Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Some Christians baptize children long before they are old enough to chose anything. I disagree with this but see nothing bad about it.

I struggled with this issue quite a bit when I was married to a Catholic and trying to decide how to raise any kids we might have. I came to the conclusion that there was a lot bad with this practice.

The issue isn't so much with the ceremony itself but with the theology behind it.

When a parent presents their child for infant baptism, they're effectively saying "as he is right now, my child is so evil that a righteous God could very well be justified in torturing him forever to punish him for being as evil as he is. Therefore, we need to dunk him in water in a special way to 'fix' him."

The dunking in water part is a bit silly, but the implied attitude of the parents toward the child is monstrous, IMO.

... provided they take the theology seriously, of course. I realize that in practice, many (most?) parents who baptize their kids do it because of cultural norms or family expectations and might not be thinking too much about the theological implications.

 

[icehorse]

That is a whole other subject. It is sort of a joke among Christian scholars that you can't ask an ontological moral question without getting an epistemological response. I use to point out what the difference is and why it is not a fitting response but found I could not even stop it by anticipating and heading it off. So I gave up the effort. I do not have to be able to show what moral follows from a specific God to show that only from God can any morality flow. Nature is morally important, no molecule in the universe has a moral property, and natural law cannot tell us how things "ought" to be. I can attempt to shed some light on how and why I may say that because God exist murder is wrong but I want to make first make certain that without God nothing is actually contrary to any objective moral fact. My three points have no dependence on which moral is true. They are true (and necessarily so) of morality in general. They are also propositional inevitabilities. I did not say I could prove which one is true but it remains that one must still be true. Now that I have said that I will elaborate on what morals are true and why if you still request it. However what I claimed is true even if no one knew what God existed or a single specific moral fact what so ever.

In other words, you won't provide an example to back up your earlier claim?

 

[1robin]

I struggled with this issue quite a bit when I was married to a Catholic and trying to decide how to raise any kids we might have. I came to the conclusion that there was a lot bad with this practice.

The issue isn't so much with the ceremony itself but with the theology behind it.

When a parent presents their child for infant baptism, they're effectively saying "as he is right now, my child is so evil that a righteous God could very well be justified in torturing him forever to punish him for being as evil as he is. Therefore, we need to dunk him in water in a special way to 'fix' him."

I kind of agree but for slightly different reasons. I disagree with it because:

1. It says the God they believe in judges a child not yet old enough to make informed moral decisions as accountable. Anyone can believe that the child acts immorally on occasion but few would like to believe that a God has condemned them for these acts of ignorance. I believe the doctrine of accountability. Only when a child reaches an age at which they can properly reason about moral issues are they held eternally accountable.
2. It also destroys the true reason behind the ceremony. The ceremony does nothing to save anyone. Christ's death is what saves. The ceremony is meant as a public symbol that a persons sins have been cleansed by Christ and they are now a new person born of the spirit. The ceremony as a substitute negates what Christ did and suggests that our actions can replace what Christ did. Being dunked in water without being born again only means we are going to Hell with a wet head. However as a symbol of an actual spiritual event it serves a purpose. Only when it substitutes for the spiritual event is it no longer a holy ceremony.

e dunking in water part is a bit silly, but the implied attitude of the parents toward the child is monstrous, IMO.

It is silly if it stands alone but as a public symbol for a spiritual fact it serves a moral purpose.

they take the theology seriously, of course. I realize that in practice, many (most?) parents who baptize their kids do it because of cultural norms or family expectations and might not be thinking too much about the theological implications.

I do not think infant baptism is a cultural norm. It is a very debated practice in just Christian circles alone. I think it is the result of parents trying to hedge their bets but I disagree with them.

 

[1robin]

In other words, you won't provide an example to back up your earlier claim?

Good grief. I will post again what I said.

I can attempt to shed some light on how and why I may say that because God exist murder is wrong.
Now that I have said that I will elaborate on what morals are true and why if you still request it.

Since you did not get these sentences let me restate them. What you responded with has nothing to do with what you responded to. I will attempt to answer this new question you asked but it has nothing to do with the point I made.

Here is answer number 1.

Murder is wrong according to Yahweh. That it is immoral to take another's life without justification.

I guess you had nothing to add to the original subject so I will consider that one closed and this new one open.

 

[Riverwolf]

Good grief. I will post again what I said.



Since you did not get these sentences let me restate them. What you responded with has nothing to do with what you responded to. I will attempt to answer this new question you asked but it has nothing to do with the point I made.

Here is answer number 1.

Murder is wrong according to Yahweh. That it is immoral to take another's life without justification.

I guess you had nothing to add to the original subject so I will consider that one closed and this new one open.

Murder is wrong because it brings harm to the overall Community, not just the victim and family/friends. No Gods needed.

 

[1robin]

Murder is wrong because it brings harm to the overall Community, not just the victim and family/friends. No Gods needed.

Not even close. Not only wrong but this it is impossible for this to be true. Wrong is wrong because there is such a thing as right, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, then there is such a thing as a transcendent law by which to determine what is right and what is wrong, if there is a transcendent law then there is a transcendent law giver but that is what you deny not what you affirm. So you are the best argument against your claim. Without God I can kill every human who ever lived and have done nothing objectively wrong. BTW why is killing the human community wrong but enslaving and killing the rest of nature right? That is not morality, it is speciesm. Only with God does man have any claim to any rights over anything. Without God, as it always is, it is not even might makes right. It is might makes excuses and pretends convenience is right.


Let me ask you this. If a person exterminated every life form in existence and then atomizes every structure in the universe. Prove they did anything actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Without God I can kill every human who ever lived and have done nothing objectively wrong.

Surely you don't need God to tell you that killing is wrong?

 

[1robin]

Surely you don't need God to tell you that killing is wrong?

I need him before killing is actually wrong. Just in case this is a response if the form of the old claim that people knew not to kill before the ten commandments were issued let me respond to both. God's nature determines what is moral or immoral not his declarations. He gives men a moral conscience, his commands do not make morality true (they could but they don't), they serve to ground morality in a objective context and confirm what we almost universally perceive to be true. So I may not need him to tell me to not murder to believe it is not right, but only if he exist is my belief it isn't right actually true.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I need him before killing is actually wrong.

I don't.

 

[1robin]

I don't.

Yes you do. Prove that killing every human that ever existed is actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes you do. Prove that killing every human that ever existed is actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

How about you prove that it's wrong WITH appealing to the transcendent? Keep Genesis 6-9 in mind while you do so.

 

[1robin]

How about you prove that it's wrong WITH appealing to the transcendent? Keep Genesis 6-9 in mind while you do so.

Before I do so let me correct the mistake I believe your making. Your assuming that any killing you wish can be claimed as a murder and condemned. Now you can attempt to do so if you wish but there is no way what so ever your going to be able to make the case you have any idea whether God had justification for killing. I find this an inconvenient fact but one so undeniable I have had to accept it. There is no possible way an extremely finite creature can condemn an action of God. I wish it were different because it is impossible to debate what can't be determined. I am consistent in my views. You and I can hate what a God would do but we have no power to determine whether it is wrong. For example if Allah existed I would hate him yet be incapable of determining he was wrong. Judging God is like a one ended stick. It is impossible. So my claims would center around God's justification for killing but no one can really determine whether he actually had it or not. On what standard can it be claimed an infinite intelligence that has sovereignty and has created all life is unjustifiable in taking it. If he killed us all this second I know not how to indict him.

 

[JustWondering]

Wrong is wrong because there is such a thing as right, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, then there is such a thing as a transcendent law...

Humans are social creatures. It is instinct for us to gather and live in groups. Each group decides for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" for them. There are still tribes in isolated parts of the world that practice cannibalism and that is "right" for them, "wrong" I hope, for those of us on this forum. Wantonly killing other humans goes against our nature (even cannibalistic tribes have rules and customs on what is proper behavior). What you see as "transcendent law" I see as genetically driven behavior.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Before I do so let me correct the mistake I believe your making. Your assuming that any killing you wish can be claimed as a murder and condemned.

Nope. You assumed badly about my assumptions.

Now you can attempt to do so if you wish but there is no way what so ever your going to be able to make the case you have any idea whether God had justification for killing. I find this an inconvenient fact but one so undeniable I have had to accept it. There is no possible way an extremely finite creature can condemn an action of God.

So... with God, you think that killing every person on Earth is not necessarily objectively wrong? If so, then why do you expect it to be necessarily objectively wrong without God?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Prove that killing every human that ever existed is actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

I don't need to prove it, I know it. And that knowledge isn't dependent on belief in God. Following your logic all atheists would be mass murderers.

 

[icehorse]

Not even close. Not only wrong but this it is impossible for this to be true. Wrong is wrong because there is such a thing as right, if there is such a thing as right and wrong, then there is such a thing as a transcendent law by which to determine what is right and what is wrong, if there is a transcendent law then there is a transcendent law giver but that is what you deny not what you affirm. So you are the best argument against your claim. Without God I can kill every human who ever lived and have done nothing objectively wrong. BTW why is killing the human community wrong but enslaving and killing the rest of nature right? That is not morality, it is speciesm. Only with God does man have any claim to any rights over anything. Without God, as it always is, it is not even might makes right. It is might makes excuses and pretends convenience is right.

Let me ask you this. If a person exterminated every life form in existence and then atomizes every structure in the universe. Prove they did anything actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

It strikes me that you pursue a philosophy that assumes a god. No problem, lots of people do. But for us atheists, it's just another philosophy, and it doesn't have any special status.

 

[Riverwolf]

if there is such a thing as right and wrong, then there is such a thing as a transcendent law by which to determine what is right and what is wrong,

I fail to see the logic behind the former requiring the latter. The existence of something can be subjective. Take the value of money or political boundaries; these things exist but are subjective.

BTW why is killing the human community wrong but enslaving and killing the rest of nature right?

It ultimately causes more harm than help, both to the rest of nature, and to our Community; therefore, it's not good.

The existence of the Community is dependent on the stability of nature.

Let me ask you this. If a person exterminated every life form in existence and then atomizes every structure in the universe. Prove they did anything actually wrong without appealing to the transcendent.

Harm was done to every life form in existence. How is that not enough?

 

[1robin]

Humans are social creatures. It is instinct for us to gather and live in groups. Each group decides for themselves what is "right" and "wrong" for them. There are still tribes in isolated parts of the world that practice cannibalism and that is "right" for them, "wrong" I hope, for those of us on this forum. Wantonly killing other humans goes against our nature (even cannibalistic tribes have rules and customs on what is proper behavior). What you see as "transcendent law" I see as genetically driven behavior.

This is only the attempt to deny an almost universally accepted moral reality and then try and fill the vacuum with anything at hand. It is impossibly that an objective moral fact is right for one and wrong for another culture. What you did was to dismiss the basis for a thing being right or wrong and substitute a basis for determining what is preferred or not. There is nothing wrong with that unless you then call that preference right and wrong. I actually do not disagree with you except for the fact that what you say is a conditional and arbitrary claim. Let me sum up what must be true.

1. If a single moral fact is objectively true then God must exist.
2. If God does not exist then objective right and wrong no longer mean anything. There is no such thing as something being right for Haiti and wrong for this forum. At best there is something preferred by one group and inconvenient for another. That is not morality it is ethics and bears no relationship to any moral truth. I can agree with you about this as it is inevitable if God doe not exist but you use the wrong terms to describe it.
3. Also no molecule in the universe has a moral property. Without God (being the only source of objective moral facts) nothing is against our nature. Some things may be against some of our preferences but without God we are merely an anomalous collection of molecules none of which have a moral property. As the philosopher of science said. Without God morality is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes. It isn't moral truth. BTW massive numbers of us have engaged in wanton human destruction. In 5000 years we have had 300 of peace.

 

[1robin]

Nope. You assumed badly about my assumptions.

Ok, but if I was incorrect I have no idea what you said actually means.

So... with God, you think that killing every person on Earth is not necessarily objectively wrong? If so, then why do you expect it to be necessarily objectively wrong without God?

You've complicated things a bit here. This is not exactly what I said. BTW why will none of you ever answer my question? Like you did here all I get is equivocation or a return question from non-theists. Never an answer.

1. What is morally true or binding on an infinite being with perfect for knowledge is different from what is binding on beings with extremely finite knowledge. God would know the full moral implications of his acts where we never can. IOW God perfectly knows the guilt of every human who ever existed. We very rarely know the true guilt of anyone. So taking life without any justification would always be objectively wrong but only God could have certain knowledge of the justification for taking life, we cannot.
2. You seem to have what I said either confused so badly it no longer relates to it or perhaps have it backwards. What I said was:
A. Only with God is taking life without justification wrong.
B. So if God exists then if we destroyed all life on earth without justification we would be perfectly wrong.
C. If he does not exist and we did so we may be held accountable to the opinions of others but would have done nothing actually wrong.


So let me ask this for maybe the 30th time and see if I can get an answer.

Can you prove without appealing to the transcendent that killing every form of life in the universe is actually wrong?

 

[1robin]

I don't need to prove it, I know it. And that knowledge isn't dependent on belief in God. Following your logic all atheists would be mass murderers.

IOW you have no idea how it could possibly be true but have as non-theists must made your self God and confused you preference and opinion with an objective truth. You cannot possibly know something that cannot possibly be true unless God exists, unless he does, and even then it is merely possible for you to know and not guaranteed.


Since you like every single other non-theist I have asked that question of refuse to actually answer it let me ask another one based on your incorrect and evasive reply.


Lets say you were the president of half of Earth's population, and Hitler the president of the other half. Your half claims to "know" that murder is wrong "which is cannot possibly be true unless God exists but lets continue anyway", Hitler claims to "know" murder is right and sets about killing your people. Now it is his opinion against yours. Without God there is no fact of the matter and no higher standard by which to determine who is right. So what would you do? Act consistently with what you think you "know" and allow him to kill everyone because to kill his people would be wrong. Or would you act inconsistently with what you claim and insist he can't know that murder is right and do what you "know" is wrong and kill his people if they attack your? Either way unless God exists your both wrong and you must act inconsistently with your own views. If you just discuss the non-theistic world view long enough it will end in a futile paradox every single time.