Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
Maybe I am missing your point, but I am positive you are missing mine. Simply put, you are not comfortable with the idea that there is no absolute morality or that there are no gods. You need both to make any sense of the world. You need to believe that there is someone/something else to decide what is right and wrong, good and evil (and lo and behold, those absolutes just happen to fit your own personal ideas about such things).
I begin with the recognition that there is no rational reason to believe in supernatural gods and their dwelling places. I see no rational reason to make Kierkegaard’s leap of faith, or take Pascal’s falsely-premised wager. Without a deity to cling too, I logically then must conclude that there are no absolute right and wrongs, good and evil, as there is no one outside of this physical world to define them, let alone enforce them.
Morality changes over time. They don’t think it’s OK to boil cats for the fun of it any longer, even in France. They do believe on the other hand that it is no longer shameful to have an abortion. An honest non-theist can still believe either is unacceptable for rational reasons, but not because a non-existant deity proscribes it. In earlier posts, I cited several reasons why people choose to act in a way you would call “moral,” even when if they don’t attribute their actions to scripture. Honor killings among Muslims in the Middle East (and even in U.S.)are offensive immoral to Jews and Christians alike, yet Leviticus and Deuteronomy mandate killing profane children and people who work on the “sabbath.” Stoning young, disobedient children and weekend store clerks has grown out of fashion in the modern western world. Today’s “morality” will surely change many times over time.
If you need to be child-like, and it makes you feel better to believe humans exist to serve rules imposed by some invisible deity, good luck to you.
You asked, “Why can’t Joe Blow and his wife define their own morality? Why can’t they decide it’s OK for him to beat her if she makes him angry? Aren’t they just as able to define their morality as the state legislature?” I explained that to you in an earlier post. The answer is that they live in this world, where society as a whole (at the state level) has concluded, for whatever reason, that beating one’s spouse is unacceptable behavior. We don’t need ancient literature to instruct us on that point.
I haven't missed your point, you've made it very clear. I'm challenging your assertion.
Simply put, you are not comfortable with the idea that there is no absolute morality or that there are no gods.
Please, don't make yourself look silly by trying to tell me what makes me feel comfortable or uncomfortable. You're way off. The idea of the godless Universe scares me as about as much as the Easter Bunny.
You need to believe that there is someone/something else to decide what is right and wrong, good and evil (and lo and behold, those absolutes just happen to fit your own personal ideas about such things).
Uh-huh. And your ideas about how I feel and what I think just happen to fit your own personal ideas and preferences. Grab yourself a psychology textbook and look up "projection."
If you need to be child-like, and it makes you feel better to believe humans exist to serve rules imposed by some invisible deity, good luck to you.
Oh my...I can't believe I received such graciousness from your vast, superior intellect. Thank you for having the humility to deign to speak to me. I feel so special!
You asked, “Why can’t Joe Blow and his wife define their own morality? Why can’t they decide it’s OK for him to beat her if she makes him angry? Aren’t they just as able to define their morality as the state legislature?” I explained that to you in an earlier post. The answer is that they live in this world, where society as a whole (at the state level) has concluded, for whatever reason, that beating one’s spouse is unacceptable behavior. We don’t need ancient literature to instruct us on that point.
Yes, but what it is about the State legislature that makes them the arbiters of morality and Mr. and Mrs. Blow subjects to be ruled who aren't allowed to make those moral choices? Are you saying that we don't need ancient literature to instruct us on morals but we do need a gaggle of state reps to do it for us?
And why didn't you answer the other questions?
If the state legislature legalizes cat boiling or child rape tomorrow, will they then be right? I mean, that's a pretty easy question, isn't it? Are you avoiding it because it makes you uncomfortable?
Tomorrow the state legislature declares that anyone who has posted on an internet forum using a screen name with "forever" in it is guilty of an evil crime punishable by death. Since men define their own morality, you are now evil and deserving of death...right? Surely, you'll report for a speedy execution, because doing anything else would be downright immmoral and disrespectful of society's role as the moral arbiter.
You wrote: “Yes, but what it is about the State legislature that makes them the arbiters of morality and Mr. and Mrs. Blow subjects to be ruled who aren’t allowed to make those moral choices? Are you saying that we don’t need ancient literature to instruct us on morals but we do need a gaggle of state reps to do it for us?”
___________________
My response: In a universe without gods, people can live in chaos and anarchy, or they can agree to be ruled and subjected to being told what rules they will follow. Rulers can be despots, monarchists, or elected Presidents and ward chairpersons. Assuming chaos is disfavored, people organize into nations and subdivisions, and delegate to their elected representatives the task of passing laws that proscribe unsociable or unacceptable behavior (murder, theft, running red lights,etc.) Those laws codify the “morality” of the society.
Joe Blow in your example abides by those laws or pays the price. Whether Blow is more “capable” than the State Legislature of defining morality for himself is irrelevant. He can pretend to get his morality from some imaginary superatural deity or from his government, but likely he will live by his government’s rules or be incarcerated or cast out.
You wrote: “And why didn’t you answer the other questions?
If the state legislature legalizes cat boiling or child rape tomorrow, will they then be right? I mean, that’s a pretty easy question, isn’t it? Are you avoiding it because it makes you uncomfortable?
Tomorrow the state legislature declares that anyone who has posted on an internet forum using a screen name with “forever” in it is guilty of an evil crime punishable by death. Since men define their own morality, you are now evil and deserving of death...right? Surely, you’ll report for a speedy execution, because doing anything else would be downright immmoral and disrespectful of society’s role as the moral arbiter.”
_____________
My response: I did answer this. I can only explain it to you — I can’t make you understand it. The answer is, there is no absolute right if there are no gods. What is “right and wrong” is subject to the beliefs and whims of society. It has to be that way. It always has been, and always will be. And over time, society’s views of “right and wrong” have changed. That is the inescapable consequence of rejecting belief in supernatural governors.
You are not comfortable believing that there is no absolute morality passed down to us on stones or whispered by burning bushes. That’s your problem, not mine.
Let me make his cear again: You don't know diddly about me. You supposedly live your life by rational conclusions derived from empirical evidence, and yet you think you know what my inner emotional life is like. That means you either think you know far more than you know, or it means you're operating under a prejudice. And what do you know? This bilge...
You need to believe that there is someone/something else to decide what is right and wrong, good and evil (and lo and behold, those absolutes just happen to fit your own personal ideas about such things). ...If you need to be child-like, and it makes you feel better to believe humans exist to serve rules imposed by some invisible deity, good luck to you.
...confirms it's the latter.
As for problems, I'm fine , thanks. Looks like you're the guy with the problem...
What is “right and wrong” is subject to the beliefs and whims of society. It has to be that way. It always has been, and always will be.
...having announced that any repugnant, cruel deed is fine and dandy if enough people sign onto it. That's a recipe for slavery.
You wrote: “...having announced that any repugnant, cruel deed is fine and dandy if enough people sign onto it. That’s a recipe for slavery.”
____________________________
My response: Actually, I think you are finally beginning to understand the reality of morality, if you will forgive the rhyme. In a sense, you have nailed it — society has always decided what is right and wrong, and, of course, society changes its mind about right and wrong over time. Many in the 1960s thought it immoral for a married couple to be shown sharing a bed on TV, even in a non-sexual situation on a sitcom. Now anything goes, it seems. Society is not as uptight about sex on TV now, and the language on TV has become much more vulgar as well. Personally, I don’t care for it, but society doesn’t have a problem with it.
Now, you say, “any repugnant, cruel deed is fine and dandy if enough people sign onto it.” Correct, if you mean that society will decide what is repugnant and cruel. Reason? Who else but society can decide, in a godless world? Congratulations on your epiphany, but then I have to say -— your “recipe for slavery” makes no sense. On the other hand, don’t bother explaining. I’m losing interest.
Oh...and please, shrink that ego of yours. Pointing out that the implications of your ideas are bad doesn't mean I've had "an epiphany" because of your brilliant arguments. It means I recognize that mob rule is mob rule, something you are unwilling to admit. (You aren't "uncomfortable" with that, are you?)
You wrote: “Why do you think you’re a conservative when your beliefs on what society will choose are 180 degrees out from the Founders? Unlike them, you expect the mob to choose what is enlightened and beautiful.”
_______________________
My response: I have no idea what you are talking about, but that’s OK, because you don’t either. The driving force behind the “Founders” was the pursuit of liberty, not “morality.” There were Deists, Unitarians, Utilitarians, and atheists among them. The laws their respective states and former colonies promulgated were based on English common law, not religious canons. They didn’t need theology to understand that the rule of law was necessary to maintain order and tranquility. They didn’t want “mob rule,” and neither do I. Your comments suggesting otherwise are ridiculous.
You wrote:
The driving force behind the “Founders” was the pursuit of liberty, not “morality.” There were Deists, Unitarians, Utilitarians, and atheists among them.
_______________________________________________
They didn’t see any connection between morality and the preservation of liberty...Yeah, riiiiiight.
John Adams
1776 - letter to Zabdiel Adams
Category: Religion and Morality
Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand....The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett, pg. 371.
John Adams
1798 - Address to the Military
Category: Religion and Morality
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Reference: America’s God and Country (10-11)
John Adams
1811 - letter in response to Rush letter above
Category: Religion and Morality
[R]eligion and virtue are the only foundations, not of republicanism and of all free government, but of social felicity under all government and in all the combinations of human society.
Reference: The Works of John Adams, C.F. Adams, ed., vol. 9 (636)
Samuel Adams
1778 - letter to John Trumbull
Category: Religion and Morality
Religion and good morals are the only solid foundation of public liberty and happiness.
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (320); original The Writings of Samuel Adams, Cushing, ed., vol. 4 (74)
Benjamin Franklin
to Thomas Paine
Category: Religion and Morality
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it?
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (297); original The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Sparks, ed., vol. 10 (281-282)
Thomas Jefferson
1785 - Westmoreland County Petition
Category: Religion and Morality
Reading, reflection and time have convinced me that the interests of society require the observation of those moral precepts...in which all religions agree.
Reference: Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Hutson, (84); original Westmoreland County, petition, November 2, 1785, to V
Gouverneur Morris
1791 - Notes on the Form of a Constitution for France
Category: Religion and Morality
Religion is the only solid basis of good morals; therefore education should teach the precepts of religion and the duties of man towards God.
Benjamin Rush
1783 - letter to John Armstrong
Category: Religion and Morality
Without religion, I believe that learning does real mischief to the morals and principles of mankind.
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (153); original Letters of Benjamin Rush, Butterfield, ed., vol. 1 (294)
Benjamin Rush
1806 - On the Mode of Education Proper in a Republic
Category: Religion and Morality
[T]he only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.
Reference: Original Intent, Barton (153); original Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosohpical, Rush (8)
Benjamin Rush
1811 - letter to John Adams
Category: Religion and Morality
In such a performance you may lay the foundation of national happiness only in religion, not by leaving it doubtful “whether morals can exist without it,” but by asserting that without religion morals are the effects of causes as purely physical as pleasant breezes and fruitful seasons.
Reference: Americanism, Gebhardt (12); original Letters, Rush, Butterfield, ed., vol. 2 (1096-97)
George Washington
1778 - letter to Thomas Nelson
Category: Religion and Morality
The Hand of providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations.
Reference: The Writings of George Washington, Fitzpatrick, ed., vol. 12 (343)
George Washington
1789 - First Inaugural Address
Category: Religion and Morality
The foundations of our national policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality, and the preeminence of free government be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its citizens, and command the respect of the world.
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (462)
George Washington
1796 - Farewell Address
Category: Religion and Morality
Of all the dispositions and habits which least to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indespensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism who should labor to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness.
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (521)
George Washington
1796 - Farewell Address
Category: Religion and Morality
[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths...?
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (521)
Source: http://patriotpost.us/fqd/quotes.asp
I didn’t state that they “didn’t see any connection between morality and liberty. I stated, and I stand by the statement, that the driving force behind the “Founders” was the pursuit of liberty, not “morality.” You quote a few of them making favorable reference to religion, consistent with what I said (that “there were Deists, Unitarians, Utilitarians, and atheists among them”). So what? As I said before, the laws their respective states and former colonies promulgated were based on English common law, not religious canons. They didn’t need theology to understand that the rule of law was necessary to maintain order and tranquility. As you surely know, some of the Founders you quoted, notably Jefferson, for example, made public statements paying lip service to Christianity, the Bible etc., but privately held such nonsense in contempt, as evidenced by their private letters. One of the most articulate and passionate advocates of the American Revolution was Thomas Paine, an outspoken atheist.
The question we were discussing was not "Was every Founding Father a Bible thumper?"
The question was your assertion that the Founders were driven by the pursuit of liberty, not morality. Well, of course they were driven by liberty, but I proved beyond any doubt that some of the most prominent Founders (including Mr. Jefferson, who you made out to be a religious bigot) considered it impossible to have liberty without morality.
You say that the laws they passed were based on English common law, but what I've proven here is that they believed the system would fail utterly if those laws were not backed up by a distinct moral code.
So, just to review:
Karl Marx, arguably the largest promoter of slavery in human history, believed humans could ditch God, get together and define their own morality, and everyone would be more free.
John Adams, Sam Adams, Ben Franklin; Thomas Jefferson, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Rush and George Washington believed liberty must sit on a bedrock of God-based morality.
Hmmmm...which one of those views is closer to your posts in this thread?
You’ve proved nothing other than that you can cherry-pick quotes out of context. John Adams, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and George Washington were all Deists, and most of them were hostile to clergy and other swarmy purveyors of religion. (So was the atheist, Abraham Lincoln, in later years, although like the founding Fathers, he kissed babies,publicly pretended to like religious people, and occasionally even went to churches to patronize voters.)
You have quotes, I have quotes:
Thomas Jefferson, ardently rejected the Gospels, and even rewrote them without the superstition and miracles: “We discover in the gospels a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstition, fanaticism and fabrication. And:
“Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.”
More Jefferson: “In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” More: “I am a Materialist; he [Jesus] takes the side of Spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance toward forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it.”
Engraved on the Jefferson Memorial is Jefferson’s vow of “eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of men,” which he uttered while denouncing those who wanted to make Christianity the official religion.
George Washington: “The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy.”
Ethan Allen: “Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
John Adams: Adams, as you know, signed the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli, which declared in Article XI: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”
More from John Adams: “Cabalistic Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for 1,500 years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die. Yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.”
James Madison: “The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.” [March 2, 1819]
More from James Madison: “What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instances have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people.”
There’s plenty more evidence of their contempt for religion, but I don’t want to make your head explode, and I am going to bed.
Einstein believed in the God of the philosophers.
Madison's referring to our form of government as distinguished from the English monarchy. He might have said, consistently with his other remarks, that our government lacks, king, Lords, and Church but nonetheless is as stable as any European monarchy. It is an argument for our form of republican government, not an affirmation of French principles. Back to the mine and try to find a more relevant quotation that allows morality to flourish without religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.