Menu Bar
Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
Needs Plugin: Flash |
Not Working?
Retweet This
Share on Facebook
Email This
Father James Martin sets Stephen Colbert straight about Mother Teresa's crisis of faith.
The ultimate question for Stephen is "why be good if you don't constantly feel the threat of heaven or hell"?
From the Colbert Report.
The ultimate question for Stephen is "why be good if you don't constantly feel the threat of heaven or hell"?
From the Colbert Report.
Sep 16, 2007 8:13 AM
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
WOW! In the midst of humor Stephen cuts right to it. Good show!
By: hufnmouth
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
Interesting question Stephen. One I pose to any Atheists or Agnostics who may be reading this is "Without a believe in God or gods, can their be an absolute morality, other than personal opinon?" As a Christian myself, I've got a different perspective on this question than an Atheist would so I'd like to know how theirs differs.
By: rickhatman1984
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
I answer as an aetheist with another question. Which of us is the most moral?
I can't answer and I hope you can't either. Absolute morality? Most aetheists subscribe to "thou shalt not kill". Not because they are told to but because they believe that to be right. Whereas all three Abrahamic faiths insist on killing "in the name of God" and there is a pretty appalling track record of it being practised worldwide right now by all three.
It is notable that as christianity lost its grip on many countries around the world so judicial killing was also abolished. It is those that strongly believe in God who continue to practice it vengefully. Oh and also those who believe in alternate infallible leaders who must be obeyed - natural or supernatural.
Morality is a moving thing. It once accepted slavery, now we have moved on. Its needs much thought, much negotiation between us as human beings. It surely can't be relegated to biased interpretations of some dodgy translations of bronze age myths ... I would resist having our morality frozen absolutely in this way.
I can't answer and I hope you can't either. Absolute morality? Most aetheists subscribe to "thou shalt not kill". Not because they are told to but because they believe that to be right. Whereas all three Abrahamic faiths insist on killing "in the name of God" and there is a pretty appalling track record of it being practised worldwide right now by all three.
It is notable that as christianity lost its grip on many countries around the world so judicial killing was also abolished. It is those that strongly believe in God who continue to practice it vengefully. Oh and also those who believe in alternate infallible leaders who must be obeyed - natural or supernatural.
Morality is a moving thing. It once accepted slavery, now we have moved on. Its needs much thought, much negotiation between us as human beings. It surely can't be relegated to biased interpretations of some dodgy translations of bronze age myths ... I would resist having our morality frozen absolutely in this way.
By: brainsys
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
You make some interesting points. I would like to ask you this, now the morality of most people indicates that slavery is wrong. At a time and place in history when the prevailing morality stated that slavery was a moral practice, were they wrong? In other words, are we more moral than them?
I agree that we should question our own morality and ask ourselves why we believe what we do and be willing to change what we consider moral and immoral should the need arise. However, should any of our morals be absolute? To me, if there is no absolute morality and truth and no one person's personal morality can be judged against another, then what meaning does morality have?
Let's say, for example, that I am married and my wife has an affair with my best friend. And let's say in this example that according to my morals, it is morally correct to kill my wife and her lover. I acted morally according to my own standards but according to the friends and families of my victims I acted immorally. Which one of us is right? Is my morality or theirs more valid?
I agree that we should question our own morality and ask ourselves why we believe what we do and be willing to change what we consider moral and immoral should the need arise. However, should any of our morals be absolute? To me, if there is no absolute morality and truth and no one person's personal morality can be judged against another, then what meaning does morality have?
Let's say, for example, that I am married and my wife has an affair with my best friend. And let's say in this example that according to my morals, it is morally correct to kill my wife and her lover. I acted morally according to my own standards but according to the friends and families of my victims I acted immorally. Which one of us is right? Is my morality or theirs more valid?
By: rickhatman1984
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
Do I beleive that people today are intrinsically better/more moral than in the eighteenth century or indeed the first century?
Of course not. One thing I hope many of us share whether religious or non-religious is a desire to make 'a better world'. For ourselves, for our children, for all people. Of course we don't always succeed but the result should be an evolving morality. Hopefully improving with time - but not continuously (1930's Germany for example).
Morality is after all how one as an individual interacts with friends, family and society. An important underlying driving force is 'do unto others as you would wish to be done by'. A generally good strategy for most people to have a safe, secure and enriching life and an even better one for their children. Of course the payback may not always be obvious so both secular and non-secular groups tend to create codes of social behaviour - a mixture of peer pressure and legal constraints for those less susceptible to peer pressure. That's what I see as morality.
And its our job to improve it if we can. William Wilberforce is seen as a great moral force behind the abolition of slavery. But he had morals we would be very uncomfortable with today. Similary I share morals that may on greater reflection might be thought perverse in the future.
I have no problem with that. Do you?
Of course not. One thing I hope many of us share whether religious or non-religious is a desire to make 'a better world'. For ourselves, for our children, for all people. Of course we don't always succeed but the result should be an evolving morality. Hopefully improving with time - but not continuously (1930's Germany for example).
Morality is after all how one as an individual interacts with friends, family and society. An important underlying driving force is 'do unto others as you would wish to be done by'. A generally good strategy for most people to have a safe, secure and enriching life and an even better one for their children. Of course the payback may not always be obvious so both secular and non-secular groups tend to create codes of social behaviour - a mixture of peer pressure and legal constraints for those less susceptible to peer pressure. That's what I see as morality.
And its our job to improve it if we can. William Wilberforce is seen as a great moral force behind the abolition of slavery. But he had morals we would be very uncomfortable with today. Similary I share morals that may on greater reflection might be thought perverse in the future.
I have no problem with that. Do you?
By: brainsys
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
Nicely summed up for both sides. While I personally think religion is for those who wish to dispose of personal responsibility, I have no problem with people who choose to lead their lives in fantasyland. Each sacred book contains some level of rules to live by as commanded by that invisible man in the sky. If that's what it takes for some to be good people, then fine.
By: spam_vigilante
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
Both atheist and religious groups have among them those that would do good as well as those that would do evil. It would seem to me that morality is not dictated by ones belief (or lack thereof) in a supernatural entity, but rather on that person's intrinsic sense of right and wrong. I don't need any book or person to tell me that robbing from someone is wrong, it's simply common sense.
What worries me is this concept that without a higher power dictating what they must do, these religious folk would apparently rape and murder, as they've seemed to have abdicated all personal accountability.
What worries me is this concept that without a higher power dictating what they must do, these religious folk would apparently rape and murder, as they've seemed to have abdicated all personal accountability.
By: MisterJingo
Re: Colbert Report: Father James Martin on Mother Theresa
It is too bad he did not give time for a response to such a great question.
I think what he is truly asking is whether or not religion or religious belief is required in order to develop or embrace morality. I would say that religion is a primary motivator for many people, and it does motivate through fear in certain instances. I think though that religion is simply one path which people take in order to develop morality. Even without religion in ones life it is easy to see that behaving in a moral manner, a manner that increases happiness or compassion, or in a way that reduces pain and suffering, than great benefit is realized not just for those who have been helped but also those that have performed the altruistic act.
I think what he is truly asking is whether or not religion or religious belief is required in order to develop or embrace morality. I would say that religion is a primary motivator for many people, and it does motivate through fear in certain instances. I think though that religion is simply one path which people take in order to develop morality. Even without religion in ones life it is easy to see that behaving in a moral manner, a manner that increases happiness or compassion, or in a way that reduces pain and suffering, than great benefit is realized not just for those who have been helped but also those that have performed the altruistic act.
By: appleseed
