Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by mattbballman31 View Post
    Sorry carpedm9587! Me and the wife are in the process of moving, so no time for Internet for the next couple of weeks. But I shall return! Sorry about the wait!
    Life happens, Matt. Not to worry. Good luck with the move.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      I did not say "all areas." I said "moral automaton." If a human would be a "moral automaton" if they could not freely choose to do good (i.e., by being able to also choose evil), then it stands to reason the same logic applies to a god.
      Again, it is not completely analogues since even in His determined moral nature He does will, think and feel (automaton don't as far as I know). But yes He certainly is morally determined by nature to act as He does.



      It is not a lie, Seer. You are very free with your insults, my friend. I am merely repeating your argument back to you:

      What you have said is:

      1) a human who cannot freely choose "moral good" is a moral automaton - and you believe your god values love freely given. You noted that the love of a spouse has value because it is freely given (and does not have to be given).
      2) your god cannot freely choose to do evil - and is constrained to do only what is good.
      Yes it is a lie Carp, I have not moved the goal posts, I'm explaining why a freely given love could have value to God and to us, I'm also saying that a determined love could have value to us, especially in light of the fact that it may concern my eternal destiny.

      Your own reasoning leads to the conclusion that your god's love is not "freely given" - and your god is constrained to only love by his "nature." Ergo - your god is a moral automaton whose love really has no true value because it is not freely given.
      I did not say that a determined love did not have value, I asked if it would would have value to you in your relationships. There I too prefer a freely given love, but AGAIN there are real down sides as I have explained. But to put my eternal fate in a being who could freely decide to change, for what ever reason, is fool's errant. There I want certainty. I VALUE certainty over FREEDOM.

      I don't see how you escape this conundrum. It is what I have been trying to point out to you for some time now.
      There is only a problem in your own mind Carp. Completely different situations can and will cause us to value differently.
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        Again, it is not completely analogues since even in His determined moral nature He does will, think and feel (automaton don't as far as I know). But yes He certainly is morally determined by nature to act as He does.

        Yes it is a lie Carp, I have not moved the goal posts, I'm explaining why a freely given love could have value to God and to us, I'm also saying that a determined love could have value to us, especially in light of the fact that it may concern my eternal destiny.

        I did not say that a determined love did not have value, I asked if it would would have value to you in your relationships. There I too prefer a freely given love, but AGAIN there are real down sides as I have explained. But to put my eternal fate in a being who could freely decide to change, for what ever reason, is fool's errant. There I want certainty. I VALUE certainty over FREEDOM.

        There is only a problem in your own mind Carp. Completely different situations can and will cause us to value differently.
        A lie, Seer, is a statement made with the intent to deceive. I have no such intent. My intent is to show you the inconsistency of your position. It is possible I am wrong (though you have not yet shown that). I have not lied. For whatever reason, you are shifting to insults. I'm not sure why. Perhaps part of you actually sees that your position is not consistent - so you need to shift to a personal attack. Only you actually know why you feel the need to go there. But I do know I am not lying.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
          A lie, Seer, is a statement made with the intent to deceive. I have no such intent. My intent is to show you the inconsistency of your position. It is possible I am wrong (though you have not yet shown that). I have not lied. For whatever reason, you are shifting to insults. I'm not sure why. Perhaps part of you actually sees that your position is not consistent - so you need to shift to a personal attack. Only you actually know why you feel the need to go there. But I do know I am not lying.
          Carp, I didn't care for you accusing me of moving the goal posts - that was false. And an insult. And my position is perfect consistent. In certain conditions I value a freely given love (even with the high possibility capriciousness) and it other situations I would prefer a love that could not possibly change. When it came to your eternal density (if you believed in such a thing) would you rather have it depend on a changeable, unpredictable affection, or a certain, unchangeable love? The answer is obvious.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            When it came to your eternal density (if you believed in such a thing) would you rather have it depend on a changeable, unpredictable affection, or a certain, unchangeable love? The answer is obvious.
            When it comes to your eternal destiny, I think you mean (not “density”)..."would you rather have it depend on a changeable, unpredictable affection, or a certain, unchangeable love? The answer is obvious".

            Of course the answer is obvious; “certain, unchangeable love” is preferable to “unpredictable affection”. But, as usual with you, this statement begs the question. It assumes without substantive evidence that such an entity as an eternal unchanging god exists.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by seer View Post
              Carp, I didn't care for you accusing me of moving the goal posts - that was false.
              Seer, "moving the goalposts" is an observation on an error in logic. It is about your argument. It may be false (if you can show how the logic fails) but it is not a lie (which is a statement of intent, and would require you to be reading my mind or otherwise demonstrating an intent on my part to deceive). The statement I made was, "You are shifting the goalposts as you shift from man to god - seeing value in a god that is a moral automaton, but no value in a human with the same characteristics - or insisting that a human that cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is a moral automaton - but a god who cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is not."

              You have no basis for this shift - except that you apparently want it. The shift is not rooted in logic or reason, that I can see.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              And an insult.
              There is little I can do if you choose to take a rational argument as an insult. And given the sheer number of times you and others here have levied the exact same charge at me, you should perhaps rethink either doing that, or considering it an insult.

              Originally posted by seer View Post
              And my position is perfect consistent. In certain conditions I value a freely given love (even with the high possibility capriciousness) and it other situations I would prefer a love that could not possibly change. When it came to your eternal density (if you believed in such a thing) would you rather have it depend on a changeable, unpredictable affection, or a certain, unchangeable love? The answer is obvious.
              I'll try not to take "eternal density" as an insult. For the record, my wife would probably agree with you...

              However, the issue is not about change or not change. The issue is about moral freedom. The argument for why evil exists is often made on the basis that man must have the freedom to choose to do both good or evil, because to be forced to only good makes man a moral automaton, lacking the ability to be a moral being because man would lack the ability to freely choose to do good. Your argument is that god is a moral automaton. Ergo, your good (by that argument) cannot be a moral being. The concept of "being morally good" does not apply to this being because it is not free to choose otherwise. You cannot consistently hold the position that man would be a moral automaton if he lacked free agency, but a god somehow can be morally constrained and NOT be a moral automaton.

              Perhaps I am guilty of assuming you hold a particular position. I am assuming that you would agree that man must have moral free agency so as to be considered a moral being. That is, without the freedom to choose - man cannot be considered a moral agent. Is that true?

              P.S. As for "eternal destiny," I believe it is all of our "eternal destiny" to cease to exist. That is what death is - the end of existence as a thinking, reasoning, individual. And it is "eternal" only in so far as "eternal" means "for all time." If/when time itself ends, so too will any sort of "destiny."
              Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-27-2018, 12:20 PM.
              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

              Comment


              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                Seer, "moving the goalposts" is an observation on an error in logic. It is about your argument. It may be false (if you can show how the logic fails) but it is not a lie (which is a statement of intent, and would require you to be reading my mind or otherwise demonstrating an intent on my part to deceive). The statement I made was, "You are shifting the goalposts as you shift from man to god - seeing value in a god that is a moral automaton, but no value in a human with the same characteristics - or insisting that a human that cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is a moral automaton - but a god who cannot freely choose to perform immoral acts is not."

                You have no basis for this shift - except that you apparently want it. The shift is not rooted in logic or reason, that I can see.



                There is little I can do if you choose to take a rational argument as an insult. And given the sheer number of times you and others here have levied the exact same charge at me, you should perhaps rethink either doing that, or considering it an insult.



                I'll try not to take "eternal density" as an insult. For the record, my wife would probably agree with you...

                However, the issue is not about change or not change. The issue is about moral freedom. The argument for why evil exists is often made on the basis that man must have the freedom to choose to do both good or evil, because to be forced to only good makes man a moral automaton, lacking the ability to be a moral being because man would lack the ability to freely choose to do good. Your argument is that god is a moral automaton. Ergo, your good (by that argument) cannot be a moral being. The concept of "being morally good" does not apply to this being because it is not free to choose otherwise. You cannot consistently hold the position that man would be a moral automaton if he lacked free agency, but a god somehow can be morally constrained and NOT be a moral automaton.

                Perhaps I am guilty of assuming you hold a particular position. I am assuming that you would agree that man must have moral free agency so as to be considered a moral being. That is, without the freedom to choose - man cannot be considered a moral agent. Is that true?

                P.S. As for "eternal destiny," I believe it is all of our "eternal destiny" to cease to exist. That is what death is - the end of existence as a thinking, reasoning, individual. And it is "eternal" only in so far as "eternal" means "for all time." If/when time itself ends, so too will any sort of "destiny."
                Carp first I never claimed that for a person to be a moral being he must be free to make contrary choices, I argued just the opposite. I even offered an accepted dictionary definition that did not require the idea of contrary choice (though it could include that). Now to your false claim on my moving the goal post. I never did that, here is how the argument went. It was about human freedom and the ability to choose evil. I asked you if YOU would find value in a deterministic love, you said no. Then I said perhaps God doesn't value such a love from His creatures either. Then you suggested that because of His nature God's love would be deterministic, and I agree that it is. But that to me that can and does have value. That when it came to reaching everlasting life, or not, I value absolute certainty over moral vagaries or the possibility of God changing His mind. So what I value in my fellow man may not be what I would value in my God. There is no moving of the goal posts here or nothing logically inconsistent.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Carp first I never claimed that for a person to be a moral being he must be free to make contrary choices, I argued just the opposite.
                  Which is why I noted I may be assuming, and asked the question that I asked.

                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I even offered an accepted dictionary definition that did not require the idea of contrary choice (though it could include that). Now to your false claim on my moving the goal post. I never did that, here is how the argument went. It was about human freedom and the ability to choose evil. I asked you if YOU would find value in a deterministic love, you said no. Then I said perhaps God doesn't value such a love from His creatures either. Then you suggested that because of His nature God's love would be deterministic, and I agree that it is. But that to me that can and does have value. That when it came to reaching everlasting life, or not, I value absolute certainty over moral vagaries or the possibility of God changing His mind. So what I value in my fellow man may not be what I would value in my God. There is no moving of the goal posts here or nothing logically inconsistent.
                  Sorry, Seer, but you kind of just went back on yourself. First, you seem to be pivoting between "love" and "moral choice." The concepts are not the same. Second, if you have a deterministic god, then you don't really have a god - you have an automaton. If you are happy worshiping an automaton, then that is clearly your right and your choice. You cannot, however, consistently say that you value love because it is freely given when from a person, and then pivot to value love for the opposite reason from a a supreme being. The positions are simply not consistent. You seem to be working hard to make them so - but so far all you seem to be leaning on is "I value it that way." That's not a logical argument - it's primarily an emotional one.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Carp first I never claimed that for a person to be a moral being he must be free to make contrary choices, I argued just the opposite. I even offered an accepted dictionary definition that did not require the idea of contrary choice (though it could include that). Now to your false claim on my moving the goal post. I never did that, here is how the argument went. It was about human freedom and the ability to choose evil. I asked you if YOU would find value in a deterministic love, you said no. Then I said perhaps God doesn't value such a love from His creatures either. Then you suggested that because of His nature God's love would be deterministic, and I agree that it is. But that to me that can and does have value. That when it came to reaching everlasting life, or not, I value absolute certainty over moral vagaries or the possibility of God changing His mind. So what I value in my fellow man may not be what I would value in my God. There is no moving of the goal posts here or nothing logically inconsistent.
                    If God cannot change his mind then he cannot make moral choices; he is merely a moral automaton. Your life is governed by a deterministic divine robot.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Which is why I noted I may be assuming, and asked the question that I asked.
                      But I already answered that a while back.

                      Sorry, Seer, but you kind of just went back on yourself. First, you seem to be pivoting between "love" and "moral choice." The concepts are not the same.
                      I have no idea what you mean, please explain.

                      Second, if you have a deterministic god, then you don't really have a god - you have an automaton. If you are happy worshiping an automaton, then that is clearly your right and your choice. You cannot, however, consistently say that you value love because it is freely given when from a person, and then pivot to value love for the opposite reason from a a supreme being. The positions are simply not consistent. You seem to be working hard to make them so - but so far all you seem to be leaning on is "I value it that way." That's not a logical argument - it's primarily an emotional one.
                      It is perfectly consistent since we are speaking of two different situations and two different beings (God and man). Human freedom and love, with all its inconsistencies, has its place. But when it comes to my eternal destiny I prefer a love that will not change. There is nothing illogical about that Carp. And again, God is not an automaton, automatons do not think, will or feel.
                      Last edited by seer; 12-28-2018, 08:22 AM.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        But I already answered that a while back.
                        Apparently, I missed it.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        I have no idea what you mean, please explain.
                        You don't understand that "love" is not equal to "morality?"

                        I guess I don't understand what you don't understand.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        It is perfectly consistent since we are speaking of two different situations and two different beings (God and man). Human freedom and love, with all its inconsistencies, has its place. But when it comes to my eternal destiny I prefer a love that will not change. There is nothing illogical about that Carp. And again, God is not an automaton, automatons do not think, will or feel.
                        Again - you are shifting the goal posts. I am not talking about love - the conversation was about morality. And the expression I used was "moral automaton." That does not mean it cannot choose - it means it is forced to choose particular types of acts. That is consistent with the position taken by most Christians in refuting the argument from evil: that a being cannot be said to be a moral agent if it's moral acts are constrained to prohibit evil acts, ergo god had to permit man to choose freely. A being without this ability has no moral freedom, and hence cannot be a moral agent. It is a moral automaton. The concepts of "good" and "evil" do not apply to it because it cannot choose. It is merely acting according to its moral programming. This is equally true of both a god and a man. It is true of any sentient being.
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And again, God is not an automaton, automatons do not think, will or feel.
                          Well apparently your god is an automaton. He cannot change his mind or choose that which is evil...he’s locked in to an immutable moral code; in short, he cannot make moral choices.
                          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            Again - you are shifting the goal posts. I am not talking about love - the conversation was about morality. And the expression I used was "moral automaton." That does not mean it cannot choose - it means it is forced to choose particular types of acts. That is consistent with the position taken by most Christians in refuting the argument from evil: that a being cannot be said to be a moral agent if it's moral acts are constrained to prohibit evil acts, ergo god had to permit man to choose freely. A being without this ability has no moral freedom, and hence cannot be a moral agent. It is a moral automaton. The concepts of "good" and "evil" do not apply to it because it cannot choose. It is merely acting according to its moral programming. This is equally true of both a god and a man. It is true of any sentient being.
                            Carp, love in Scripture is linked to morality. It is the First Commandment. It centers everything else, as Christ said: If you love me you will keep my commands (moral law). And my point all through is was that perhaps God prefers a freely given love as opposed to a deterministic love. And that moral obedience follows (or not) from that choice. It is not about being a moral agent per se but about our love for God and our fellow man, the moral obedience flow from those. As Paul said: So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love. As far as God and man, I'm certain you can understand that one can value a particular kind of love (freely given) in one instance and another kind of love (deterministic/certain) in another instance. And of course the concept of good and evil still exist. Good is what conforms to God's nature and will, evil is what violates those. And I'm not sure that concepts like love or hate can not be considered moral questions.
                            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Carp, love in Scripture is linked to morality. It is the First Commandment.
                              Linked? yes. The same? No. I can act morally without love being involved. I can love without morality being involved. Indeed, love has caused more than one person to engage in highly immoral actions. I can also love and act for the moral good in tandem. You are attempting to equate two things that are not equivalent.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              It centers everything else, as Christ said: If you love me you will keep my commands (moral law).
                              That does not make morality equal to love. Your argument here is the equivalent of someone saying that the statement, "If you love me, you'll wash my car this weekend," makes "love" and "washing a car" equivalent. They are not. One can be a motivation for the other, but they are not the same.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              And my point all through is was that perhaps God prefers a freely given love as opposed to a deterministic love. And that moral obedience follows (or not) from that choice. It is not about being a moral agent per se but about our love for God and our fellow man, the moral obedience flow from those. As Paul said: So now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; but the greatest of these is love.
                              Again, that does not make love and morality the same thing. The conversation has bee about morality - and you are attempting to pivot it to "love." I'm going to stay with what the conversation was actually about: choosing actions that are moral and discarding actions that are immoral. A being that is free to choose from either immoral or oral actions and chooses moral actions is morally free and so is a moral agent. Their choice has meaning. Their choice demonstrates moral character and moral strength. A being that is constrained to only act for the good at all times is not morally free and so cannot be a moral agent. Morally - they are an automaton. The term "morality" does not really apply to them because they lack the capacity for free choice between both moral and immoral actions.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              As far as God and man, I'm certain you can understand that one can value a particular kind of love (freely given) in one instance and another kind of love (deterministic/certain) in another instance. And of course the concept of good and evil still exist. Good is what conforms to God's nature and will, evil is what violates those. And I'm not sure that concepts like love or hate can not be considered moral questions.
                              "Value" has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is about the need for moral freedom in order to have a moral agent. In your belief system, your god lacks this characteristic, so there is no way to call this god a "moral agent." It has no choice but to always choose from one side of the equation - meaning it lacks freedom. I don't see how you can end up any other place. Pivoting to "love" and "value" doesn't make your argument, as far as I can tell.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-30-2018, 05:39 PM.
                              The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                              I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                Linked? yes. The same? No. I can act morally without love being involved. I can love without morality being involved. Indeed, love has caused more than one person to engage in highly immoral actions. I can also love and act for the moral good in tandem. You are attempting to equate two things that are not equivalent.
                                The point Carp is, in the Biblical model of love obedience follows. But love is paramount, the first most important consideration. And like I said, perhaps God preferred a love and obedience that is freely given as opposed to a deterministic love or obedience.


                                Again, that does not make love and morality the same thing. The conversation has bee about morality - and you are attempting to pivot it to "love." I'm going to stay with what the conversation was actually about: choosing actions that are moral and discarding actions that are immoral. A being that is free to choose from either immoral or oral actions and chooses moral actions is morally free and so is a moral agent. Their choice has meaning. Their choice demonstrates moral character and moral strength. A being that is constrained to only act for the good at all times is not morally free and so cannot be a moral agent. Morally - they are an automaton. The term "morality" does not really apply to them because they lack the capacity for free choice between both moral and immoral actions.
                                The fact that God can not lie or fail to love the redeemed does not bother me in the least, as a matter of fact it is a great comfort. And again, by definition (which I linked a while back) a moral agent need not have the power of contrary choice, it is not necessary by definition. That is your opinion. Besides Carp, I would like to see an atheist like you make a case for free will - how is that possible in your worldview?
                                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X