Split from Open Mic- Struggling With The Catholic Faith

[stevil]

[quote name='Ice_nine' timestamp='1312487202' post='2281556']
I love analogies! Can I play?

So you have a set of conjoined twins, each having their own brain, heart, and most of their internal organs. One is in relatively good health, but the other has a severe mental handicap and his/her cognitive skills may never progress to that of a typical adult. Doctors are fairly certain that a surgery which attempts to separate the twins into two independent bodies a would probably result in the immediate death of at least one of the twins, and perhaps complications from the surgery would cause the other to die within a few years anyway.

However, the doctors also propose if they euthanize one twin and focus all their efforts onto saving the other, that the chances of a normal life for the living twin would be exponentially greater. After all they could use any parts they needed from the deceased twin because he/she wouldn't need them for him/herself anymore. One of the twins is severely mentally handicapped anyway, he/she has little to no self-awareness, reasoning skills, and perhaps with time and therapy and medical discoveries these conditions can be improved, but who knows? The other twin, should they remained joined, will be severely impeded by the handicapped twin physically and his/her brother/sister will probably hold him/her back in almost all practical areas of life. He/she will not have sovereignty over his/her own body, as the twins' life are co-dependent on one another.

Given the circumstances is it ok to kill the mentally handicapped twin to improve the life of the "normal" twin?

Sure every analogy has it's breaking point, but I think that's pretty beaver dam close. Unfortunately I think people who ascribe to a strictly materialistic atheism would say that to kill one twin would be permissible.
[/quote]
I'd say it would be a very difficult decision for the parents to make, but it ought to be the parents decision, not government, not religious outfits.

BTW this is more of a hypothetical scenario rather than an analogy. No biggie, just thought I'd point out the difference.

Edited August 5, 2011 by stevil

[stevil]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1312424195' post='2281219']
If God exists then of course it has an immediate metaphysical consequence to be an atheist.
[/quote]
If your god exists and I get the opportunity to met this god in the after life and I get judged on my lack of belief regardless of the lack of evidence, rather than being judged based on my actions, then so be it. I could not submit to an unjust god.

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312542063' post='2281822'] If your god exists and I get the opportunity to met this god in the after life and I get judged on my lack of belief regardless of the lack of evidence, rather than being judged based on my actions, then so be it. I could not submit to an unjust god.[/quote]
You will no longer then be an atheist. God knows your heart. No one else does.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Papist

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312542063' post='2281822']
I could not submit to an unjust god.
[/quote]

What do you mean by this? Hypothetically, if you were to meet an unjust god in the afterlife, what choice would you have? You have a choice now while you are alive. If you get judged in the afterlife, I think submitting is the only option.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312541642' post='2281821']
I'd say it would be a very difficult decision for the parents to make, but it ought to be the parents decision, not government, not religious outfits.

BTW this is more of a hypothetical scenario rather than an analogy. No biggie, just thought I'd point out the difference.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with "religious outfits" but rather centers on a defensible philosophical ethic surrounding personhood. It would be wrong to directly cause another person to die through performing an operation since it violates the dignity of their personhood, even if that may be mentally handicapped and have the mental capacity of a 10 yr old all of their life or is somehow conjoined to a sibling. No one pities a 10 yr old for being a 10 yr old so why then does "quality of life" issues come up when someone is mentally handicapped and has the mental maturity of a 10 yr old. One rather should be focused on personhood and the morality of respecting it and the immorality of violating it, this is the real focus of such a discussion and to bring into the picture government, religion, competing rights or to use unhelpful rhetoric like "religious outfits" only serves to confuse the issue and lose sight of the topic at hand. This is a philosophic issue that reason can solve without appealing to faith. Faith and Reason are not mutually exclusive and do go hand in hand, but that does not mean that Philosophy is collapsed into Theology. To assume that pro-life stances are taken because of "religious outfits" is disingenuous; such stances are taken because of basic philosophic principles.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312566613' post='2281997']
To assume that pro-life stances are taken because of "religious outfits" is disingenuous; such stances are taken because of basic philosophic principles.
[/quote]
Who is to decide what is wrong and right. There is no easy answer, no clearly defined, well understood objective standard. Philosophy gives no answers, merely a bunch of hypothetical what ifs. With regards to medical procedures our law clearly understands that if a person is unable to make difficult decisions for themselves then those difficult decisions are delegated to their guardians. Other than that delegation, the law ought not to interfere. Same thing goes for Euthanasia.
In my opinion religious outfits ought not to interfere with law, fine for them to teach their followers what they think is right and wrong, but the followers ought to have the ability to excercise their free will.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312563307' post='2281977']

What do you mean by this? Hypothetically, if you were to meet an unjust god in the afterlife, what choice would you have? You have a choice now while you are alive. If you get judged in the afterlife, I think submitting is the only option.
[/quote]
If I met god in the afterlife and even if god accepted me, regardless that I spent my life as an atheist, that god would have to win me over. I would not simply love it because it is a god. There are many questions that would be needed to be answered. If there is an all powerful god, I don't automatically accept that this god is good.

What choice would I have?
I don't know, would I get forced against my will? Would I have the ability to be defiant? Are there other options, other all powerfull entities?
It seems nothing is known about a possible afterlife or the gods that may make themselves known in the afterlife. It seems (to me) much more likely that there is no afterlife.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312568293' post='2282014']
If I met god in the afterlife and even if god accepted me, regardless that I spent my life as an atheist, that god would have to win me over. I would not simply love it because it is a god. There are many questions that would be needed to be answered. If there is an all powerful god, I don't automatically accept that this god is good.
[/quote]
One of the principles of Catholicism properly understood is that God, by His very nature, is worthy of our praise. Due to His gift of our life and the world, and due to His omnipotence and omnibenevolence, it is our highest calling to worship and praise Him.
It's expressed well in the Gloria.

Glória in excélsis Deo et in terra pax homínibus bonae voluntátis. Laudámus te, benedícimus te, adorámus te, glorificámus te, grátias ágimus tibi propter magnam glóriam tuam, Dómine Deus, Rex cæléstis, Deus Pater omnípotens. Dómine Fili Unigénite, Iesu Christe, Dómine Deus, Agnus Dei, Fílius Patris, qui tollis peccáta mundi, miserére nobis; qui tollis peccáta mundi, súscipe deprecatiónem nostram. Qui sedes ad déxteram Patris, miserére nobis. Quóniam tu solus Sanctus, tu solus Dóminus, tu solus Altíssimus, Iesu Christe, cum Sancto Spíritu: in glória Dei Patris. Amen.



Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to people of good will. We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory, Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father. Lord Jesus Christ, Only Begotten Son, Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us; you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer. you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us. For you alone are the Holy One, you alone are the Lord, you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

Edited August 5, 2011 by Nihil Obstat

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312567635' post='2282008']
Who is to decide what is wrong and right. There is no easy answer, no clearly defined, well understood objective standard. Philosophy gives no answers, merely a bunch of hypothetical what ifs. With regards to medical procedures our law clearly understands that if a person is unable to make difficult decisions for themselves then those difficult decisions are delegated to their guardians. Other than that delegation, the law ought not to interfere. Same thing goes for Euthanasia.
In my opinion religious outfits ought not to interfere with law, fine for them to teach their followers what they think is right and wrong, but the followers ought to have the ability to excercise their free will.
[/quote]

Each of us can know right and wrong. It is not a matter of deciding right and wrong. That is an important distinction. One can know right and wrong by what is in accord with an accurate standard and value of the human person a value that comes from, an inherent dignity of the human body and of the human mind.

Philosophy does in fact give certain answers. A relativist understanding of philosophy in which one assumes there are no universals and thus no principles that can be drawn from them is not only illogical but makes society impossible to uphold since a decent system of laws cannot be based on relativism. Rather, only tyrannical power structures are born from such a philosophy since there is no acknowledgment of what is due to the human person. Philosophy can in fact give certain knowledge and this is shown through logical proofs such as whether it can be truthfully said that "there are no universal truths" since this statement would have to be universally true and thus contradictory, one can see through an indirect proof that there are universal truths. Another way to show this is with the statement: "there are two sides to everything." Most people would assent to this statement. Now turn it into a question: "are there two sides to every story/statement?" If you answer yes to this question then you contradict yourself because by saying "yes" you have also simultaneously said "no," which of course does not hold logically. This is a short way of showing it but Philosophy (Reason/Logic) does in fact yield answers about the nature of reality, only now is contemporary analytic philosophy beginning to overcome the continental/modern/post-modern philosophic bias and show that answers are indeed possible and true. If there are universal truths that we can know, then the question is not "who decides right and wrong?" but rather "what are right and wrong according to what is due to the human person?" This latter question is an objective question and not simply an arbitrary opinion that different "outfits" hold.

If one believes that there is no right and wrong actions where one action is more in accord with the dignity of a human person than another, all one can appeal to is the coercive power of the law (as you have identified in your post). This is no argument then at all--since according to this understanding, arguing is impossible in that philosophy does not give you accurate representations of reality but only "what if's." Rather, it is only the imposing of one's will on another person whether they want it or not. Most people are not comfortable with imposing one's will on another when they don't want it and feel the need to say it is wrong, but because of their relativistic standards they have no way of saying such things. As such, one cannot really oppose murder on any moral ground but only pragmatic ones in that I personally would prefer not to be murdered and therefore will try to impose my will on others, but one cannot say that murder is wrong but on this account and in fact would be permissible if one had the coercive power to murder another. You see this view that law the highest authority to appeal to because there is no right and wrong in the way that arguments about medical procedures go down. The question today commonly is formulated as"does someone have the right/guardianship to make such a decision for another?" and is divorced from the question of "does this decision, made by the rightful caretaker, take an accurate view and an accurate value of the human person?" These questions should not be divorced. The difference between these questions is the difference in appealing to law vs. taking an estimation of what is due to the human person. If these questions are not asked together law simply becomes the oppression of the minority by the majority through power with no objective standard guiding the power to what is best for the weaker of society but only what is desired by the majority.

However, the statement that bothers me the most is when you say "In my opinion religious outfits ought not to interfere with law, [though it is] fine for them to teach their followers what they think is right and wrong..." In a way, you have just proven my last point. You want to exclude certain individuals from exerting influence who disagree with your own opinions. Having said earlier that philosophy gives no universals and only "what if's" you have said that there is no ultimate basis why either of your opinions should be "right" or "good" as compared to the other. As such, neither your opinion nor those you disagree with can have any basis in real or known truth since if truth exists it is unknowable according to your account of philosophy. By saying they should not influence law, you are trying to aggregate power to your position in order to minimize the position of others and simply impose your will on others. You are saying that those who agree with you are the ones who should decide what is right and wrong over and against others. You then add "but the followers should be able to exercise their own free will." But why should they be able to if it is all about power? Is there something else that can determine right and wrong? Or should they only "be able to exercise their own free wills" when they are acting not in unison with the "religious outfits" since if they were acting in unison with such "outfits" they would be part of the outfit's attempt to influence law and thus their acting on their free will to form law would immediately be jettisoned according to your opinion.

This all seems to me to be a very unsatisfactory consequence of not wanting to acknowledge that some actions are more in accord with a valuing of and understanding of personhood than others. Such a desire not to acknowledge this valuing and understanding of the person as based in reality and does not wish to acknowledge a dignity of the human body and of the human mind that is based in reality seems to destroy the very things upon which a healthy democracy of the people needs to be able to function. Instead such desires make oppression easier.

Edit: I apologize for the length. I can be quite wordy sometimes

Edited August 5, 2011 by Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312573129' post='2282029']
In a way, you have just proven my last point. You want to exclude certain individuals from exerting influence who disagree with your own opinions. Having said earlier that philosophy gives no universals and only "what if's" you have said that there is no ultimate basis why either of your opinions should be "right" or "good" as compared to the other.
[/quote]
Please don't confuse me with your perception of what a Relativist is.
I think the governing body must impose laws to provide a functioning society where different people can co-exist.
It is not government's place to determine or dictate morality on us.


[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312573129' post='2282029']
As such, neither your opinion nor those you disagree with can have any basis in real or known truth since if truth exists it is unknowable according to your account of philosophy. By saying they should not influence law, you are trying to aggregate power to your position in order to minimize the position of others and simply impose your will on others.
[/quote]
No, I am simply saying that the ruling authority should not impose beyond what is necessary for a society to function. When one group wants to impose their morals onto others then this group should be opposed. Choice and the ability to make informed decisions should be a right of every adult.

[Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312574354' post='2282032']
Please don't confuse me with your perception of what a Relativist is.
I think the governing body must impose laws to provide a functioning society where different people can co-exist.
It is not government's place to determine or dictate morality on us.
[/quote]

I am not confusing you with what a Relativist is. I have some friends who are relativists. They are nice enough and many realize that their being nice to others is because that makes them feel good. It is not something I hold against them but something that is a logical conclusion of their beliefs about philosophy and reason. What I am doing is pointing out what the logical conclusion are of what you said about philosophy only giving "what if's" and not telling you anything really.

It is not the government's place to dictate morality true. Legislating Morality never works and only ceases to undermine governmental authority. I agree. But keeping people from murdering or euthanizing old people or handicapped people is not legislating morality. Rather such laws protect the personhood of each individual citizen from the marginalizing factors of society that only want to treat human person by how they are useful to me/to society as a whole. Morality should guide laws so that they can give to the individual what they deserve/what is due to them. As such, laws that are moral and in accordance with the dignity of the human person will help to create a better/more virtuous citizenry that needs less interference from the government. It is not legislating morality to say that a section of society like the unborn or the elderly or the handicapped are indeed human, have rights regardless of what their impact on the economy of society, and as such should be respected and not "disposed of" as inconveniences to those of us who may be more "able bodied." Instead, it is legislating with an eye towards morality in that one seeks to give what is due to the other, i.e. justice.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312574354' post='2282032']
No, I am simply saying that the ruling authority should not impose beyond what is necessary for a society to function. When one group wants to impose their morals onto others then this group should be opposed. Choice and the ability to make informed decisions should be a right of every adult.
[/quote]

You say here the ruling authority should not be oppressive to the smaller groups of society, and that is true. Why would you say that? How is that the "right" or "good" thing to do? To say such a thing is to imply a morality of "should's" and "should not's" that regulate "can" and can't." You imply that philosophy then can argue something true. However, in a previous post you said that it cannot. I was simply unpacking your short couple of sentences and showing you where they went. I know that you do not want to marginalize others through your opinions and do not wish to aggregate power to your position and remove others from the public square, but when the opinions that you expressed above are held do you not see where they lead? This is why above I said that those statements that I quoted bother me and that I was unsatisfied the the picture those statements presented of how governmental power operates.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312568293' post='2282014']
If I met god in the afterlife and even if god accepted me, regardless that I spent my life as an atheist, that god would have to win me over. I would not simply love it because it is a god. There are many questions that would be needed to be answered. If there is an all powerful god, I don't automatically accept that this god is good.
[/quote]
The point that I was trying to make is that, if there is an all powerful god, it may not matter whether you choose to accept anything. An all powerful god would not need your love, so why would this hypothetical god try to win you over? I just don't understand how you envision standing up to or rejecting (please forgive my paraphrasing) an all powerful god after you die.

[stevil]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1312580044' post='2282081']
The point that I was trying to make is that, if there is an all powerful god, it may not matter whether you choose to accept anything. An all powerful god would not need your love, so why would this hypothetical god try to win you over? I just don't understand how you envision standing up to or rejecting (please forgive my paraphrasing) an all powerful god after you die.
[/quote]
Then it would be pointless me making any decisions or actions as I would be at the whim of this god. This would be true Nihlism.

[stevil]

[quote name='Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam' timestamp='1312578870' post='2282072']
You say here the ruling authority should not be oppressive to the smaller groups of society, and that is true. Why would you say that? How is that the "right" or "good" thing to do? [/quote]

It is not about what is right or good. Just what is necessary for a functioning society. Oppression will meet resistence which will create animosity, hatred and even wars.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1312580801' post='2282090']
Then it would be pointless me making any decisions or actions as I would be at the whim of this god. This would be true Nihlism.
[/quote]So how do you envision interacting with this hypothetical god in the afterlife? I just don't understand your earlier statements - I'm not trying to be difficult.