RE: On Moral Authorities
November 16, 2016 at 9:24 am
(This post was last modified: November 16, 2016 at 9:30 am by robvalue.)
(November 16, 2016 at 9:10 am)theologian Wrote:(November 16, 2016 at 5:51 am)robvalue Wrote: Okay, so if god says rape is moral, then to you it's moral. In other words, morality has nothing to do with the wellbeing of humans to you. All that matters is what an external being happens to think about things.
This is exactly why a dogmatic religious mindset is so dangerous.
Now, what is dangerous is not considering the whole truth. The whole truth considers that God is Goodness Himself. But, your point here is not considering the whole truth, for one can only say that if for God, rape is moral, then it will be moral for people. Hence, it is not that everything that dogmatic that is dangerous. What is dangerous is your reasoning which proclaimed a contradiction that God Whom is Infinitely Good shall be the source of evil.
The same can be said regarding the conclusions that lead to atheism. In science, one cannot found God. Hence there is no God, so as they reason. But, is it indeed the case, or this is a case of not considering the whole truth? It seems that it is the latter. For, the scope of science are all those which are verifiable and all that which are quantifiable. But, not all reality are verifiable and quantifiable. Take for example the hidden premise of reasoning "since in science, there is no God, therefore it is indeed that there is no God". The hidden premise of that is that everything that is real must have a scientific evidence. But, that hidden premise itself doesn't have a scientific evidence, for it is a philosophical claim! Therefore, the hidden premise is self-defeating ,and therefore the hidden premise is false, and so the reasoning that "there is no God, because in science, there is no God and only those which have scientific evidence are real" is a false reasoning. That's how dangerous then to reason from an incomplete premise. Hence, the soundness of the Metaphysics of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas, which reason from the perspective of being, for what is common to all are being. So, what is not only dogmatic, but also dangerous here is the scientism of the atheists.
How can rape be evil if God says it is good? That's not a contradiction. It's good, and not evil, because God says so. Unless there is some way of deciding what is good/evil external to God, then "good" and "evil" are just arbitrary labels he gives things. If there is in fact a way of determing it external to God, then his word is not required.
Atheism has nothing to do with science. Science does not say "There is no God". You're drawing up a system of strawmen.
Are you telling me you need God to tell you what is right and wrong? I consider what is best for human and animal wellbeing, and then use reason. I don't need God to think for me.
So which is it? Is something good because God says it is good, or is God just really good at spotting what is good? Can you choose one and stick to it?
Feel free to send me a private message.
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum
Please visit my website here! It's got lots of information about atheism/theism and support for new atheists.
Index of useful threads and discussions
Index of my best videos
Quickstart guide to the forum