What is wrong with being ATHIEST?

Originally posted by bbarr
You think you have true knowledge (which is stupid, because all knowledge is of truths; nobody can know something that is false), and I think I have knowledge.

How do you separate knowledge from false propositions? Some one could claim that they know something you think is false. Do that person have no knowledge in this instance? Is knowledge a matter of opinion, probabilities, certainties, feelings?

I'm not trying to imply the there is false knowledge when I say true knowledge, I am emphasizing the knowledge is true - so accuse me of being redundant.

Originally posted by Coletti
How do you separate knowledge from false propositions? Some one could claim that they know something you think is false. Do that person have no knowledge in this instance? Is knowledge a matter of opinion, probabilities, certainties, feelings?

I'm not trying to imply the there is false knowledge when I say true knowledge, I am emphasizing the knowledge is true - so accuse me of being redundant.

I''m sure bbarr appreciates your responsive response!

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
I''m sure bbarr appreciates your responsive response!

Epistemology is one of bbarr's fortes.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Look at it this way: The Theist Ethic arises out of fear of Hell and hope of Heaven. The Ethical Atheist believes that Ethics are worth having for their own sake.
So, there is nothing wrong with Atheism, provided of course that the Atheist in question is an ethical person.
Clear?

The Theist "Ethic" (by which, I presume you mean a policy of moral action) may be driven by the hope/fear of heaven/hell, but the actual ethics (the code of ethics, that is) is derived from without.

What drives the Atheist Ethic? And where do atheists derive their code of ethics from? Why should an Atheist be ethical? Why is it wrong for an atheist to be unethical?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Reason and empathy.

Why reason and empathy?

Originally posted by bbarr
Just as you claim that your ethical theory (Divine Command theory) is really and truly true, secular folk (like me) will claim that their ethical theories are true (really and truly). You think you know what is morally right and wrong, and I think that I know what is morally right and wrong. You think you have true knowledge (which is stupid, because ...[text shortened]... orists cannot 'ultimately account' for their claims, then apparently you are in the same boat.

How would a secular ethical theorist derive an ethical theory that is universal and, hence, not subjective?

Spelling, I suppose.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why reason and empathy?

Because those things are demonstrably real while a God is a speculation. Man is self-aware and can reason that other living things are similiar to him. Since he doesn't want to suffer, he can reason that they don't either. As pointed out in my "stick a sword in a baby" example, "Divine Command" ethics are in a sense not ethical at all; anything the God says at any time is "ethical" as the believers insist He is beyond mere human rules and ethical considerations. Thus to be honest, people who believe in "Divine Command" ethical theory don't believe in any ultimate ethics at all. At least those who base their ethical theory on reason and empathy have some guidelines that they can verify through personal experience and reason; to the DC ethicists it's always "Godsaysso".

http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/lawandgrace.shtml


God's Salvation: Law and Grace

Called to share God’s eternal life in Heaven but wounded by sin, Man stands in need of God’s salvation. God’s help comes to Man in Christ, whose teaching guides him and whose grace sustains him.

The Moral Law

What is law?

Law is a rule of conduct laid down by a competent authority for the sake of the common good.

What is the moral law?

The moral law is God’s fatherly instruction that teaches Man the rules of conduct that will lead to the eternal happiness of Heaven.

Are there different expressions of the moral law?

There are different expressions of the moral law - all of them interrelated.

What are these different expressions of the moral law?

The different expressions of the moral law are:

Eternal law – the law established by God and the source of all law

Natural law – the law engraved in the hearts of all Mankind

Revealed law - law revealed in the Old Testament and the law of the Gospel revealed in the New Testament

Civil law – the law enacted by society for the common good

Ecclesiastical law - the Canon Law of the Church

Natural Law

What is the natural law?

The natural law is the light of understanding given by God so that every human being can know what to do and what not to do. It is engraved in the heart and mind of every human being by the wisdom and goodness of God the Creator.

Does the natural law extend to every human being?

Yes, the natural law does extend to every human being because it expresses the dignity of each person and determines the basis for each person’s fundamental rights and duties.

Is the natural law unchangeable and permanent?

The natural law is unchangeable and permanent and provides the solid foundation upon which all other laws can be built.

Are the precepts of the natural law clearly and immediately perceived by everyone?

The precepts of the natural law are not clearly and immediately perceived by everyone. Sinful Man needs grace and revelation so that moral truths may be known by everyone with firm certainty and without error: he needs the revealed law.

Revealed Law

How has the revealed law been given to us?

The revealed law has been given to us through the Law of the Old Testament and the Law of the Gospel in the New Testament.

What is the Law of the Old Testament?

The Law of the Old Testament is the Law that was given to the Jewish people; it is the first stage of revealed law and its moral prescriptions are summed up in the Ten Commandments.

What are the Ten Commandments?

The Ten Commandments prescribe what is essential to the love of God and neighbour and they forbid what is contrary to that love. They are a light offered to the conscience of every human being to make God’s call and ways known to them and to protect them against evil.

What is the law of the Gospel (the ‘New Law&rsquo😉?

The Law of the Gospel is the completion and perfection of God’s Law, natural and revealed. It is given to us by Christ himself - especially in the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.

Why is the Law of the Gospel so important?

The Law of the Gospel is important because it fulfils and perfects the Old Law - its promises, through the Beatitudes; its commandments, by reforming the heart, the root of all human acts. The New Law is a law of love, a law of grace, a law of freedom. It is summed up in the command of Jesus to love one another as he has loved us.

Grace and Justification

What do we mean by justification?

By justification we mean the power of grace to cleanse us from our sins, to sanctify and renew us.

What is grace?

Grace is the favour, the free and undeserved gift that God gives us to help us respond to his call to become children of God and sharers in his eternal life and love.

What is sanctifying grace?

Sanctifying grace is an habitual gift, a stable and supernatural disposition that perfects the soul to enable it to live with God and to act by his love.

What is habitual grace?

Habitual grace is the permanent disposition to live and act in keeping with God’s call to holiness.

What is actual grace?

Actual grace is that favour or gift given by God at a particular time during the work of sanctification.

Merit

What do we mean by ‘merit’?

Merit is what an individual deserves for his actions (i.e. reward or punishment).

Do we deserve merit from God?

We have no strict right to any merit from God, since we have received everything from him.

What is the source of all our merits?

The source of all our merits is the love of Jesus Christ which ensures the supernatural quality of our acts and therefore their merit before God.

Christian Holiness

Are all Christians called to holiness?

All Christians are called to holiness: Jesus said, ‘Be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect’ (Matthew 5:48)

What is the way to holiness?

The way to holiness passes by way of the Cross because there is no holiness without renunciation and mortification.

How can we learn to be holy?

We must start by asking God to help us. Then we can read about the life and teaching of Jesus in the Gospel, and by reading about the lives of the saints who are examples for us.


http://www.catholic.org.uk/library/catechism/lawandgrace.shtml

Originally posted by no1marauder
Because those things are demonstrably real while a God is a speculation. Man is self-aware and can reason that other living things are similiar to him. Since he doesn't want to suffer, he can reason that they don't either. As pointed out in my "stick a sword in a baby" example,

Why should the reasoning that other beings have similar feelings stop a person from hurting them? After all, while you can certainly reason that driving a sword through a baby will hurt the baby, you also know that you will experience no physical pain in the process.

Let's take some concrete examples:

1. A woman is being raped. She stabs her attacker (killing him or injuring him horribly in the process) in order to escape. Won't your reasoning stop her from doing so because the pain of rape (whence one is still alive and has the rest of one's life to recover) is less than the pain of death/horrible, permanent injury (when one does not)?

2. A man wakes up in the middle of the night to find there is a burglar in the house. He takes his gun and shoots the burglar. Won't your reasoning stop him from doing so because the hurt of being burgled is less than the hurt of being shot?

Or do you disagree?

Originally posted by Coletti
How do you separate knowledge from false propositions? Some one could claim that they know something you think is false. Do that person have no knowledge in this instance? Is knowledge a matter of opinion, probabilities, certainties, feelings?

I'm not trying to imply the there is false knowledge when I say true knowledge, I am emphasizing the knowledge is true - so accuse me of being redundant.

Suppose subject S knows a proposition K. It follows from this, minimally, that S believes K, that S is justified in believing K, and that K is true. In short, if you don't believe something, then you can't know it; if you believe something for no good reason, then you don't know it (this is what distinguishes knowledge from lucky guesses), if that which you believe is false, then you don't know it (even if you are justified in believing this falsehood). These are all necessary conditions for knowing something (though they are not jointly sufficient, as Gettier pointed out a few decades back). So, knowledge is not a matter of opinion nor feeling, because there are objective conditions on knowing (e.g., that the proposition known must be true).

So, again, when you ask for an 'ultimate account' of secular ethics, what exactly do you mean? As far as I can tell, theistic ethics is at least as worse off as most secular ethical theories when it comes to justifying its core claims about morality being dependent on God's will or character, God being able to make acts right or wrong by fiat, etc.

Out of curiousity, where do you get your information about secular ethical theories?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
How would a secular ethical theorist derive an ethical theory that is universal and, hence, not subjective?

See Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, and Rawls for five radically different views about the foundations of morality. Each makes moral claims that are universal, none are relativistic, none assert that the truth of moral claims depends upon the beliefs of agents (hence, none are subjective).

Originally posted by bbarr
Suppose subject S knows a proposition K. It follows from this, minimally, that S believes K, that S is justified in believing K, and that K is true.

Why does it follow that S is justified in believing K? And what, precisely, do you mean by justification?

Originally posted by bbarr
See Aristotle, Hobbes, Kant, Mill, and Rawls for five radically different views about the foundations of morality. Each makes moral claims that are universal.

Or Nietzsche.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Why does it follow that S is justified in believing K? And what, precisely, do you mean by justification?

Because if S is not justified in believing K, then there is no difference between S's knowing K and S's being right through dumb luck. If you get hit on the head, and thereby come to believe that there is a 10th planet in the Solar System, even though you can't give any reasons for thinking this, then you don't know that there is a 10th planet even if through dumb luck there is, in fact, a 10th planet.

'Jusitification' is shorthand for 'epistemic justification'. To be epistemically justified in believing K, S must have internal access to reasons for believing K that (minimally) suffice to make K more likely true than false. In other words, S must be able to provide reasons in support of K, where these reasons weigh in favor of the truth of K such that these reasons suffice to make it more likely that K than not-K.