Ask a Christian Theologian

[hellthins]

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.

The issue is much more complex than that. Remember, a big influence on Hitler were the corrupted works of Nietzsche, and to Nietzsche, Christianity was the perfect example of a Slave Morality that people should reject.

Well, obviously it's more complex than that. And I'm not saying eugenics didn't do some very horrible things, nor am I saying that Hitler is the prime example of Christianity, I just get annoyed when people constantly harp on Hitler clearly being all about the eugenics when that really didn't seem to be his big motivation. Well, him and Stalin get harped on a lot as the 'result of evolution' and eugenics when Stalin did what he did for political power and Hitler was so many levels of crazy and evil that he was like some sort of onion. A nazi onion.

Eugenics did do some horrible, horrible things and I'm not going to say they weren't inspired by the theory of evolution. They were, though they took it way in the wrong direction, they were.

 

[hellthins]

Well, obviously it's more complex than that. And I'm not saying eugenics didn't do some very horrible things, nor am I saying that Hitler is the prime example of Christianity, I just get annoyed when people constantly harp on Hitler clearly being all about the eugenics when that really didn't seem to be his big motivation.

People harp on Hitler not so much because of the eugenics, but for the total disregard of individual human rights. Human life was only valuable insofar as it was valuable to the 'species' and there was no room in his world for the concept of individuality. When you have no room for individual rights, eugenics is only a logical extension of that kind of Fascist nationalism.

I'm not talking about people in general, I'm talking about people that often times say atheists are immoral, amoral, or that evolution is one of those two and say that Hitler did what he did because of evolution or eugenics and therefor that's where all of it's going. They'll point to eugenics, when eugenics was such a small part of the reason he did what he did and mostly came after his incredible hatred for Jews. He's more an extension of the persecution of Jewish people than he is the inventor of it, though some people seem to want to credit him with that one.

I'd say Stalin is a greater argument against Fascism though, since Stalin did what he did out of raw desire for political power. He deified himself, executed people who even thought to speak out against him, and so many other horrible things for the sake of the power fascists and dictators want. Absolute control.

But I think this is a rather off topic point. Shrug.

 

[Alex_P]

I'm not Dean, but I have a response.

Moral ideas come into being and get passed on and modified through the same set of mechanisms that affect all human culture and knowledge. It's all... emergent.

Learned behaviors can be propagated and adapted much faster than genetically-coded instincts. Cultural or "memetic" evolution occurs much faster than physiological evolution, in other words(*). On this level, any kind of behavior or belief exists simply because it's effective(**). I think all of the oldest, most fundamental elements of human culture are basically emergent phenomena. They don't exist because they were effective foundations for the formation of higher-order cultural concepts; there's no "why" beyond that.

Humans have developed some powerful tools to accelerate and direct this process. One of them is what you could call introspection or, perhaps, metacognition: the awareness of one's own cognitive processes. Our learning is self-regulated. We're able to evaluate and modify our beliefs through non-random means. More simply, we're capable of thinking about why we think what we think(***).

The idea that morality is a special domain is only meaningful or useful on the level of metacognition. Which is, incidentally, where most philosophical discussion occurs. What frustrates many essentialists is that, of course, you can't keep drilling down forever and finding more and more levels of thought all the way down. On some level, our most basic beliefs are the result of something that can't be classified as reason, just like neither the individual molecules that make up our brains nor the microscopic organisms from which we evolved are actually sapient like we are.

Underlying all that fancy thinking are basic behaviors that are the result of a few even simpler instincts and many, many years of selective pressure.

-- Alex
__________
* - Memes are potentially a useful abstraction for thinking about this stuff, but not necessary. In other words, my argument isn't based on some old stuff Dawkins wrote. Most descriptions of memes seem kinda forced and arbitrary to me.
** - One useful thing to steal from "memetics" here is that some beliefs may propagate effectively while still being unhelpful to the people who hold them.
*** - They have been studies that seem to indicate that this capacity isn't unique to humans. Something about chimpanzees forming opinions about the accuracy of memories or something like that.

As beautifully worded as your response was, we aren't discussing the history of morality, or the cultural evolution of humanity which may or may not have grown into what became morality.

I'm saying that within the non-theist worldview, there is no BASIS for morality. What you're talking about is how it could have come to be. 'Morality is there because it's effective' isn't a 'why'. It doesn't explain why something is good or bad. It's another way of saying 'Just because'.

You have no reason or basis, say, to help those in need. TheDean himself said that society doesn't matter! It's the individual that does! And let's be honest: One of the basic core 'instincts' of man is 'self' and 'self preservation'. So Dean isn't far off the mark, if off the mark at all. So where is the 'why'?

No, it speaks to your question directly: at some point, when you dig down, you will find that any set of beliefs depends on little more than intuitive axioms, and that's because, fundamentally, those beliefs have roots in humans' pre-conscious history.

Simply put, it's quite probable there is no rational basis and that's not actually much of a problem. (Although some platonists are crying, I'm sure.)

God... God doesn't change anything here.

-- Alex

 

[TheDean]

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.

Well, that makes sense i suppose.
Although, i'd prefer to base it more on the individual than the species.

I still don't like good and bad, but i'm saying "fair" because i lack better vocabulary here. It's like this: do what you would have done unto you. There, simple.

 

[TheDean]

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.

EXACTLY. And it wasn't even "just in case" it was "so i can get drunk".
Also, i like what you said, however, if i was you i wouldn't baptise my child at all and wait until they are old enough to decide from themselves. Even without realising, you are imposing your religion on them. And even though you may not force it, you are influencing the kid's decision.

 

[TheDean]

"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'?

in my mind i can see a slight difference, fair is more abuout equality to me.

Nevertheless, i only use "fair" because i don't have anything better, but what i mean is, i already said this to TGLT but Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is 'fair', but good or bad? I don't think they even come into it.

 

[Robyrt]

"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'?

in my mind i can see a slight difference, fair is more abuout equality to me.

Nevertheless, i only use "fair" because i don't have anything better, but what i mean is, i already said this to TGLT but Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is 'fair', but good or bad? I don't think they even come into it.

At this point, you are essentially making a moral statement - fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Saying that you should follow the Golden Rule because it is fair is just removing the problem one step - you're still saying, "You should do this because it is intrinsically better than the alternative." Note that most moral systems are more complex than this - mercy is usually considered "good" although it is unfair by definition.

 

[Baby Tea]

EXACTLY. And it wasn't even "just in case" it was "so i can get drunk".
Also, i like what you said, however, if i was you i wouldn't baptise my child at all and wait until they are old enough to decide from themselves. Even without realising, you are imposing your religion on them. And even though you may not force it, you are influencing the kid's decision.

Well I hope I would influence their decision. As a Christian parent (In this scenario! I'm not ready to be a father just yet...despite what my wife wants), I would be raising my children to be Christians. You may not see Christianity as truth, but Christians, go figure, see it as the absolute truth, so of course we'd raise our children to have the same views and values as we do.

Every parent does it.

Don't you think the parent who is an anti-theist will influence the religious choice of their children? Of course they would! How could the child not be influenced by it when, whenever their parent talks about religion, they keep hearing how it's a bunch of baloney. That influences them.

I'll be consciously raising my children to be Christians when I eventually do become a parent. If, once they are old enough to choose for themselves, decide to leave their faith, I'd be heartbroken, but I'd still love them and it would still be their choice to make.

 

[Baby Tea]

in my mind i can see a slight difference, fair is more abuout equality to me.

Nevertheless, i only use "fair" because i don't have anything better, but what i mean is, i already said this to TGLT but Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is 'fair', but good or bad? I don't think they even come into it.

At this point, you are essentially making a moral statement - fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Saying that you should follow the Golden Rule because it is fair is just removing the problem one step - you're still saying, "You should do this because it is intrinsically better than the alternative." Note that most moral systems are more complex than this - mercy is usually considered "good" although it is unfair by definition.

Not only that, but Dean just used a Bible verse to defend his position. Irony?

 

[GothmogII]

EXACTLY. And it wasn't even "just in case" it was "so i can get drunk".
Also, i like what you said, however, if i was you i wouldn't baptise my child at all and wait until they are old enough to decide from themselves. Even without realising, you are imposing your religion on them. And even though you may not force it, you are influencing the kid's decision.

Well I hope I would influence their decision. As a Christian parent (In this scenario! I'm not ready to be a father just yet...despite what my wife wants), I would be raising my children to be Christians. You may not see Christianity as truth, but Christians, go figure, see it as the absolute truth, so of course we'd raise our children to have the same views and values as we do.

Every parent does it.

Don't you think the parent who is an anti-theist will influence the religious choice of their children? Of course they would! How could the child not be influenced by it when, whenever their parent talks about religion, they keep hearing how it's a bunch of baloney. That influences them.

I'll be consciously raising my children to be Christians when I eventually do become a parent. If, once they are old enough to choose for themselves, decide to leave their faith, I'd be heartbroken, but I'd still love them and it would still be their choice to make.

Actually, that may depend on the parent in question, but, I'd say a pretty awesome parent is one who, even if an atheist or a theist, takes the time to educate their child on a number of faiths, rather than just their own beliefs. But then, what parent has time to do that?

I know, that, allowing to 'pick & choose' sounds, slightly negative? Or is portrayed as such, in a way that you get the impression that it's thought to denigrate the faith in question, to nothing more than a commodity. That's why also it should be explained, that while people may or may not agree on which faith to follow, or not follow in the case of atheism, it should be impressed upon the child that is is a serious choice they are making when choosing a faith, each has their own rules, codes and regulations to be observed. And, while no-one can force you to observe any of these things, that they may want to think if Christianity or Buddhism, or Islam, or Judaism, may not be the best thing for them.

That said, it does tend to look bad with people who -do- view faiths as a kind of flavor on the month thing, but I don't think people should be discouraged from looking around at the same time.

As for atheism, well...it doesn't essentially have a defined codex of laws etc. bar:

The understanding in the non-existence of faith based deities. That's why, you've got to impress 'good' or positive values upon you children. Kindness, charity, compassion etc.

And again, I know it's going to come up: Who defines those? Humanity. Why? Because. That's a pretty crappy answer.

 

[Baby Tea]

I'm not Dean, but I have a response.

Moral ideas come into being and get passed on and modified through the same set of mechanisms that affect all human culture and knowledge. It's all... emergent.

Actually, a Theist who believes that a certain set of moral ideas has been Revealed would not agree. If you believe that a divine entity handed someone two stone tablets on Mt. Sinai, you believe that those ideas came into being in a different way.

You may dispute the soundness of such a belief, but, it's still a valid belief if you accept that there's a god who hands out stone tablets to people.

As beautifully worded as your response was, we aren't discussing the history of morality, or the cultural evolution of humanity which may or may not have grown into what became morality.

I'm saying that within the non-theist worldview, there is no BASIS for morality. What you're talking about is how it could have come to be. 'Morality is there because it's effective' isn't a 'why'. It doesn't explain why something is good or bad. It's another way of saying 'Just because'.

No, it speaks to your question directly:

Actually, it doesn't--his question is about authority. His point is that if morality is made by something other than god, it doesn't have authority, the proof being that things other than god--i.e. people--differ and therefore any authority made by people is relative, and if morality is to mean anything it must be objective.

What you're doing here is not disputing the logic of his point, but rather his premise: if god created morality, then it does not "have roots in humans' pre-conscious history."

MY point on the other hand is that some Atheists believe that morality can be tied in its genesis to humans. That humans perceive it differently makes it no more relativistic than the fact that the Abrahamic religions all agree on the identity of god but disagree on eating pork makes Judaism and Islam and Christianity relativistic.

Well said! I was a bit surprised to see a post that almost seems, dare I say it, to come to my defense! Haha, I know it's not really, but I'm glad you at least understand my point (Albeit while disagreeing with it).

I've said morality is relative in an atheist worldview simply because it changes from person to person, though I could admit that perhaps I'm using the wrong words here. Let me try again:

The IDEA of morality always stays the same: That some things are good and others are bad.

Agreed?

Morals themselves, what is good and bad, changes from person to person.

Agreed?

Therefore the concept of morality, that things are either good or bad, might be considered inherent in humanity, but morals themselves, THIS is good and THIS is bad, aren't. So while most all people would say that some things are good and some are bad, morals themselves are relative to every person and their circumstance.

 

[Baby Tea]

And again, I know it's going to come up: Who defines those? Humanity. Why? Because. That's a pretty crappy answer.

That made me laugh.

I don't mind my children learning about other religions. I did when I was growing up. No problem. I was raised to respect those of other faiths and worldviews, even though they differ from mine. I was also taught that Christianity is the 'one truth' when I was growing up. Now naturally, when I was told there is only one truth, I explored other religious worldviews and differing practices in search of 'truth'. I eventually returned to Christianity as making the most sense. I wouldn't say I was even a Christian until I was 19 or 20 years old.

Others may disagree, and that's fine. God gives us that free will. I've known Christian friends to leave the faith, and I've know atheist friends to find Christ.

I don't want to ramble, but despite what seems to be the idea of Christianity: I don't mind my Children being educated in differing ideas and worldviews. I was. My Dad was. Heck, my whole family was! We're all still Christians, but we all respect the faiths of others. I'll raise my Children to be the same.

...Lord willing, anyways. If my kid is going to be anything like I was growing up, I might just strangle him first.

Kidding!

 

[Kage Me]

*did not bother reading the last 22 pages and just wants his question answered*

I'm a weak atheist, meaning that don't believe in a God, but am open to the possibility that there could be one. Let's go with the Christian one, for convenience's sake.

Additionally, I do not actually believe that Jesus died for my sins. Primarily because he's human, and was thus destined to die anyway, and secondarily because in my eyes, I haven't committed any sins that would prevent me from getting into Heaven. However, IF he did save me, then I'm grateful for it, and I appreciate the effort regardless of whether he did.

My question is: Will that get me into Heaven, if the Christians are right about God and Jesus and all that jazz? Or will I get sent to Hell for my beliefs? Or is there some other option, like limbo or Purgatory?

 

[Alex_P]

Therefore the concept of morality, that things are either good or bad, might be considered inherent in humanity, but morals themselves, THIS is good and THIS is bad, aren't. So while most all people would say that some things are good and some are bad, morals themselves are relative to every person and their circumstance.

... Relative to a degree, as Cheeze will point out: most moral systems have a lot in common with each other.

How do you interpret the multiplicity of religiously-driven moral systems -- even within Christianity? Do you say that all of these god-dependent moral ideas are therefore "relative"? Or do you just assume that some of them are wrong?

You don't need God to assert that one system of beliefs is better than another.

-- Alex

 

[TheDean]

"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'?

in my mind i can see a slight difference, fair is more abuout equality to me.

Nevertheless, i only use "fair" because i don't have anything better, but what i mean is, i already said this to TGLT but Do unto others as you would have done unto you. That is 'fair', but good or bad? I don't think they even come into it.

At this point, you are essentially making a moral statement - fairness is good, unfairness is bad. Saying that you should follow the Golden Rule because it is fair is just removing the problem one step - you're still saying, "You should do this because it is intrinsically better than the alternative." Note that most moral systems are more complex than this - mercy is usually considered "good" although it is unfair by definition.

I'm not saying fairness is good or bad. I think it's all about personal decision. Don't hit someone because you don't want him to hit you. THat's simple. That makes sense. Good or bad are irrelevant.