Humility: Good or Bad?

[james03]

You are hitch hiking again.  When have you established "justice"?  I asked you how you could condemn a looter who is perfectly happy looting.  Please use "reason" to condemn them and thus prove justice.  In fact, you are demanding of them a SACRIFICE as they would have to give up their enjoyable life of looting and settle for less.  Please show me with "reason" why they should sacrifice for you.

[Probius]

You are hitch hiking again.  When have you established "justice"?  I asked you how you could condemn a looter who is perfectly happy looting.  Please use "reason" to condemn them and thus prove justice.  In fact, you are demanding of them a SACRIFICE as they would have to give up their enjoyable life of looting and settle for less.  Please show me with "reason" why they should sacrifice for you.

I want no one to sacrifice for me, and I wouldn't respect anyone that did.  Justice is according to reason.  Humans use reason to come to an understanding of justice.  That is what humans do, we use our reason to understand the world around us.  Reason is giving to one what is owed.  That which is owed is that which has been earned through trade of goods and/or services.

[james03]

You are still hitch hiking.  I'm asking you to demonstrate this "reason".  Say I'm a looter.  I have a social contract with some moral degenerate atheists who have guns and armies.  I give them my vote, and I get a nice check and live free.  I have a social contract with the other 55% who are atheist looters and takers, and being atheists, any appeal to religious "virtues" will fall on deaf ears, so all you have is "reason" to convince us.  We are very happy with this arrangement.  Why should I produce or exchange anything for my check above the vote I provide?  Please convince me with "reason" why I should make this sacrifice and give up the good life.

[Probius]

You are still hitch hiking.  I'm asking you to demonstrate this "reason".  Say I'm a looter.  I have a social contract with some moral degenerate atheists who have guns and armies.  I give them my vote, and I get a nice check and live free.  I have a social contract with the other 55% who are atheist looters and takers, and being atheists, any appeal to religious "virtues" will fall on deaf ears, so all you have is "reason" to convince us.  We are very happy with this arrangement.  Why should I produce or exchange anything for my check above the vote I provide?  Please convince me with "reason" why I should make this sacrifice and give up the good life.

What you are describing is a bribe in order to convince a group of men to steal for you.  This is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.

[james03]

This is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.

You are hitch hiking again.

I told you in this example I am an atheist.  I don't believe in "justice" or "rights".  I believe I am a pile of atoms, and I believe I feel pain, but haven't given much thought to how "I" can think about things and feel, otherwise I'd be Catholic.  Anyhow, while this pile of atoms exists, I am enjoying getting that government loot, and giving it up violates my opposition to sacrifice.  So once again, convince me otherwise.  If you want to use the term "justice", then establish it through reason alone, as you say.  You claim you don't need God for this task, and I'm still waiting for you to establish it without the existence of God.  Because I already know you can't.

[Probius]

This is a violation of men's rights, and hence a violation of justice.  Furthermore what you have with these men is not a true contract because it involves some unwilling parties, namely those who are being robbed.  The proposition is also illogical as the robbers and you steal the chance to achieve your own moral perfection, and those who have been robbed are obviously injured as their rights have been violated.  And lastly society as a whole is injured as it cannot work properly if looting is to be allowed.  This is how reason shows us that your proposition is untenable and bad for both society as well as certain individuals.

You are hitch hiking again.

I told you in this example I am an atheist.  I don't believe in "justice" or "rights".  I believe I am a pile of atoms, and I believe I feel pain, but haven't given much thought to how "I" can think about things and feel, otherwise I'd be Catholic.  Anyhow, while this pile of atoms exists, I am enjoying getting that government loot, and giving it up violates my opposition to sacrifice.  So once again, convince me otherwise.  If you want to use the term "justice", then establish it through reason alone, as you say.  You claim you don't need God for this task, and I'm still waiting for you to establish it without the existence of God.  Because I already know you can't.

In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

It doesn't make any sense to explain ideas like justice and rights by simply saying God did it, that is an insufficient explanation and is utterly wanting.  It dodges the question as well.  The real way to explain these ideas is with reason.  Here we go: All men are born equal, because all men are born with Locke's tabula rasa.  Since no man can lay claim to superiority by birth it stands to reason that no man can lay claim to the right to rule over any other man.  As all men are equal and men need a way of working together in a shared society in which they strengthen each other and achieve what none of them could possibly achieve as individuals, they are going to need a way to associate with each other as a society.  This is where Rousseau's social contract comes in.  These men associate freely with one another through a social contract that establishes the basis by which they create laws to aid in their endeavor to create a society in which they may all flourish as individuals and as a society.  From this social contract and the succeeding laws we get concepts like 'justice' and 'rights'.  I hope this makes sense.

P.S. Your pushing me on this topic has helped me to formulate this idea much better, thanks.

[SouthpawLink]

Speaking of Rousseau, I came across this passage in Msgr. Van Noort's text on dogmatic theology:

"People would like to establish virtue on purely rational grounds-but in vain; what basis could they offer for it?  Virtue, they say, is love of order.  But really could such a love of order, in fact should it, take preference in me over the love of my own happiness?  Let them give me a reason for preferring love of order to self-love.  If God does not exist, the wicked man is the only reasonable man; the good man is really a fool" (Rousseau, Emile, or On Education, I, 4).

[ts aquinas]

In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

Teleological language from an atheist? Are you sure you're an atheist my friend  Well, even the hardliners even admit that they are forced to use teleological language despite their dissent from it.

[Probius]

In your example you sound much more like a nihilist than an atheist, and it is important to note the difference.  Atheism is a negative position and asserts nothing.  An atheist can be a nihilist or can hold to any other philosophical school, but he doesn't necessarily have to be a nihilist.  An atheist is just someone who doesn't believe in God or any other gods.  Nihilism is a positive position as it is a philosophical school.  Nihilist's don't believe in any purpose to the universe and are rather dark people as a side note.  A nihilist would indeed deny any concept of justice or rights, but an atheist does not have to.  And as an atheist I do not believe that I am just a pile of atoms, I am a man, which is to say an animal with reason.

Teleological language from an atheist? Are you sure you're an atheist my friend  Well, even the hardliners even admit that they are forced to use teleological language despite their dissent from it.

I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.

[Non Nobis]

Thanks to all for such a thought-provoking thread! I'm less than 1/2 way through it, but it's the middle of the night, so I'll have to put the thread and myself to bed.

[ts aquinas]

I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.

And this subjectivism is going to pursued a nihilist from his objective hard determinism?

[Probius]

I'm missing the teleological language, unless you mean that atheists can have a purpose in life.  However, that is purpose is only whatever the atheist chooses it to be.

And this subjectivism is going to pursued a nihilist from his objective hard determinism?

I don't understand your question.

[Larry]

Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...

[LouisIX]

Okay.  The two genealogies from Matthew and Luke was the first problem I noticed.  They are way off, and not even close to each other.  Who is Joseph's father?  Matthew tells us he is Jacob, Luke tells us he is Heli.  Really?

The genealogies are not intended to be the same.  They're attempting to show geneaology in two different ways.  These are both synoptic gospels, and they are very related.  This wouldn't be an "oops" moment as the writer of one most likely had access to the information of the other.  Keep in mind that each evangelist is intending to portray a different aspect of Christ.  If you'll notice, Matthew's Gospel is most concerned with Christ as a man, the Suffering Servant of Psalm 22, who comes to fulfill the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah.  The selection of whom to name in Christ's lineage reflects Matthew's concerns and what he hopes for his largely Jewish audience to notice about Jesus.

I will explain more later.

Later in Matthew he calls Jacob Joseph's father.  Later in Luke he calls Heli Joseph's father.  How can Joseph have two fathers?  And if Jesus is the promised messiah, why is he not capable of claiming the Jewish throne?  The lineage in Matthew is cursed because of Jeconiah.  The lineage in Luke does not contain Solomon.  He had two cracks at it and neither panned out.  If he cannot sit on the throne of David, he is not the messiah.  Further the Jewish messiah was never meant to be God either.  That would be abhorrent to Jewish theology, God simply cannot become a man.  The messiah was supposed to only be a righteous man and not God.

It was abhorrent because the Jews didn't listen to all of the prophecies of the Incarnation.  Seriously, it's all over the Old Testament.

[Probius]

Crimson Flyboy, how do you explain that at least 70,000 people saw the Miracle of the Sun at Fatima, and that the secular, anti-Catholic press reported seeing it as well? How do you explain the Miracles of healing at Lourdes? How do you explain the Holy Shroud of Turin? And on and on...

I have heard a lot about the miracle of the sun, but don't know about a lot of the details.  The miracles at Lourdes are dubious.  Hundreds of thousands people go to Lourdes every year, yet we only hear of a few supposed miracles.  This could very well be a statistical anomaly.  There isn't much evidence that the shroud of Turin is actually the shroud Jesus of Nazareth was buried with.  Miracles in general are highly dubious as there normally is not much evidence.  And if we are defining miracle as a suspension of natural laws, then the presence of miracles would create problems as it would mean that our natural laws would be thrown into doubt and we couldn't be sure if we knew anything at that point.  It would be a disaster for the scientific community.