The thing about universal morals is that we see the world as it is, and the world as it should be.
The truth is, we do not even need morals to explain things, morals are just a basic concept of altruism which we need to survive. For example:
Animal A is together with its family, sees some sort of threat and warns the others so they all flee together.
The animal possibly does it without any conscious reason. It may be instinct, but that instinct helps it survive, mainly because probably most of his kind have similar genes as his and will therefore act the same. The human being is not a super intelligent species that can fight his instincts either. We all act according to them because instincts are way stronger than our conscious mind.
The thing now is, that the instincts we follow often are not morally correct. There is a thing called
egoism. Most people are egoistic. Life is a competition, we live in a capitalistic world. Many people are aware of the poverty in Africa but don't give a flying fuck and continue with whatever they do.
Sure, there is a thing called remorse. But, we do not only have a bad feeling about moral decisions, sometimes you get that feeling when you buy something you thought will be awesome but when you purchased it it wasn't really worth it, so you have a bad feeling about it and regret your action.
Thomas Aquinas explains (as does Aristotle) that nothing in nature exists without a purpose, and that the sense of buyer’s remorse is that it was implanted in our nature because we have both the capacity for and the intellectual need for the infinite–which is God. Nothing but infinite good can satisfy our thirst for more. Thomas saw this natural longing for the infinite as tangible proof for an infinite “end” which is God and a final state for mankind, which is happiness.
For some reason I do not buy that statement, simply because it seems like a rather blunt “goddidit” interpretation.
We have a remorse because god made it so we bla…
That is a rather poor attempt to explain the true nature of things because it does not really help us understand anything. We have many great scientists working on problems we do not understand yet. That truly helps us understand the human nature.
Now let us take a look at the so called proofs for the existence of god by Thomas Aquinas.
1 - FIRST MOVER: Some things are in motion, anything moved is moved by another, and there can't be an infinite series of movers. So there must be a first mover (a mover that isn't itself moved by another). This is God.
2 - FIRST CAUSE: Some things are caused, anything caused is caused by another, and there can't be an infinite series of causes. So there must be a first cause (a cause that isn't itself caused by another). This is God.
3 - NECESSARY BEING: Every contingent being at some time fails to exist. So if everything were contingent, then at some time there would have been nothing -- and so there would be nothing now -- which is clearly false. So not everything is contingent. So there is a necessary being. This is God.
That statement is based on an assumption that has yet to be proven.
We do not know if there needs to be an infinite series of movers.
And we cannot randomly go ahead and assume that god is immune to that kind of regression.
Even if we go ahead and use god as explanation and start point for that regression, I do not think it could be used as proof for the characteristics the Christian god is ought to have. Omnipotence, benevolence, omniscience etc are all not necessary to be some sort of mover
Omniscience and omnipotence are paradox in the first place. When you are omniscient you know what is going to happen, when you know what is going to happen you have no free will and do not have the power to change the future. Therefore you are not omnipotent.
4 - GREATEST BEING: Some things are greater than others. Whatever is great to any degree gets its greatness from that which is the greatest. So there is a greatest being, which is the source of all greatness. This is God.
I find it very hard to believe that people call that a proof for the existence of god.
I can make the same argument with all sorts of thing.
Soda tastes good, there are greater sodas and lesser sodas, therefore there must be one truly magnificent soda and that soda is god.
okay…
5 - INTELLIGENT DESIGNER: Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being. So the world must have an intelligent designer. This is God.
We already have proven that evolution is a fact, natural selection is pretty much a proven theory based on that fact etc.
We do not know what the cause for existence itself is…yet. Being satisfied but that kind of statement is very lame and does not help us in any form.
We need to be curious to discover new things. That argument tells us to be happy with what we know. A typical “goddidit” statement.
From what I see religion is the search for and worshiping of chasms in knowledge that have not been scientifically explained so far. Which is very funny to me, because rather than trying to explain things we do not know with something supernatural we cannot possibly comprehend we should rather try and learn to understand the world we live in.
About the nazi ideology: I doubt you believe what you just said yourself.
The nazis did not want to kill the jews and other races solely to form a superior race. They hated them with all their might, ideologically.
There are many ideologies that contradict
our morals.
For example, slavery used to be perfectly normal and fine and hardly anyone challenged that idea until they learned that black people, who have been thought to be lesser creatures, are no lesser creatures but people too.
I mean, we eat animals and for most people it is perfectly fine, even though there are millions of animals being kept in rather cruel ways. And even when they are kept nicely, in the end they get killed for us to consume. If god made animals for us to consume, why did he give them the ability to feel pain? Sounds very lame to me.
Heaven is simply fulfillment of the soul. It is supernatural, and cannot be perceived, just like how souls are supernatural. What I rely on is the interpretation of the bible by the church magisterium, and sacred tradition of the church.
If we have to rely on the bible to comprehend anything we are doomed, as I explained in my previous post.
It is also not very satisfying to believe in a supernatural soul that cannot be percieved in any way, shape or form.
We just have to assume it is… there…somewhere
/me pokes own head
blah