-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Atheism
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Six Pack said:
It is quoted throughout the Bible but some examples are -
“For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Romans 3:23
"Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." Matthew 5:48
"Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish." Ephesians 5:25
"Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus" Collosians 1:28
" Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;"Hebrews 5:8
14Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone through the heavens,[e] Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet was without sin. Hebrews 4:14
There are heaps more but that is a sample which hopefully is enough for now.
evo said:
Its impossible purely by reason, but it's not hard to approximate. I don't like it changing with the times as much as it does. I don't think it is healthy. With no reference points (eg the ten commandments) values quickly erode. But I also believe that a truly moral society can't legislated, it must come from within.
evo said:
OK - I agree with your example above, and I also think there are many other examples. I think this indicates absolute evil and therefore absolute good exist and we all recognise it, Theist and Athiest alike, very easily.
Djevv said:
What about pre-10 commandments? No values? How did the human race survive to that point?
To say that our values are referenced to a single passage in a single book is the opposite of the situation. Hence the prevalence of similar moralities in religious texts around the globe (ie the golden rule). Our morality informs the religions that we spawn. To say that the absence of religion would lead to some form of moral anarchy is easily debunked. Have a look at some of the more atheist countries out there....if anything they seem to have less social dysfunction than the more religious societies? How can that be without the gold standard of morality?
We agree that some things are plainly wrong (I, like evo, don't really subscribe to the word 'evil' it suggests an absolute and spawns caricatures of the reality of the situation) and some things are plainly good. By what yard stick do you make these judgements? For me this is not a 'a book says so' type of situation, the judgement relies on a complex, rational analysis of the situation looking at a number of factors. As I have stated before, one of the key things I look at is the harm that the action causes to others with the capacity to suffer from that harm.
Panthera tigris FC said:
The 10 commandments were just an example of a moral code that used to guide our society, but now not so much. If you've been around for a while you will notice the changes in values that have occured over the last 30 years - almost mind boggling. If there is no standards to be judged by, then, well anything goes, till you get to the point where a whole society goes off the rails - such as in Nazi Germany.
To me the 'gold-standard' of morality is the life of Christ. I think it is perilous for us a a society not to recognise moral excellence, and to think our rationalisations are superior.
Panthera tigris FC said:
I agree with what you are saying here, except for two things. You can use a 'rational analysis' to justify doing wrong just as easily as visa versa. The other is that 'no harm' is a somewhat passive stand and does not promote the active doing of good.
Djevv said:
Which modern values do you find disconcerting or disagree with. As we learn more it is inevitable that our moral standards will shift to better align with this better understanding of the world around us. Why is slavery no longer considered morally acceptable?
Who said anything about no standards? I think humans have an intrinsic understanding of morality, for the most part. In Australia these are codified in our laws via democratic processes.
What happened in Nazi Germany was not caused by an excess of rational thought. Read some of Adolf Hitler's writing...not so big on rational thought.
So pre-Christ chaos reigned? I think some of the teaching ascribed to Christ is a good moral standard. I could say likewise for many other writers before and after Christ. Why can't my 'rationalisations' be superior? Shouldn't they be judged on their merits?
I find that generally there are flaws in the rational analysis used to justify what I consider wrongdoing and I am happy to engage in rational debate on those matters. I agree that 'no harm' is passive, hence my use of "one of the key things" when describing the basis of my moral position. Christian charity is one of the 'horizontal' benefits of an organised religion, but it does not have the monopoly on charity. Atheist charitable organisations, or individuals, who aren't doing it for perceived personal reward are more admirable for it IMO.
Panthera tigris FC said:
OK, all this begs the question of what 'rational' morality is. I mean if you start with the wrong premises, you can reason perfectly and come to incorrect conclusions. What I'm saying is whay not have immovable premises? Absolute morals - which can only be known by faith, as reason alone can't derive them. I'm sure that the NAZIs thought they were being perfectly rational about what they were doing...........
I agree with what you and Evo are saying about the fact that people are well versed in morality - it seems to be writ large in our being - which is why societies will not disintegrate overnight. Rome wasn't built in a day, neither did it fall in a day! Im sure we could both think of numerous examples.
I'd be interested in what you think 'rational' morality actually is, and how it works?
As for the idea of knowing more leading to improved morality - it seems clear to me that the rapid increase of knowledge in the modern world regularly out strips our ability to deal with it ethically.
Djevv said:
It means that questions of morality are up for reasoned and rational debate - if you disagree with a moral stance that I hold or vice versa we can debate the basis of such a stance. As soon as you bring faith into the equation, hope for rational debate is lost. Absolute morals? Whose? Give me an example of a moral stance that cannot be derived by reason.
Ok.
See above.
"Improved morality"? Where did I say that. I said that I moral stance on issues may change, but that is the important thing - they are subject to change in light of better knowledge. Dogmatically clinging to any belief is unhealthy IMO.
I agree with your last statement and it is something that we have to be constantly vigilant in...to ensure the ethical and moral application of our new-found knowledge.
As it happensI'm writing a paper today on this Eurthyphro Dilema which goes to the heart of this matter.
The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is pretty enteratining if anyone is interested.Takes about 15 minutes to read--amazingly insightful considering when it occured.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
The dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro is pretty enteratining if anyone is interested.Takes about 15 minutes to read--amazingly insightful considering when it occured.
http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/euthyfro.html
evo said:
Very good evo. Thoroughly enjoyed. I agree about the insight so long ago....great to read. We are still having the same conversation (not quite as conclusive as Socrates I would think).
He was a smart guy Socrates,one of the best.Unfortunately he never wrote anything down so we can only see his thoughts through the filter of Plato--who converesely,wasn't a very good philosopher.
As a result most of religious thinking up until the 18th century was more influenced by Plato,and Aristotle.
For the worse.
As a result most of religious thinking up until the 18th century was more influenced by Plato,and Aristotle.
For the worse.
Panthera tigris FC said:
Well, I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Surely you begin with a moral stance derived by faith, say 'the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit', and reason further therefore you should not deliberately harm it and conclude smoking is bad. Or you could say by faith 'personal freedom is the most important thing' and conclude smoking is OK. So perhaps if we had used the absolutist morality of my first proposition then all the death and waste of money caused by smoking might have been avoided.
As you can see reasoning or rationality is only part of the issue here. The premises must be correct for the reasoning to come to the correct conclusions.
Panthera tigris FC said:
What about to beliefs that are correct? Shouldn't we cling to those?
