1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Types of Ignorance in Catholic Thought

Discussion in 'Theological Concepts' started by Musing Bassist, Jun 27, 2020.

  1. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Possible Yithian

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,578
    Ratings:
    +1,153
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    I am not sure where to put this, so should the moderators feel that this thread would be better suited placed somewhere else then by all means move it.

    Anyway, an unrelated thread has got me thinking about the topic of ignorance and how it relates to our culpability for sin. In Catholic thought this issue has been addressed by a four way distinction in the types of ignorance human beings can fall into.

    The first type is called nescience. Nescience is a lack of knowledge about which a person has no obligation to know. For example, I do not know the Hindi word for dodecahedron and I am under no obligation to know. That I do not understand Hindi is not under my current circumstances a moral failing. Were my circumstances to change, wherein it would be beneficial for me to know Hindi, then my nescience of the language would become ignorance which in Catholic thought is defined by a lacking of knowledge one ought to have.

    Ignorance is categorized into three types. The first is called invincible ignorance. Remember that the difference between ignorance and nescience is that ignorance is a lack of knowledge that ought to be there. One is morally bound to know about that which one is ignorant. However in the case of invincible ignorance the means of acquiring the necessary knowledge is outside of one's power. For example, a North Sentinelese tribesman ought to know about Christ and the Catholic faith. Like every human being he is under moral obligation to know it. But that he cannot know it due to being isolated on an island to which no one has access means that no amount of diligence on his part can avail him of that knowledge. Consequently, his ignorance is not culpable.

    The second category is vincible ignorance. Ignorance is vincible when that ignorance could have been rectified with due diligence. If I were a high school student undertaking exams and I come across a question that I do not know the answer to my ignorance is vincible. If I had paid more attention in class or had I done my homework I would have had the knowledge necessary to answer the question. As such my lack of knowledge is a defect and therefore culpable. Of course, the gravity of the defect depends upon the gravity of the subject matter of which one is ignorant. Not knowing the answer to a geography question is not a grave matter. It is in the above case a failing, but a trivial one. Not knowing my religious obligations as a Catholic (such as attending Mass) due to a lack of study would be far more serious.

    The third form is called affected ignorance. Affected ignorance, like vincible ignorance, is a lack of knowledge one could have obtained with due diligence but failed to do so not out of negligence but by willful choice. In other words, it is deliberate ignorance. A Catholic who refuses to study the demands of his faith lest by doing so he should come to knowledge he fears would be inconvenient in the face of his desires would be guilty of affected ignorance. It is not only culpable but itself a grave sin. Affected ignorance is not really ignorance so much as it is an ignoring of obligatory knowledge. You refuse the answer because you know you will not like the answer.

    Now sin is sin. A sin is an act which is intrinsically evil. It can never be the case that a sin is not a sin by the circumstances or the lack of knowledge of its perpetrators. It cannot be that fornication is not a sin for Bob and Lucy but is a sin for Greg and Ashley. No all are guilty. What can differ however is the culpability for sins. Bob and Lucy have had a secular upbringing and have little notion of religion. They have grown up and have never been told of any obligation to marriage. Their ignorance may be such that their culpability is less than Greg and Ashley's, who have had a religious upbringing and thus know better. But we need to be careful and not presume that Bob and Lucy are free of any culpability for Saint Paul tells us that the moral law is written on the heart. Thus it is questionable whether anyone can be truly invincibly ignorant of at least the main tenets of the moral law.

    By the way. According to Google translate, the Hindi word for dodecahedron is द्वादशफ़लक (dvaadashafalak).
     
    #1 Musing Bassist, Jun 27, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2020
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,630
    Ratings:
    +5,209
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    While I understand that the above ^^, is a commonly held belief in religious circles, I think you ought to re-examine this belief. Why is fornication "intrinsically evil"? I think we can all agree that murder is evil, but fornication? How about idolatry?

    My take is that in the time that men created their various religions, they defined "sins" as those things that were not safe for their societies to survive. More or less the science of the day. Kosher butchering comes to mind as an example, along with "fornication", which I'm assuming you mean outside of a monogamous relationship? Back in the day, sex outside of monogamy and unsanitary butchering practices were truly dangerous, hence religion creators called them "sins".

    But we know more now than we did then. Today's popular religions were devised by people with worldviews that would be extraordinarily narrow by today's (western), standards. Why should we be saddled with such narrow, ignorant worldviews?
     
  3. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,526
    Ratings:
    +1,956
    Religion:
    Catholic
    My question would be is there guilt before God if one is has no knowledge of being in a covenant relationship?

    The obligation to marriage speaks to a committed relationship. One may have a committed relationship without a legal marriage.
     
  4. idesofice

    idesofice New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2020
    Messages:
    2
    Ratings:
    +0
     
  5. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    48,186
    Ratings:
    +20,245
    Religion:
    Love
    The categories of ignorance makes sense and is logical.

    If it is intrinsically evil, then by extension any religion which mandates that evil becomes evil. So by Islamic standards, Catholicism is evil because they use idols of Jesus. And that can be extended to Islam and Judaism pure monotheism compared to Christian trinity.

    Thus we get into the situation where true believers in a religion accuse members of other religions of following evil for one reason or another.

    That is not my belief. Rather my belief can be given by an example. Let's say we agree that theft is evil.

    But let's say that a poor woman has given birth and the family is out of work and can't provide formula to keep the baby alive (because the woman can't nurse).

    If I steal formula and give it to the woman thus keeping the baby alive, my deed is evil because theft is evil.

    Is murder evil? Suppose I see a man raping a woman and don't have physical strength to stop him. If I kill the man, is my act evil?

    If you don't like these examples, others can be constructed.

    My argument is that asserting that some things are intrinsically evil and thus not subject to any exceptions is a mistake.

    Rather I believe that some things which are almost often a problem become praiseworthy under special circumstances.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,401
    Ratings:
    +1,174
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Quick side note, according to the OT, monogamous relationships aren't mandatory. A man can have sexual intercourse with his wives (since he can have several) and female servants in perfect legality. Fornication would be sex outside the bound of marriage as to avoid the birth of illegetimate children who would be a danger to the socal tissue since they belong to no familly yet they do exercise claim to one of them.
     
  7. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Ratings:
    +112
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    Science was never ignorant of its want, to forcibly change by GOD by thoughts first, which is what he claims was innocent of the knowledge of original SIN...what God had once been in space....being what he pleaded with our Father, as his science self.

    Father said he was innocent of the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of what he wanted, he was not innocent of....to force change to natural.

    And spiritual wisdom says the reason that creation itself exists was that spirit forced change to their body, so it was the first law and it was completely spiritually understood, to never activate change against self ever again as original spiritual law.

    Our brother/s...for he was the same DNA, and one self as the Catholic knowledge knew...a multi group same mind agreement who shared a huge amount of information which gives the impression of a multi male God like self, originally.

    And it is fake.

    The MACHINE was always the Destroyer, for the Satanic conjuring was always overcome by God O our planet seeing our planet as a God survived the Sun explosive rebellion of the UFO war.

    Our God planet fused at the core, the other Gods blew apart and converted by gaining the place of nothing....fully aware cosmological male human mind transmitted viewing. Knew exactly why a black hole in space exists, for a God O body used to own it. How he knew conversions as a methodology...for the bodies that survived inter active related visions...what you see held in the cosmos in spatial star bodies. The storytellers...where the Satanic self gained his wisdom about how to destroy God.

    So when he says that he knows God the O Earth core, he is lying. He knows the nuclear power plant core and he knows why the Satanic black hole theme of how God fell out of its O mass body and fell into the deep pit of space by a core black hole activation in the planet.

    Cannot know such intricate detailing unless your mind was studier of it.

    That form of SIN is totally against any Father support....hence he has no opportunity as a spiritual male to advise you otherwise, why the advice always has to come through a human life.
     
  8. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Possible Yithian

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,578
    Ratings:
    +1,153
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    The great insight of monotheism is that the world is a created order put in place by a rational mind. The first chapter of John states that Christ is the eternal Logos though whom all things take being. The universe is not an indifferent mechanism existing by brute fact nor is it some chaotic playpen of personified elemental forces who demand blood in exchange for favorable seasons. And while our limited human intellects may not grasp the full intricacies of how this created order works we can understand enough to know that this is a world built on order. This is a world built on rules.

    Now just as there is a physical order, physical laws, there is also a teleological order. As much as modern thought wishes to (selectively) deny this the world is one of meaning and purpose. Creation is teleological. Everything created by God has a telos, a final end, a purpose. The purpose of sexuality is the good of spouses and the procreation of new human beings. God has given us a profound privilege, the ability to cooperate with him in the creation of new human beings; immortal souls intended for eternal happiness. There is little you can do in this life that is more meaningful and significant than to bring about the creation of a brand new human being. A soul who will exist for eternity. And when you really begin to grasp this you begin to grasp the gravity of sexual sin.

    Since the sexual act exists for the good of spouses it follows that sex with whom you are not married is not in accord with the teleological end for which sex is intended. God has been very clear on this. Without the vows of marriage you have no right to sexual activity.

    And I know fully well that in the eyes of the current culture what I have just written is hateful bigotry, but the culture's temper tantrums aside it is what I believe to be the truth. And I know that as fallen human beings cursed with concupiscence this is not an easy truth to accept. But a hard truth doesn't go away for being hard. The reason there are prohibitions on sex is because sex is that profound of an act. It is not to be abused.
     
    #8 Musing Bassist, Jun 28, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020
  9. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Possible Yithian

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,578
    Ratings:
    +1,153
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    All the great religious traditions have taught the immorality of fornication. This is not surprising because the immorality of uncommitted sex is a moral truth written deep within the human heart. Albeit, it's a truth that's very easy to ignore or pretend away.

    Addressing your objection though, you're right. If either Islam or Judaism is true then I've been duped into a terrible blasphemy. If so I can only hope that God will have mercy upon me for my false religion.

    And? I accept as a logical presupposition that assuming the truth of either Islam or Judaism I am a follower of a blasphemous doctrine.

    Sure, theft is wrong.

    Your desire to help the woman while noble would not justify theft on your part. You would be better off purchasing the baby formula for the woman. That it is wrong the steal from others is not a conditional. It is wrong to steal. We may not do evil so good may come of it. Albeit, I don't think any Christian would deny the diminished (if not nonexistent) culpability on the woman's part should she steal to keep her baby alive. The objective reality of theft is evil. No circumstance can make theft in and of itself a good thing. But circumstances can diminish personal culpability. Diminished culpability for a sin does not situationally render that sin a morally good act in itself.

    That would not be murder. Murder is an unjustified killing. Preventing or putting an end to an exceptionally grave evil is not a sin. Even if that means taking a life.

    You fail to understand the distinction between acts as objective realities in themselves and the culpability for said acts among individual actors. There are no circumstances where fornication isn't an intrinsic evil, nor theft nor any other sin. There are circumstances (such as invincible ignorance) where person's culpability for an intrinsically evil act can be diminished if not entirely avoided. This is explicit in the original post.

    And with that kind of thinking you can justify all sorts of awful things.
     
    #9 Musing Bassist, Jun 28, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2020
  10. pcarl

    pcarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    4,526
    Ratings:
    +1,956
    Religion:
    Catholic
    I assume the conversation concerning sin always has to do with ones salvation. But it is not the Church nor any religion that saves, only God saves. To your scenario, was stealing the formula your only option?, assuming you are not a thief and the act was out of character.
    But I agree with where I think you are going with this.
    A man is fired suddenly and without warning and now dreads giving his wife the bad news so he stops at a bar on the way home, one drink after another, and is approached by a woman who offers more than sympathy, and has a sexual encounter. Aware he has sinned he goes to confession and then tells his wife. Is there guilt before God.
    Two married people who work together decide to have an affair, meeting once or twice a week. There is no remorse, within character, real guilt before God.
     
  11. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,630
    Ratings:
    +5,209
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    The way I read your answer, it boils down to: "fornication is a sin because that's what my faith says". I suspect that idolatry as a sin would boil down to the same thing, even harder to justify.

    This is one reason I don't like religion. It proposes that all the answers can be found in one book (perhaps a handful). For most of the religious world, "their book" is centuries old, and - IMO - was written by primitive, barbaric men.

    I think that we've progressed morally and ethically*, and that to ignore that progress is to be willfully ignorant.

    *no doubt, our progress is far from perfect, but it's still progress.
     
  12. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +278
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The way to understand morality is that moral laws are connected to the needs of the group and not the needs of the individual. The reason for this choice, is the team can become more than the sum of its parts. If the team is optimized, all members of the team benefit and all can rise above. If you are a part of a championship team, you and all you team mates are forever on the pedestal of history. While the best player on the worse team may be legion, but everyone else never rises above. Moral law was based on the needs of the championship team, so all could rise.

    The Catholic Church wished to maximize its team. Fornication, if we take away the prosthetics of modern medicine, will lead to terrible diseases. Go to Africa and see what happens when medical supplies are low and formication is high. The death toll is high. Back 2000 years ago, they had no medical supplies for that purpose.The only simple solution for the team, was to forbid the practice. This minimized STD's, death and made the team stronger and healthier.

    Idolatry is based on games your mind can play on you. If you go to a museum and look at the best works of art, good art can move you to feel something; good or bad. Idolatry, is where inanimate objects; art, can create a subjective affect inside the person; feelings, which some people will psychological project back onto the object, to make the object appear alive. The object is inanimate, but can appear animate.

    The golden calf of Moses, was a nice work of art made of gold. It could push buttons like any good art. Some individuals then projected these feelings back to the golden calf, to make ti appear alive. It became an imaginary god, based on internal projection and naivety.

    This is not healthy, nor can it be useful, if the goal is to see reality in an objective way. By getting rid of idolatry; taboo, the naive had to check their projection affect, and become better objective team players. The Catholic Church did very well as a world empire for 1000 years. It was a strong team.

    The Age of Enlightenment started a trend that increasingly changed the focus from the team to the individual. The Age of Exploration was for individual glory. The Robber Barons were huge egos who acquired vast wealth at the expense of the team, etc.. In modern times, billionaires and self serving politicians control the economy and the government for their own purposes. The big team is secondary and it has been fragmented into lots of smaller teams, led by big ego's. This work with relative morality and projection affects of idolatry. If you can get people to think a pet rock is alive, they will buy it.
     
  13. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,630
    Ratings:
    +5,209
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    So far so good. And as I already conceded, our moral progress is still far from perfect. And - as also conceded - the moral teachings put forth centuries ago were good-faith" attempts to make life as safe and healthy as possible.

    But we have progressed. Slavery is now seen - almost universally - as immoral. With a few shocking exceptions, modern human rights are viewed as correct in the majority of the world. (I'm looking at you Organization of Islamic Cooperation.) Misogyny and LGBT-phobia are trending down. While oligarchs are working to undo recent progress, a greater percentage of people are living with at least some minor economic security. And so on.

    Are you claiming that life was better in the "good old days", 1400 or 2000 years ago?
     
  14. Thief

    Thief Rogue Theologian

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2009
    Messages:
    45,410
    Ratings:
    +4,093
    there is only two kinds of ignorance

    they who are not informed.....are ignorant

    they who choose to ignore.....are profoundly ignorant
     
  15. sun rise

    sun rise "Let there be peace and love among all"
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2014
    Messages:
    48,186
    Ratings:
    +20,245
    Religion:
    Love
    To me, if we look beyond theology to the root beliefs of all the religions, they all have the same basic principles. The Golden Rule is one. Speak the truth is another. Heaven is within, sowing and reaping, more blessed to give than receive, don't judge and so forth are common.

    So from my belief system none of them are false. Following any religion with those as the basis will lead to the goal.
     
  16. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    789
    Ratings:
    +278
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Another consideration is efficiency, like we see in nature. Nature does not use man made prosthesis to create an illusion of being something it is not. Nature does not grow veterinarians and doctors on trees, so animals can become perverted and unnatural. Natural selection will pick that which requires minimal assistance. This is a selective advantage.

    In the USA, we spend $trillions per year on various social programs and mops to clean up after immorality, so we can create an illusion this is progress. If we did away with all the social mops, the ancients culture would still prosper, but the immoral modern cultures would be hurting. They are not natural due to the inefficiency. Inefficiency is not part of natural selection, The Ancients knew this from basic observation.

    For example, if we did away with all the medicines and prevention for STD's and we allowed free and open sexuality, instead of self control, the modern culture would have the highest attrition. With the illusions created by the prosthesis, we can fool ourselves to believe we have risen.

    If you believe that God created the earth and the animals, then one would want to be more like the rest of this natural creation. This means self sufficient simplicity like the animals. Once we start adding prosthesis, including bling, this is no longer natural, but an illusion that would disappear without the prosthesis,

    Money is interesting. If you has enough money, you can be mean and dumb as a stump, but still be surrounded by the most complex and magnificent things and dutiful peers. This money mask can hide\s the mean dumb as a stump, and make it look shinty. As long as the prosthesis is available, the illusion can live on. In ancient time, you could not run this scam, but had to develop character; develop from the inside out, instead of from the outside in.
     
  17. epronovost

    epronovost Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2019
    Messages:
    1,401
    Ratings:
    +1,174
    Religion:
    Atheist/non-religious
    Temper tantrum asside of bigots ***
    It's rare to see someone arguing for social darwinim today. I guess it takes someone with a fantasist view of violence and strength and frankly a fetishist for misery. I also love the"tools and proesthetic are unnatural" idiocy. You have an animal with a large brain capable of insight and abstract thinking, but also limbs capable of fine motricity (and for which that animal has been naturally selected), but let's consider all the things those very natural capacity can make out of resources found in nature, let's completely ignore the social structure and organisation they can produce and support and call half of nature unnatural just to maintain a completely false and wrongheaded view.
     
  18. rational experiences

    rational experiences Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2020
    Messages:
    2,939
    Ratings:
    +112
    Religion:
    spiritualist
    If science quotes a male reasoning as a scientist and then DATA infers it to why his Genetics got sacrificed then he did.

    Gave the attack/sacrifice of life a meaning. Does that quote today have a purpose for anyone who claims cosmological Great deep themes, that he says is where Satan exists?

    Makes no common sense actually.

    As science is just an evolved status of the human male who changes his mind and thoughts constantly, as he still demon strata today....then if he says, do not change the God face, or else you will SEE the phenomena....then he said exactly that status.

    Science always began its science themes as a living male human living on a O stone planet that the stone science philosophers stated was the science of God.

    How to produce an energy reaction by forcibly chosen by males in science upon the body of God energy/mass our planet. And cannot own a machine unless he takes from that mass first?

    Yet his cosmological thesis says and states, when no stone existed.

    How is that not relative to a human male confession in his conscious thoughts....being what the Christ conscious teachings were about....claiming, hence I am trying to force it not to exist, for the nature of creation in God does exist?

    You would be irrational and own a behavioural condition relative to how your mind thinks destructively and it already own a self teaching.

    If you said 12 O God light and 12 O God darkness...that both sides owned the same condition, then you would have stated a theme...…….
    ADAM/ADAM.

    Said that in the space womb (fake female inferred) is Adam, the Holy male self/son living a life as a human.
    Said that the light sky (sacrifice of gas/spirit to own light) is Adam also.

    As the same state...by a scientific Catholic quote...the CHURCH healer/spiritual biologists in science, about Genetic survival, and a history of proof that it can change into giant creatures if you altered the gases in the Heavenly mass.

    What the real teachings were about....relativity of evil occultist science/radiation mass from the Sun.

    For the Sun in its owned body is a self consuming mass. The cold mass radiation held frozen in space conditions is a higher form of a sun...but if activated into burning by light gases burning, becomes self consuming.

    A very simple scientific statement about relativity.

    Therefore all themes were about God O the stone and its owned highest status in the cosmology as being an original O one theme/teaching.

    Nothing to do with any Sun. For our Earth is nothing like a Sun, also relative.

    Therefore to do a proof you would quote ADAM/ADAM.

    Say BC/ADAM.

    Claiming before Christ was the spatial cold womb emptiness that owned the presence Christ mass...the spirit gases...already owning self sacrifice as light, and saved as light....as a natural relative status Heavenly mass.

    Then your would quote ADAM was previous...then quote BC/AD Jesus.

    And then say no ADAM any more as that proof.

    AD is after the irradiation of the spatial womb 0 forced to become hot radiation in space inheritance. O God the stone the traveller of stone through the system of 12.

    ADAM 0 ADAM...should state cold spatial womb first owned the review, change and then saving of the natural light, conversion to own science on Earth.

    Change is first relevant in science causes....for change is always expected.

    If you first own information before change...which is also relative in science, then when you activate change, then change is notified.

    What the Bible said cause and effect of having changed the Earth atmospheric night time sky and removed the EVEN balances that had supported a healthy human bio life form was why the giants then ruled the Earth.

    And all of these facts were correlated in a returned/reincarnated and new science practicing occult, that looked back and did an assessment about science existing practiced a long time ago....who caused the dinosaur mutation in science causes, the giants...to discuss its relativity to write the new document.
     
  19. Musing Bassist

    Musing Bassist Possible Yithian

    Joined:
    May 18, 2014
    Messages:
    2,578
    Ratings:
    +1,153
    Religion:
    Catholicism
    No, my answer boils down to fornication being against the natural law. But your response doesn't surprise me because materialism presupposes a rejection of teleology. If you think reject the notion that the universe is a rational, moral order then much of what I've written will not make sense to you. Our fundamental presuppositions about universe are opposed.

    As you have done twice now, I could just as easily inject my own adjective laced condemnations about worldviews I reject (such as yours) but it wouldn't make for a productive discussion. It also telling that your big issue with my OP is my mere mention of fornication as a sin even though that was not what this thread was meant to be about. And I'm just as guilty for engaging knowing that our discussion would be beside the point of the OP.

    Do you hold to a materialist worldview? (At least more or less). Because if you do it makes no sense to talk of moral progress. To say we're progressing morally implies that moral truth is a measurable phenomenon. A substance with real reality and we for whatever reason have more of it now then we did in the past. But that's incoherent if morality is only opinion.

    There can be no right and wrong under your paradigm, only preferences. And in terms of preferences there are some areas in which I think modern society is preferable. In others we've regressed.

    The Marxists claimed the coming and perpetual triumph of their ideas as a historical inevitability. That the laws of history will lead inexorably to communism was "scientific" fact. I bring this up because the secular humanists seem to be under the same illusions about their worldview and their morality.
     
    #19 Musing Bassist, Jun 29, 2020
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2020
  20. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    9,630
    Ratings:
    +5,209
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    I don't adhere to any single philosophy, but I would say that I'm "mostly" a utilitarian. And I think that - for human beings - we will arrive at a set of morals that maximizes our individual and collective well beings.

    Your tagline lists you as following Catholicism. I'm not sure that you're making your arguments from that vantage, but if you are, then much of the non-Catholic world will disagree with your take on what's "natural" and what's "universal".

    To be clear, "fornication" is not my big issue with the OP. It's an example. Other examples include, idolatry, slavery, and misogyny.

    Agreed with the implication. And I believe morality is already somewhat measurable and that we'll get better and better at measuring it over time. We all value good health, good nutrition, safety and security, and so on. Acts that promote these values are morally correct and acts that defeat these values are incorrect.

    If you don't agree, then I believe any exception you name will not hold up to universal scrutiny. If you get your exceptions from your religion, then you are creating an "us vs. them" situation.

    Man, I'm sooooo tired of this comparison. :rolleyes: Marxists were not true secularists. They were simply trying to prop up a new demigod.

    Putting Marxists (and all of their ilk), aside, what's distinct about secular humanists, is that we're not hidebound to a certain set of ideas, other than, perhaps, to value what science values. Our worldviews are free to evolve as we learn more about how to achieve collective and individual well being.
     
Loading...