Do Atheists have any moral and ethical backstops?

[zippy2006]

I've given a lot of thought to my position on slavery with much debate and reading. As for Noah's Ark indeed it does need more and I will gain it over time.

I admire your candor, but these difficult issues of slavery or capital punishment require an especially competent interlocutor. Someone like Estrid, with her one-line responses dashed out in a few seconds, is not the right person to discuss complicated issues with. You need to at least find someone who has spent a considerable amount of time researching the issue, for you yourself have spent a considerable amount of time researching the issue.

 

[Abaxvahl]

The impression we get is that you are sitting on the fence.

It's wrong but you'd go for it under undisclosed circumstances.

I genuinely have no idea what this means, I apologize.

 

[public hermit]

Internet forums are for discussing one's views with others. If you do not want a view to be subjected to critique then it would be wise not to present it on an internet forum, particularly in the "discussion and debate" section

That's a fair point, but I am also free to choose with whom I engage. You and I have had plenty of conversations, so much so that I have realized I just can't compete with your intelligence. So, don't take it personal if you're not my favorite interlocutor, and one with whom I just won't engage. Consider it an honor.

 

[GoldenKingGaze]

Some engineers likewise. And some stamp collectors. And some flat earthers. And some Christians. The point being that if you consider everyone then some people would be corrupt. Why on earth specify atheists when you are talking about child abuse?

And Christianity is the reason we all hate child abuse? Gee, I didn't know that Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc were so lacking in their treatment of children that they had to defer to your religion for some guidance.

'Did you see that report of the child being assaulted, Yousef?'
'Indeed. And praise be to Allah for allowing the Christians to teach us how wrong it is'.

I don't think atheism leads to child abuse, but that naturally, pagans and atheists in ancient Rome needed more than Socrates and other great philosophers to be lifted out of it. Rome is described as having been a perverts paradise. Maybe China had some very civil and polite provinces at the time. Rome with it's harsh penalties and violence could be looked down on.

I am looking here at western countries. And what will become of us if we keep heading down this path full of injustice and compromise, sex and abortion, euthanasia, sensuality, strange values, new slavery, internet porn, Satanism, an acceptance of far left ideology and some far right...

There is a special connection with a mother and her baby, naturally if she aborts she becomes depressed. And mental illness is increasing.

I consider that other pro-lifers are atheists.

Romans did not hate child abuse in the first century. Socrates did not change that. The church did. Maybe not all rightly. Some hypocrisy existed. The message of love in Christ, the love of the gods being given to us to have between each other. Agape. People preferring to die than worship Nero, and yet despite punishment, more engaged in this new faith, from the Jews.

China is only just converting to Christ in these days now. And Iran...

So you are the descendant of Christians and this was once authority in your values and culture, and is now an influence.

The old church now lags behind secular society in some ways. I find some churches as ahead of secular society, like an oasis. Where are hearts are healed from the sour and hard heartedness of the world and it's fallen values.

Where the church is in decline, life is less cherished.

The Quran is partly from the Bible and I don't think it is as benevolent.

Hinduism is not uniform. They many hundreds of different acts or worship. Worshipping images of private parts in some temples... I mentioned William Wilberforce, and he did push for change in India. Practices like leaving unwanted newborn children on a wall.

But I refer to us for whom Christianity transformed our ancestors out of paganisms. And despite our violent human nature and the church participating in it instead of keeping to the New Testament and grace, the messages of light, love, compassion and honour... still survived and surfaced like an impressive submarine.

 

[zippy2006]

That's a fair point, but I am also free to choose with whom I engage. You and I have had plenty of conversations, so much so that I have realized I just can't compete with your intelligence. So, don't take it personal if you're not my favorite interlocutor, and one with whom I just won't engage. Consider it an honor.

As you like, though I will say that I have lessened my polemicism towards you of late.

Nevertheless, I will still respond to your posts for the benefit of others if I see fit.

 

[Astrid]

I genuinely have no idea what this means, I apologize.

Maybe someone will explain you it.

 

[public hermit]

I will say that I have lessened my polemicism towards you of l

So, you admit you've been hounding me.

That's so odd, Zippy.

 

[zippy2006]

So, you admit you've been hounding me.

That's so odd, Zippy.

No, I didn't say that. All I said is that at points in the past I have been more polemical towards you and now I am less so. Further, my polemicism was largely a reaction to your own polemicism in posts like this.

(Taken to PM)

 

[JustSomeBloke]

First - as individuals we don't know what we're capable of doing depending on the circumstances. I'm sitting happily in the sunshine on a full stomach in a safe liberal democracy where I am financially secure. It's easy to imagine things I would "never do" but if circumstances change I can offer no guarantees that my red line won't shift based on need, desperation, threat etc. etc. Whether you accept it or not you are no different to me.

That's why I asked you if you were aware of the Milgram Experiment, because sometimes people are capable of extreme acts, and all it takes is the right set of circumstances. But when I raised the issue of the Milgram Experiment, you thought it was irrelevant. Although perhaps you would say that the Milgram Experiment is not the best illustration of that, and that there are other, better examples of psychological experiments showing human capacity to perpetrate extreme acts.

Anyway, I would like to think that those who are part of a religion that teaches that there is an afterlife, are less vulnerable to perpetrating extreme acts against others in order to try and survive. Whereas those who do not believe in an afterlife see this worldly life as the be all and end all, and so are more likely to fight to the death as it were.

The ability to revise one's positions is a human thing, not a philosopher thing. It applies to Christians as well as anyone else. No one has a "backstop" that is impossible to abandon.

When believers abandon their religious backstops, I'd say that's a sign that they've lost faith. In other words, they are no longer a believer.

I would consider the sensations of guilt and shame to be backstops. Of course they vary and are often expressed from the whims of culture. For example I would feel horrible owning human beings as property, yet if I were born 2,000 years ago in ancient Roman times I would probably have little emotional qualms about it. Things like empathy are riddle with biases due to evolution.

Interesting. What do you think are the origins of these 'sensations of guilt and shame'?

 

[zippy2006]

The ability to revise one's positions is a human thing, not a philosopher thing. It applies to Christians as well as anyone else. No one has a "backstop" that is impossible to abandon.

When believers abandon their religious backstops, I'd say that's a sign that they've lost faith. In other words, they are no longer a believer.

I agree. And when a Kantian abandons their Categorical Imperative "backstop" they have abandoned their philosophy. In other words, they are no longer a Kantian. Neither the Christian nor the Kantian has an insuperable "backstop."

 

[Bradskii]

So you are the descendant of Christians...

I'm Welsh. So that would be Celtic paganism, diolch yn fawr.

 

[Bradskii]

Everything in the article are about the position of the Church on these matters, including all Pope St. JP2 said on it (and this Catechism you quoted that was made under him, and the Compendium of Social Doctrine made under him). It is even verified in this very passage to me when it refers to reducing people to productive value or disregarding their personal dignity (which the Law never did). It may just be a difference in reading though.

I can't see that you can read this in any way except as written:

'...forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.'

Which part of that allows you to think it might be ok in some circumstances?

 

[Abaxvahl]

I can't see that you can read this in any way except as written:

'...forbids acts or enterprises that for any reason - selfish or ideological, commercial, or totalitarian - lead to the enslavement of human beings, to their being bought, sold and exchanged like merchandise, in disregard for their personal dignity.'

Which part of that allows you to think it might be ok in some circumstances?

The statement in isolation does not make me think this, but I consider the teaching of the Church (which includes Scripture) as a whole which makes me realize how it should be read. Splitting these things is never done, which is what Cardinal Dulles went against in said article. In isolation any statement from anywhere in the Church may make one think that she has any position which is not the position.

 

[Occams Barber]

That's why I asked you if you were aware of the Milgram Experiment, because sometimes people are capable of extreme acts, and all it takes is the right set of circumstances. But when I raised the issue of the Milgram Experiment, you thought it was irrelevant. Although perhaps you would say that the Milgram Experiment is not the best illustration of that, and that there are other, better examples of psychological experiments showing human capacity to perpetrate extreme acts.

At the time you mentioned the Milgram Experiment I pointed out that I didn't see how you connected it to 'backstop' since I had no idea what you meant by 'backstop' (see quote below). I was one of a number of posters who asked you to explain 'backstop'.

I'm quite familiar with the Milgram experiment. I don't see the connection to 'backstop' in fact I don't really understand what you mean by backstop

Anyway, I would like to think that those who are part of a religion that teaches that there is an afterlife, are less vulnerable to perpetrating extreme acts against others in order to try and survive. Whereas those who do not believe in an afterlife see this worldly life as the be all and end all, and so are more likely to fight to the death as it were.

'Less vulnerable to perpetrating extreme acts'...You mean like the Inquisition(s), or perhaps the German authorities in WW2, or the Taliban, or the Christians who regularly killed Jews in pogroms or the genocides of the Bosnian War or good Christian Australian settlers who set out to 'eliminate' the indigenous population or Christian Americans who kept slaves or...

OB

 

[Astrid]

The statement in isolation does not make me think this, but I consider the teaching of the Church (which includes Scripture) as a whole which makes me realize how it should be read. Splitting these things is never done, which is what Cardinal Dulles went against in said article. In isolation any statement from anywhere in the Church may make one think that she has any position which is not the position.

So give us your wholistic reading that makes slavery OK.

There's probably some antebellumm confederate preachers wrote up
some good points to consider.

 

[Bradskii]

The statement in isolation does not make me think this, but I consider the teaching of the Church (which includes Scripture) as a whole which makes me realize how it should be read.

Scripture says it's OK and the church condems it. So you go with scripture. And so we go back to church v scripture again when it comes to, for example, putting homosexuals to death. But this time you go with the church.

It seems that you pick and choose as you see fit. I see no logic or consistency in your views.

 

[Astrid]

At the time you mentioned the Milgram Experiment I pointed out that I didn't see how you connected it to 'backstop' since I had no idea what you meant by 'backstop' (see quote below). I was one of a number of posters who asked you to explain 'backstop'.





'Less vulnerable to perpetrating extreme acts'...You mean like the Inquisition(s), or perhaps the German authorities in WW2, or the Taliban, or the Christians who regularly killed Jews in pogroms or the genocides of the Bosnian War or good Christian Australian settlers who set out to 'eliminate' the indigenous population or Christian Americans who kept slaves or...

OB

Atheists are proportionately way less likely to
be in American jails than Chridtians are.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Scripture says it's OK and the church condems it. So you go with scripture. And so we go back to church v scripture again when it comes to, for example, putting homosexuals to death. But this time you go with the church.

It seems that you pick and choose as you see fit. I see no logic or consistency in your views.

I do not see the Church as condemning every sort of slavery for the reasons listed in the article, which provides a definitive proof that not every form is forbidden from Pope St. JP2's own words. So I go with both. And then with homosexuals I said that if it met said requirements I would not oppose it, going with both again, I do not see it as intrinsically evil. The reason that you do not see the consistency is because you have taken CCC2414 as a definitive and all-encompassing prohibition on slavery ignoring the reasons it can't be, and other teachings such as Dei Verbum 10 which outright make such a view as you have taken on this Catechism passage impossible. That passage alone is the breaking point where you no longer see consistency.

 

[Abaxvahl]

So give us your wholistic reading that makes slavery OK.

I already have.

 

[zippy2006]

Scripture says it's OK and the church condems it. So you go with scripture. And so we go back to church v scripture again when it comes to, for example, putting homosexuals to death. But this time you go with the church.

It seems that you pick and choose as you see fit. I see no logic or consistency in your views.

No, it's much more complicated than this. The article that Abaxvahl cited goes into some of the details. We are at a level of theological depth that is too much for CF, but in the end the Catechism is not a dogmatic document, so citing the Catechism contra Dulles does not settle the question. Even the Catechism waffles and subtly contradicts itself. Consider its summation of the position (emphasis mine):

2455 The moral law forbids acts which, for commercial or totalitarian purposes, lead to the enslavement of human beings, or to their being bought, sold or exchanged like merchandise.
​

Abaxvahl is not being inconsistent. This is a controversial theological issue that has not been settled by the Church, but it receives very little attention in the 21st century. It is one of those things that is seldom talked about. The Catechism is essentially telling Catholics to err on the side of anti-slavery, and only those who have studied the issue in depth have any qualification to go beyond what the Catechism says.