Cardinal Pell's no show

[Ducatiboy stu]

So what happened before Christianity ( which is only 2000yrs old )......did God still exist..?

 

[TimT]

Well that's a common position in these post-Enlightenment times - a division of the world into "truth" and "lies", and "known" and "not known", and "proven" and "not proven", combined with a claim that "I do not believe in anything" and a subsequent argument that "belief" or "faith" is equivalent to gullibility. C S Lewis had an old atheist tutor who he revered*, who used to claim, "I have no opinions!"

There's little room in this worldview for the difficult middleground, matters of "opinion" or "faith"; maybe even "subjectivity" is completely written out of the picture.

And yet it seems to me that faith is not simply gullibility; that there do exist a whole category of ideas that are not simply matters of proof or disproof. Morality is one example. Aesthetics (beauty) may be another. And then there are simple every day statements. Take for example a friend who you talk to on Monday, and who agrees with you to meet up on Saturday. Now, how can you *prove* that you won't meet up on Saturday? You can't! You trust him; you trust that he is telling the truth. It's a matter of faith. And it's very true you *may* turn up to the place on Saturday and he won't arrive - in which case you might either say, "it's just like the old so and so, the forgetful *******", or you might begin to find him untrustworthy after all. But that means your faith has been misplaced; it doesn't mean that you cannot place faith in anyone or anything ever.

*"who he revered" - metaphorically, of course.

 

[Parks]

If you do not believe there are gods you are an atheist. If you do not know there is no gods you are agnostic.

These two statements are semantically identical.

An atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in god/s.

An agnostic is more likely someone who believes there is a god of some kind or is simply unsure.

An anti-theist believes there is/are no god/s.

These 3 terms get used mistakenly quite a lot, often grouped together, but they all do have very distinct meaning.

 

[Feldon]

These two statements are semantically identical.

An atheist is, by definition, someone who does not believe in god/s.

An agnostic is more likely someone who believes there is a god of some kind or is simply unsure.

An anti-theist believes there is/are no god/s.

These 3 terms get used mistakenly quite a lot, often grouped together, but they all do have very distinct meaning.

I did not make the statement you quote. pcmfisher did

(see post #177)

 

[Dave70]

Well that's a common position in these post-Enlightenment times - a division of the world into "truth" and "lies", and "known" and "not known", and "proven" and "not proven", combined with a claim that "I do not believe in anything" and a subsequent argument that "belief" or "faith" is equivalent to gullibility. C S Lewis had an old atheist tutor who he revered*, who used to claim, "I have no opinions!"

There's little room in this worldview for the difficult middleground, matters of "opinion" or "faith"; maybe even "subjectivity" is completely written out of the picture.

And yet it seems to me that faith is not simply gullibility; that there do exist a whole category of ideas that are not simply matters of proof or disproof. Morality is one example. Aesthetics (beauty) may be another. And then there are simple every day statements. Take for example a friend who you talk to on Monday, and who agrees with you to meet up on Saturday. Now, how can you *prove* that you won't meet up on Saturday? You can't! You trust him; you trust that he is telling the truth. It's a matter of faith. And it's very true you *may* turn up to the place on Saturday and he won't arrive - in which case you might either say, "it's just like the old so and so, the forgetful *******", or you might begin to find him untrustworthy after all. But that means your faith has been misplaced; it doesn't mean that you cannot place faith in anyone or anything ever.

*"who he revered" - metaphorically, of course.

Dunno about that. Moral relativism, or any relativism for that matter smacks of the kind of new age / regressive left reluctance to call a spade a spade that seems to permeate even the most benign discussions. Clearly there are 'cultural' practices that are morally abhorrent and objectivity wrong by any reasonable measure, circumcision - male and female, women treated as chattel, initiation rites that would amount to torture in any other context. The list goes on.

 

[TimT]

Dave, I'd argue if you try to trace back your moral arguments to their core assumptions - eg, 'circumcision' is 'Clearly...objectively wrong' and 'morally abhorrent' then you won't be able to get far. One example might be - 'Circumcision' is arguably wrong because - well, causing 'pain' is wrong. But why is causing pain wrong? It.... just is. And it seems obvious that this is so. Morally right and morally wrong, good and bad - we're back in the realm of faith.

I'm sure philosophers have, are, and will be beating this question around forever: can we truly 'prove' morality? To me the question is absurd, and in most cases probably ends up in some kind of circular reasoning. Nietzsche asked the question somewhere in his genealogy of morals - when people first settled on a set of values.... what were the set of values they relied on to settle those values? In the circumstances it seems no wonder the poor guy went insane....

 

[Blind Dog]

Why does something have to be in the 'realm of faith' simply because you can't reduce it to an objective assessment or proof?

You can't 'prove' morality and, IMO, to try to do so is futile. A quick look at the world today and over history shows that it is an incredibly fluid concept, twisted and perverted by some, nurtured and enhanced by others. But that's just in my view, and others may see the people I views as twisting and perverting morals as people who are nurturing and championing morals because they view the world differently to me.

But I don't need faith to be able to assess right and wrong, its a judgement based on who I am as a person which in turn is informed vast array of variables, many of which I won't even recognise as having any influence. At its simplest, its a question of putting myself in the position of the other person and trying to assess how I would feel. Its imprecise, instinctive, often wrong and perhaps too often overlaid with a hazy justification for doing something that may be 'wrong', but somehow benefits me without obvious harm to another.

 

[Dave70]

Dave, I'd argue if you try to trace back your moral arguments to their core assumptions - eg, 'circumcision' is 'Clearly...objectively wrong' and 'morally abhorrent' then you won't be able to get far. One example might be - 'Circumcision' is arguably wrong because - well, causing 'pain' is wrong. But why is causing pain wrong? It.... just is. And it seems obvious that this is so. Morally right and morally wrong, good and bad - we're back in the realm of faith.

I'm sure philosophers have, are, and will be beating this question around forever: can we truly 'prove' morality? To me the question is absurd, and in most cases probably ends up in some kind of circular reasoning. Nietzsche asked the question somewhere in his genealogy of morals - when people first settled on a set of values.... what were the set of values they relied on to settle those values? In the circumstances it seems no wonder the poor guy went insane....

In that case we are back in the realm of faith, or more accurately, belief. Therein lies the problem. Its not what people think, its how they think. When you engage the gears of logic, reason and evidence in your mind, it sets in motion an entirely different worldview than wish thinking, superstition and god worship. Over and over, religious belief claims divine warrant to trump morality on its own terms.
I'll harp on circumcision because its still prevalent even in the developed west. When you see your otherwise lovely Jewish neighbors popping their eight day old son in the car and inquire where their off to and are told 'oh, its young Jacob's b'rit milah this evening', think about it. The screaming infant has no say in being held down by adults whilst the Mohel has at his genitals with a scalpel.
Without the bizarre and ludicrous double standard of moral immunity granted for 'religious reasons', this practice would constitute the worst of criminal acts.

Anybody who cant see that as objective wrong should be happy to assign their own child to this treatment on a coin toss. After all, who's to say causing pain is wrong?

 

[TimT]

You seem to inadvertently go back to a kind of reductive proof of morality anyway Blind Dog, not a bad one either - an argument by compassion: considering all our actions from the point of view of not only ourselves but the other involved parties.

But I don't think it's sufficient. It strikes me that a lot of commonly-accepted morality must lie outside of this metric - and it, too, falls back on a more basic value: why should we put '[ourselves] in the position of the other person and trying to assess how [we] would feel'? There is no real logical reason for us to do so, no real reason why we should do one over the other - unless we accept the basic proposition that we may make choices regarding the good and the bad, between the ethical and the unethical. It seems to me we fall back on, for want of a better word, faith yet again.

 

[bradsbrew]

I believe the egg came before the chicken.

 

[TimT]

It seems to be theological time. A friend just shared this this morning.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

The screaming infant has no say in being held down by adults whilst the Mohel has at his genitals with a scalpel.
Without the bizarre and ludicrous double standard of moral immunity granted for 'religious reasons', this practice would constitute the worst of criminal acts.

Anybody who cant see that as objective wrong should be happy to assign their own child to this treatment on a coin toss. After all, who's to say causing pain is wrong?

I just object to the fact that we base a lot of "Mortality" on religious beliefs..


"No Sandra you cant have an abortion, its morally wrong "

" Sandra, we are taking your baby of you because it is morally wrong to have a child so young and you are not even married "

" its Ok father Ted, he was just a boy, he will grow out of it"

" No you may not use condoms, that is against the word of God "

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

Anyway....some bloke wrote an album...

 

[Camo6]

I strongly believe in proof reading.

 

[wide eyed and legless]

The only gods we will ever come across in this life are those who like to play god, and when were dead that's as far as it goes we are spent, Donald ducked, to be continued by our off springs, and in turn their off springs etc etc.
I have nothing against religion that is a persons right to believe in whatever they want, as misguided as I think it is I would not argue against their rights and would fight for their rights, as long as they don't affect me, and my non beliefs.

As for Pell all he has done is follow the protocol of the Catholic church, but has shown weakness in not doing the right thing by the abused,it is going to take a stronger person who is more concerned about his fellow man than how far up the ladder he can climb within that church.

 

[Ducatiboy stu]

I bet in a few weeks we get "an apology" from old George about how bad he feels and how he would have done things differently etc...etc...


Naturally, the apology would be heart felt & sincere and have nothing to do with saving face.....

 

[wide eyed and legless]

About as much chance getting an apology as you would from the Imam of the Muslim faith for atrocities committed by Muslims.

 

[Dave70]

You seem to inadvertently go back to a kind of reductive proof of morality anyway Blind Dog, not a bad one either - an argument by compassion: considering all our actions from the point of view of not only ourselves but the other involved parties.

But I don't think it's sufficient. It strikes me that a lot of commonly-accepted morality must lie outside of this metric - and it, too, falls back on a more basic value: why should we put '[ourselves] in the position of the other person and trying to assess how [we] would feel'? There is no real logical reason for us to do so, no real reason why we should do one over the other - unless we accept the basic proposition that we may make choices regarding the good and the bad, between the ethical and the unethical. It seems to me we fall back on, for want of a better word, faith yet again.

Only problem with that line of reason is, to paraphrase Hitchens, humnan decency is not derived from faith, it precedes it.

This is in no way a loaded question, but do you believe there are no, or can be, no such thing as moral truths?

 

[Steve]

I bet in a few weeks we get "an apology" from old George about how bad he feels and how he would have done things differently etc...etc...


Naturally, the apology would be heart felt & sincere and have nothing to do with saving face.....

If he apologises then he is admitting guilt in my book. Imagine Joe Bloggs old perv off the street apologising on the stand for abusing kids do you think the judge would give a shit about this apology? He'd be sent down quicker than you can blink. Why/how are they getting away with it?

 

[wide eyed and legless]

Why/how are they getting away with it?

I did read once that a psychologist said the Catholic Church is akin to a very large ship it takes a long time to turn around, he also said all priests should be analysed before being ordained and all priests who abuse boys did so within the first year of being ordained.
He also said that those who abused boys had been subject of abuse themselves.