as much as you have been today. They wanted to unify, right? That was their goal. Besides, Hitler's experiments advanced medical research by leaps and bounds!

I of course don't agree with Hitler or Stalin. I'm pointing out that 'right' and 'wrong' are different for everyone, and that even 'good' (In a terrible sense) came out of their 'evil'. You said they were wrong because they killed so many, and yet WE had to kill so many to stop them. Was their killing wrong and ours ok? I bet the families of the German soldiers mourned no less then the those of the allied.

This 'for the species' argument is stale. If you believe it, would you agree with killing/deporting disabled people? How about the homeless? Those on social assistance? Those in prison?

 

[hellthins]

On the grounds we didn't kill tons of people and thus cut off the potential growth that many people would have produced. And we'd be in our right to kill them because they have a greater potential to continue cutting off other's such potential than they do to contribute anything meaningful to society. Because they damage, they kill, and they destroy. Because that thinking and that method of dealing with things returns us to the natural order of things we have tried so hard to step out of. Because we have survived by promoting growth, by ingenuity, by working together, and it is when we turn on each other in such violent means that we tear down our society and that which separates us from the all or nothing rough and brutal life of nature.

Because we have, time and time again, seen the impact of murder on a mass scale and see it only causes societies and humanity as a whole harm.

Well Hitler imparticular was fighting your fight, man! He was trying to 'weed out' those who were 'inferior'. He was shouting 'for the race' as much as you have been today. They wanted to unify, right? That was their goal. Besides, Hitler's experiments advanced medical research by leaps and bounds!

I of course don't agree with Hitler or Stalin. I'm pointing out that 'right' and 'wrong' are different for everyone, and that even 'good' (In a terrible sense) came out of their 'evil'. You said they were wrong because they killed so many, and yet WE had to kill so many to stop them. Was their killing wrong and ours ok? I bet the families of the German soldiers mourned no less then the those of the allied.

This 'for the species' argument is stale. If you believe it, would you agree with killing/deporting disabled people? How about the homeless? Those on social assistance? Those in prison?

Yes yes, I get it, you think I'm a nazi.

And I'm not saying killing innocent people is all right, but killing to save the innocent, even when you have to kill the unwilling, is just the unsavory truth if that's what has to be done if it means saving the lives of countless more innocent people.

As for those on homeless, blah blah blah, like I said last time, we kill them and we cut off a path of ingenuity. We can't predict the future, and unless we have a good reason to believe they will cause us damage (Serial killers, mass murderers, etc.) we have no reason to kill them. Contain them if there's a threat for violence but nothing immediate, but not kill them.

Diversity is good for the species because it produces interesting thoughts, explores avenues one mindset alone wouldn't have gone into, and produces beautiful and amazing works that those of us of one type of viewpoint wouldn't have had. We can appreciate and to some extent measure the impact of diversity and it is generally good.

Also, by the way, Hitler was doing it for the Christian God. He thought the Jews, the gays, and the gypsies were all basically against god and referred to the holocaust as his crusade in defense of Christianity. He definitely did some of it out of 'living space' (The Russians) but the holocaust as a whole was religiously motivated.

 

[Baby Tea]

Yes yes, I get it, you think I'm a nazi.

I laughed out loud at this. I hope you don't really think I think that, because I certainly don't.

I can see we aren't going anywhere in this debate, as rousing as it was. I don't think you're some evil person, I certainly don't think you're a nazi, and I don't think you're stupid. It was a good discussion, but we really are at an impass with both of us saying the same basic thing. I respect that you disagree (And I hope the same is in return), and now I have to finish my work at work because I'm already late getting out of here.

 

[hellthins]

Yes yes, I get it, you think I'm a nazi.

I laughed out loud at this. I hope you don't really think I think that, because I certainly don't.

I can see we aren't going anywhere in this debate, as rousing as it was. I don't think you're some evil person, I certainly don't think you're a nazi, and I don't think you're stupid. It was a good discussion, but we really are at an impass with both of us saying the same basic thing. I respect that you disagree (And I hope the same is in return), and now I have to finish my work at work because I'm already late getting out of here.

Well, good to know I can put my swastika arm band back on since my cover has been restored. Now if only I could find where ze allied are hiding now.

Hope you finish your work fast and get yer ass back to what we should all be doing, playing video games and tea bagging each other.