Dennis,

I know I asked you a question a while back but never got to see what your response was, if at all there was one, before the thread was deleted. Therefore, I am going to try and ask the same question again.

It seems, you don't believe any rational adult could possibly believe in God or the Devil, which seems to be inferred by your lumping belief in God as akin to belief in the Easter Bunny, Santa, alien abductions, etc. However, this begs the question what it is that you actually believe in? Also, why can't one be "rational" and believe in God at the same time, why does one have to "outgrow" their beliefs in God, the Devil, Angels, etc.?

I am truly curious as to what you believe, and would have asked this question under Kathy's thread but did not want to impose upon her heartfelt predicament. Besides, I want to start an engaging discussion and not a pointless flame war. However, if it happens to devolve into a pointless flame war then the Moderator could easily delete this thread.

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 10, 2002

Answers

Hi, Brian.

I just wanted to let you know that, dennis is banned from this Catholic forum by the Moderator. I know you probably didn't know that, and I wanted to let you know.

David

-- David (David@excite.com), May 10, 2002.

The word "banned" is interesting, isn't it? I am supposedly "banned" because I have made disparaging comments about catholicism and I insist on posting news articles outlining church crimes. People on this forum don't want to be reminded that their church is responsible for the suffering of many. They would rather "ban" the messenger...

As to what I "believe"? Another interesting question - that you feel it necessary to believe in something. I guess I believe -like every other living creature, we are born and we die - that's it. I self identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist (although many mix the two up) I do believe in the possibility (however remote) that there is a Supreme Being, because science cannot absolutely disprove the concept.

Logic dictates that our presence here, indeed the evolution of mankind – is happenstance. The true critical mind must ask oneself: “while I have been indoctrinated into this faith by parents, is it really logical to assume my particular religion is the One True Way?” Once you have honestly asked yourself this question, the road to truth unfolds in front of you.

I do have faith - in the general goodness and morality of human beings – that when given the choice, most of us will do the right thing (certain priests, cardinals and bishops notwithstanding…)

-- Dennis Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Dennis,

"I do have faith - in the general goodness and morality of human beings – that when given the choice, most of us will do the right thing.

Interesting . . . very interesting. Considering that apart from the existence of the Judeo-Christian God who issued the Ten Commandments and the moral code of right and wrong that's imbedded in our consciences, there would be no goodness and morality within humans. Without God as we define Him, humans would exist by the "survival of the fittest" principle and you would have nothing to place your faith in.

Agnostics don't usually believe that God has communicated with man (e.g. through the prophets and scripture). They believe that God, if there is a God, "it" is distant and uninvolved in man affairs. And they certainly don't believe that God will one day judge people for the right and wrong they have done here on earth to determine their ultimate and eternal destiny. Yet, that's the very principle that provides the goodness and morality that you place your faith in. For without that code and without the belief in a final judgement, mankind would not be a creature worthy of placing your faith in.

Seems that your agnostic beliefs may not be as well defined as you might suggest. That's actually a good thing and perhaps a partial explanation of why you're here on this forum.

David

-- non-Catholic Christian (dlbowerman@yahoo.com), May 11, 2002.

There are those also who do not believe in the necessity of a "PERSONAL" godde for morality to exist. There are those whose concept of 'God" is not theistic, or of the Judeo/Christian stock, but rather they see Godde as the source, the energy force from which all has issued. They see, in a sense, all that is...as Godde. They do not see a human projection of a law maker- being, playing chess with the pieces of humanity. For them all that is, and all that is becoming, is Godde. Teilhard de Chardin was one particular who believed in the evolution of Godde.

Morality based on an external being depicts a duality...a good and an evil, an us and an Other. This is a condition of the capacity of the human mind. Coming to consciousness, or the Fall as some may refer to it, has limited one to see life as duality, separation, good and evil, them and us. Simply put the human mind 'limits' one's ability to perceive the Oneness of all things .

Some, especially our mystics, perceive beyond duality. For these there is an awareness, an uncovering you might say, of the layers that block them from the source, and such reveals that it is not so much about good and evil but rather living in harmony, a harmony with oneself, ones basic and natural being and with all existence. As an aside here, we might say from this that a human's ecology is the window to the soul. :-)

For these it is an unlayering of inherited beliefs, unlayering the visions of duality, to the awareness of the Oneness of all things. It is an awareness of the harmonic dance of all existence. An awareness that it is in this harmony of living that one attains...the heaven that is already present, and the eternal life that is, not the same as the 'in the clouds heaven" of many a theist, but the very fabric of all being.

These find so called morality within the very essence of who they are. They choose compassion and love because it is their very nature, it is the essence of who they are. They discover such as they travel to the very depths of themselves, beyond the layers.

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 11, 2002.

Here is an article I had on this topic. Maybe it would be of some interest.

Morality Requires God ... or Does It?

by Theodore Schick, Jr.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 17, Number 3.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Although Plato demonstrated the logical independence of God and morality over 2,000 years ago in the Euthyphro, the belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's ills - everything from AIDS to out-of- wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. Although many fundamentalists trace the beginning of this decline to the publication of Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species in 1859, others trace it to the Supreme Court's 1963 decision banning prayer in the classroom. In an attempt to neutralize these purported sources of moral decay, fundamentalists across America are seeking to restore belief in God by promoting the teaching of creationism and school prayer.

The belief that morality requires God is not limited to theists, however. Many atheists subscribe to it as well. The existentialist Jean-Paul Sartre, for example, says that "If God is dead, everything is permitted." In other words, if there is no supreme being to lay down the moral law, each individual is free to do as he or she pleases. Without a divine lawgiver, there can be no universal moral law.

The view that God creates the moral law is often called the "Divine Command Theory of Ethics." According to this view, what makes an action right is that God wills it to be done. That an agnostic should find this theory suspect is obvious, for, if one doesn't believe in God or if one is unsure which God is the true God, being told that one must do as God commands will not help one solve any moral dilemmas. What is not so obvious is that theists should find this theory suspect, too, for it is inconsistent with a belief in God. The upshot is that both the fundamentalists and the existentialists are mistaken about what morality requires.

The Arbitrary Lawgiver

To better understand the import of the Divine Command Theory, consider the following tale. It seems that, when Moses came down from the mountain with the tablets containing the Ten Commandments, his followers asked him what they revealed about how they should live their lives. Moses told them, "I have some good news and some bad news."

"Give us the good news first," they said.

"Well, the good news," Moses responded, "is that he kept the number of commandments down to ten."

"Okay, what's the bad news?" they inquired.

"The bad news," Moses replied, "is that he kept the one about adultery in there." The point is that, according to Divine Command Theory, nothing is right or wrong unless God makes it so. Whatever God says goes. So if God had decreed that adultery was permissible, then adultery would be permissible.

Let's take this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion. If the Divine Command Theory were true, then the Ten Commandments could have gone something like this: "Thou shalt kill everyone you dislike. Thou shalt rape every woman you desire. Thou shalt steal everything you covet. Thou shalt torture innocent children in your spare time. ..." The reason that this is possible is that killing, raping, stealing, and torturing were not wrong before God made them so. Since God is free to establish whatever set of moral principles he chooses, he could just as well have chosen this set as any other.

Many would consider this a reductio ad absurdum of the Divine Command Theory, for it is absurd to think that such wanton killing, raping, stealing, and torturing could be morally permissible. Moreover, to believe that God could have commanded these things is to destroy whatever grounds one might have for praising or worshiping him. Leibniz, in his Discourse on Metaphysics, explains:

In saying, therefore, that things are not good according to any standard of goodness, but simply by the will of God, it seems to me that one destroys, without realizing it, all the love of God and all his glory; for why praise him for what he has done, if he would be equally praiseworthy in doing the contrary? Where will be his justice and his wisdom if he has only a certain despotic power, if arbitrary will takes the place of reasonableness, and if in accord with the definition of tyrants, justice consists in that which is pleasing to the most powerful? Besides it seems that every act of willing supposes some reason for the willing and this reason, of course, must precede the act.

Leibniz's point is that, if things are neither right nor wrong independently of God's will, then God cannot choose one thing over another because it is right. Thus, if he does choose one over another, his choice must be arbitrary. But a being whose decisions are arbitrary is not a being worthy of worship.

The fact that Leibniz rejects the Divine Command Theory is significant, for he is one of the most committed theists in the Western intellectual tradition. He argues at great length that there must be an all- powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God and consequently that this must be the best of all possible worlds, for such a God could create nothing less. Ever since Voltaire lampooned this view in Candide, it has been difficult to espouse with a straight face. Nevertheless, what Leibniz demonstrates is that, far from being disrespectful or heretical, the view that morality is independent of God is an eminently sensible and loyal one for a theist to hold.

An Empty Theory

To avoid the charge of absurdity, a Divine Command theorist might try to deny that the situation described above is possible. He might argue, for example, that God would never condone such killing, raping, stealing, and torturing, for God is all-good. But to make such a claim is to render the theory vacuous. The Divine Command Theory is a theory of the nature of morality. As such, it tells us what makes something good by offering a definition of morality. But if goodness is a defining attribute of God, then God cannot be used to define goodness, for, in that case, the definition would be circular - the concept being defined would be doing the defining - and such a definition would be uninformative. If being all-good is an essential property of God, then all the Divine Command Theory tells us is that good actions would be willed by a supremely good being. While this is certainly true, it is unenlightening. For it does not tell us what makes something good and hence does not increase our understanding of the nature of morality.

A Divine Command theorist might try to avoid this circularity by denying that goodness is a defining attribute of God. But this would take him from the frying pan into the fire, for if goodness is not an essential property of God, then there is no guarantee that what he wills will be good. Even if God is all-powerful and all-knowing, it does not follow that he is all- good, for, as the story of Satan is supposed to teach us, one can be powerful and intelligent without being good. Thus the Divine Command Theory faces a dilemma: if goodness is a defining attribute of God, the theory is circular, but if it is not a defining attribute, the theory is false. In either case, the Divine Command Theory cannot be considered a viable theory of morality.

The foregoing considerations indicate that it is unreasonable to believe that an action is right because God wills it to be done. One can plausibly believe that God wills an action to be done because it is right, but to believe this is to believe that the rightness of an action is independent of God. In any event, the view that the moral law requires a divine lawgiver is untenable.

God the Enforcer

There are those who maintain, however, that even if God is not required as the author of the moral law, he is nevertheless required as the enforcer of it, for without the threat of divine punishment, people will not act morally. But this position is no more plausible than the Divine Command Theory itself.

In the first place, as an empirical hypothesis about the psychology of human beings, it is questionable. There is no unambiguous evidence that theists are more moral than nontheists. Not only have psychological studies failed to find a significant correlation between frequency of religious worship and moral conduct, but convicted criminals are much more likely to be theists than atheists.

Second, the threat of divine punishment cannot impose a moral obligation, for might does not make right. Threats extort; they do not create a moral duty. Thus, if our only reason for obeying God is the fear of punishment if we do not, then, from a moral point of view, God has no more claim to our allegiance than Hitler or Stalin.

Moreover, since self-interest is not an adequate basis for morality, there is reason to believe that heaven and hell cannot perform the regulative function often attributed to them. Heaven and hell are often construed as the carrot and stick that God uses to make us toe the line. Heaven is the reward that good people get for being good, and hell is the punishment that bad people get for being bad. But consider this. Good people do good because they want to do good - not because they will personally benefit from it or because someone has forced them to do it. People who do good solely for personal gain or to avoid personal harm are not good people. Someone who saves a drowning child, for example, only because he was offered a reward or was physically threatened does not deserve our praise. Thus, if your only reason for performing good actions is your desire to go to heaven or your fear of going to hell - if all your other-regarding actions are motivated purely by self-interest - then you should go to hell because you are not a good person. An obsessive concern with either heaven or hell should actually lessen one's chances for salvation rather than increase them.

Fundamentalists correctly perceive that universal moral standards are required for the proper functioning of society. But they erroneously believe that God is the only possible source of such standards. Philosophers as diverse as Plato, Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, George Edward Moore, and John Rawls have demonstrated that it is possible to have a universal morality without God. Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have us believe, then, what our society really needs is not more religion but a richer notion of the nature of morality.

--------------------------------------------------------------------- ---

Theodore Schick, Jr., is Professor of Philosophy at Muhlenberg College and is the co-author (with Lewis Vaughn) of How to Think about Weird Things: Critical Thinking for a New Age (Mayfield Publishing, 1995).

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 11, 2002.

Oh Boy all we need is some more of Joan's new age riff raff. What is it with you witch? When are you going to wake up? In hell burning to a crisp? You are definitely heading there. I have seen enough of you heretical schismatic lies.

Mr Moderator: PLEASE REMOVE THIS HERESY AND NEW AGE BUNK. THANKS.

-- Fred Bishop (fcbishop@globaleyes.net), May 11, 2002.

Just a quick addendum to the article. I do not agree with all it includes.

For one example...I do believe that one's choosing an action classified as good, is based on self-interest. As Anthony de Mello puts it..."Charity is really self-interest masquerading under the form of altruism."

Not enough time now to go into further dissection of the article. Just thought it did have some points to make.

-- Joan (godessss@mindspring.com), May 11, 2002.

Dennis - you use the word logic and I smile for ask a child a question and the logic is there if we learn to listen. In addition when the lawyer appossed to St. Bernadette of Lourdes was asked why he did not believe his answer was " It does not make sense. "

The priest replied " Ahh - that is a matter of Faith. " The lawyer did eventually gain the gift of faith illogical as it was.

-- Jean Bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), May 11, 2002.

Dear Moderator,
When you delete Mrs. Storey's first two posts, please obliterate the third one too. I think that it is long past time that this abortion provider and poisoner of Catholic minds is banned from the forum, instead of being given the privilege to post here. I know that you will think about the hard work done here for over four years by real Catholics, and you will realize that people like Storey, Molson, Jean, Tony, Magdalene, and others cannot be allowed to undermine it all with their endless streams of dissent, heresy, New Age propaganda, etc..

In her third post, Mrs. Storey speaks positively of "Anthony deMello." In March, Mateo (replying to someone else, possibly The Goddessss in disguise) stated: "This man, while validly searching for Truth in all expressions of religion, invalidly opines that Jesus would hold a view that contradicts His own position. deMello imagines Jesus saying: 'He [God] is bigoted, fanatical, and cruel.'"

On August 24, 1998, a Catholic World News news brief reported the following:
"VATICAN CITY -- The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued a warning on Saturday concerning the writings of the late Indian-born Jesuit Father Anthony DeMello. The Congregation said the priest's writings contain omissions and references to contradictions to Catholic doctrine.

"Father DeMello, who died in 1987, had produced numerous books and other writings, some published posthumously ... 'Already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith,' the CDF said in its statement. The congregation said the writings often deny the personal nature of God, the divinity of Jesus, and the existence of an objective morality. Father DeMello also called religions, including Christianity, 'major obstacles to the discovery of truth.'

"The CDF adds that, under Father DeMello's theology, 'any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth. The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple. She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.' The statement ends with a warning that Father DeMello's positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm."

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2002.

Mr. Moderator,

I was not aware that Dennis was banned from this forum previous to my posting my above post. However, I think in order to truly ban certain posters from this forum you would have to block IP or hostname, as telling them they are banned does not seem to be effective.

Dennis,

thank you for your reply, now, if you don't mind, I have a few questions I would like to ask you with regard to your post.

As to what I "believe"? Another interesting question - that you feel it necessary to believe in something. I guess I believe -like every other living creature, we are born and we die - that's it.

So, we are born and then we die, nothing we do during life has any bearing when we die? So, I take it you do not believe in an eternal soul?

I self identify as an agnostic rather than an atheist (although many mix the two up) I do believe in the possibility (however remote) that there is a Supreme Being, because science cannot absolutely disprove the concept.

Hmmm, based on this definition, it does not seem you are stricly adhering to an agnostic view in that by saying, "science cannot absolutely disprove the concept" means that you place more than a "remote possibility" in the belief of some "Supreme Being" as you call it.

Logic dictates that our presence here, indeed the evolution of mankind – is happenstance.

How can one logically dictate "happenstance." The word "happenstance" is, according to dictionary.com, "A chance circumstance." How can you form a logical premise based upon "a chance circumstance?" Isn't that kind of like forming a premise based on conjecture? In that sense, nothing would be absolute, and logic would fail to dictate, wouldn't you think?

The true critical mind must ask oneself: “while I have been indoctrinated into this faith by parents, is it really logical to assume my particular religion is the One True Way?” Once you have honestly asked yourself this question, the road to truth unfolds in front of you.

Again, logic based on what premise?

I do have faith - in the general goodness and morality of human beings – that when given the choice, most of us will do the right thing (certain priests, cardinals and bishops notwithstanding…)

And where does this faith originate? Is it formed by ourselves, learned, "divinely inspired," etc.?

Again, thank you for your replies and I look forward to your answers to the above questions.

God Bless

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 11, 2002.

Dennis, I asked the same question (a little differently, perhaps) that Brian did. I asked it in Kathy's thread, though, so just ignore it as I got my answer here.

Faith does not have to make sense - it is not about making sense. It is believing without seeing - believing with one's heart and soul that God exists. To me, faith is a gift and it cannot be explained because no explanation is necessary for one who does not believe no explanation can make him believe.

I get the feeling, Dennis, that you really do believe. However, there is something inside of you that is blocking your way to God. Only you know what that is. I do hope you find your way back to God Dennis. I don't know what I would do in this world without faith.

MaryLu

-- MaryLu (mlc327@juno.com), May 11, 2002.

Brian,

Again, I can't STOP someone from posting, only delete them later, as well as the posts of those who respond to them. OTOH, if you really want to have one thread dedicated to finding out their beliefs, that's fine with me, at least as a temporary thread.

Moderator

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 12, 2002.

”So, we are born and then we die, nothing we do during life has any bearing when we die? So, I take it you do not believe in an eternal soul?”

No, I do not. For me, the entire concept of a “soul” is designed for people who once believed the earth was flat. For me, our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

”Hmmm, based on this definition, it does not seem you are stricly adhering to an agnostic view”.

There is no such thing as “an agnostic view”. My lack of belief is not in itself a religion. “How can one logically dictate "happenstance."”

This morning I got up, walked to the corner store and ran into an old friend I hadn’t seen in years. Happenstance? Absolutely. Logical? Of course! For those of you who look around trying to find reason and purpose behind every natural occurrence is in itself illogical. Some things just happen – like the world we live in.

”And where does this faith originate? Is it formed by ourselves, learned, "divinely inspired," etc.?

It is learned of course. One does not have to believe in your god to know the difference between right and wrong – moral or immoral.

”I get the feeling, Dennis, that you really do believe. However, there is something inside of you that is blocking your way to God”

Bzzzt – wrong. I do not believe in superstitions, alien invasions, santa, the easter bunny or the concept of god. Our world is all that there is, and the finite time we are here is enough for me…

-- Dennis (dennismolson@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

No, I do not. For me, the entire concept of a “soul” is designed for people who once believed the earth was flat. For me, our natural world is all that there is, a closed system in no need of an explanation and sufficient unto itself.

So, you just accept that you were put on earth, somehow, and that you will one day die? What about feelings, emotions, even intellect? Where do these originate?

There is no such thing as “an agnostic view”. My lack of belief is not in itself a religion.

I never said it was a religion, that is why I called it a "view." However, what is it then? Is it a philosophy, a way of life? Also, if you "self-identify" as an agnostic, what exactly do you mean when you say that?

This morning I got up, walked to the corner store and ran into an old friend I hadn’t seen in years. Happenstance? Absolutely. Logical? Of course! For those of you who look around trying to find reason and purpose behind every natural occurrence is in itself illogical. Some things just happen – like the world we live in.

How is that logical though? I thought logic infers the presence of a variable? If there are no variables and merely happenstance, then what do you base that logic upon?

It is learned of course. One does not have to believe in your god to know the difference between right and wrong – moral or immoral.

Ok, I think it is obvious that we approach "faith" from two different angles. Therefore, would you mind giving me your definition of faith?

Thanks again for your replies and God Bless!

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 12, 2002.

Hi, Moderator.

I can tell you have a heart of gold! :-) You are a very fair Moderator.

I am a little confused about dennis molson being banned from here. I thought I would ask, and you would straighten me out, a bit.

Is dennis's allowed to post in this forum now? Is dennis only allowed to post in this thread that will be deleted, at a later date? I guess, my question could be- Is dennis's punishment over?

I like you Moderator. :-) I want to see creeps like molson be made to respect your rules. If he wants to talk about his pathetic beliefs, than he should of respected your rules. He gave you a lot of extra work, by breaking the rules over and over AGAIN!

You probably had to delete over 50 of his threads. Can you believe he NEVER learned how to bring a post to the top? LOL :-) I think he did set a record on the forum for that, though! (Dense denny)

St. Dionysius the Aeropagite(Patron Saint against the devil) pray for us.

God bless you.

David

St. Dionysius

-- David (David@excite.com), May 12, 2002.

"Can you believe he NEVER learned how to bring a post to the top? LOL :-) I think he did set a record on the forum for that, though! (Dense denny)"

Good gravy man, I've forgotten more about Greenspun's software (the owner of this forum) than you've ever learned. Do you really think this was important to me? LOL!

-- Molson (dennismolson@hotmail.com), May 12, 2002.

David,

Thanks. In general, I will delete all of Mr. Molson's posts on other threads. However, if someone starts a thread *specifically* to ask Mr. Molson a question, I think it would be unfair of me not to let him answer. Therefore, he gets pretty much a mini forum to speak his piece on here. Note that this "spefically ask a question thread" rule is a loose one, and if some mystery poster pops up to ask someone like Mr. Molson a question, that thread will be deleted too.

Moderator

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 13, 2002.

Mr. Moderator,

I was, and still am, truly interested in Mr. Molson's "stance" on things. I figured, given all the "publicity" he has been given on this forum, that it would be only right to see what Mr. Molson actually believes. It was kind of hard to truly understand what he believed from his one word responses or curt replies to others, which is why I started this thread in the first place. However, it seems he has chosen not to answer anymore of my questions, so I am sure you will do with this thread what you see fit.

Thanks again for letting this thread remain

God Bless

-- Brian (sacerdos@hotpop.com), May 13, 2002.

Brian,

I personally wouldn't expect a good discussion with forthright answers about his beliefs. The reason is it's easy for him to mock our faith as long as he keeps silent about his own beliefs. If everyone knew exactly what he believed, it would also be easy for everyone here to criticize HIM. I doubt if this is the position a heckler wants to be in.

Moderator

-- Moderator ("Catholic_moderator@hotmail.com"), May 14, 2002.

I guess I believe -like every other living creature, we are born and we die - that's it.

Ok. Would you mind if I took some guesses? I take it that you consider the difference between man and animal to be simply a matter of degree--perhaps involving brain size and an increased capacity for complex thought that nevertheless can be found in lesser degrees in all animal creatures?

Also, I would imagine you believe that the mind and the brain are one and the same thing? Also, that there is no objective human nature that exists independently of perspective and prejudice? Also, you would most certainly agree that all things are made of matter only.

I do believe in the possibility (however remote) that there is a Supreme Being,

Are you familiar with Pascal's Wager?

Logic dictates that our presence here, indeed the evolution of mankind – is happenstance.

What is your opinion of modern theories of cosmology, like the Big Bang, expansion of the universe, etc. Do you accept these, or is cosmological science suspect?

The true critical mind must ask oneself: “while I have been indoctrinated into this faith by parents, is it really logical to assume my particular religion is the One True Way?” Once you have honestly asked yourself this question, the road to truth unfolds in front of you.

How does the origin of our belief make what we believe to be incorrect? Can we, in fact, conclude that our religion is false because we learned it from Mom and Dad? Don't we have to ask any questions about individual tenets and doctrines?

I do have faith - in the general goodness and morality of human beings – that when given the choice, most of us will do the right thing.

You mentioned goodness, morality, choice, and "the right thing."

Are people free? Not likely--we're determined by our past experiences, genetics, and culture, right? Or, since we are glorified animals, instinct also plays a major role. And let's not forget behavioral conditioning, Fruedan psychoanalysis, and cognitive stimulus response.

So, this means that "goodness" and "morality" have their foundations in pleasure; the only criterion here is physical, which means that something is good in terms of producing the greatest pleasure for the most people possible--utilitarianism.

I also take it that, for you, morality can only be determined by outcome, not duty. Does it involve calculating units of happiness per person?

-- Jeffrey Zimmerman (jeffreyz@seminarianthoughts.com), May 14, 2002.