Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

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.

Seer - you still have not escaped the moral automaton nature of your god.

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?

I didn't say it had to bother you.
I didn't say it couldn't comfort you.

You simply have not escaped the fact that, according to your belief system, your god cannot be a moral agent. He/she/it is a moral automaton. It's not exactly what one would expect of a god.

[Tassman]

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?

your

[seer]

Seer - you still have not escaped the moral automaton nature of your god.

Carp, like I said it doesn't bother me in the least. On the contrary a God who can not lie or fail to love me is a real comfort as opposed to a god who could decide to lie to me or not love me. And I will repeat, this does not mean that God doesn't have freedom in other areas.

You simply have not escaped the fact that, according to your belief system, your god cannot be a moral agent. He/she/it is a moral automaton. It's not exactly what one would expect of a god.

Carp you are doing it again, that depends of your definition of a moral agent, I gave you an accepted definition that does not require the idea of contrary choice. And what would one expect of a god? The ability to lie and cheat? And I noticed you did not even attempt to show how free will is possible in atheism? What exactly if free? If you take the ghost out of the machine only the machine is left.

[Tassman]

Carp, like I said it doesn't bother me in the least. On the contrary a God who can not lie or fail to love me is a real comfort as opposed to a god who could decide to lie to me or not love me. And I will repeat, this does not mean that God doesn't have freedom in other areas.

A god that is unable to choose between right and wrong has no free-will.

Carp you are doing it again, that depends of your definition of a moral agent, I gave you an accepted definition that does not require the idea of contrary choice. And what would one expect of a god? The ability to lie and cheat? And I noticed you did not even attempt to show how free will is possible in atheism? What exactly if free? If you take the ghost out of the machine only the machine is left.

The very meaning of 'moral agency' is the capacity to make moral choices based on a concept of right and wrong.

[carpedm9587]

Carp, like I said it doesn't bother me in the least. On the contrary a God who can not lie or fail to love me is a real comfort as opposed to a god who could decide to lie to me or not love me. And I will repeat, this does not mean that God doesn't have freedom in other areas.

If it does not bother you - I have to wonder why we are still discussing it. We seem to be in agreement: by your beliefs, your god is a moral automaton. 'Nuff said.

Carp you are doing it again, that depends of your definition of a moral agent, I gave you an accepted definition that does not require the idea of contrary choice. And what would one expect of a god? The ability to lie and cheat?

I would expect a being capable of anything (omnipotent, remember?) but consciously always choosing to do the best. Inherently, that is a more (morally) powerful being than one that is constrained and acting for the good only because it has no choice but to do so. This seems fairly obvious to me. There is a reason we admire the person who can do ill and chooses to do good more than the one who is forced to do good.

And I noticed you did not even attempt to show how free will is possible in atheism? What exactly if free?

You are attempting to derail the discussion, Seer. We were not discussing atheism - we were discussing the nature of your god.

If you take the ghost out of the machine only the machine is left.

A quaint phrase. I don't believe in ghosts.

[seer]

If it does not bother you - I have to wonder why we are still discussing it. We seem to be in agreement: by your beliefs, your god is a moral automaton. 'Nuff said.

Yes, and I prefer a God who can not lie to a god who could decide to lie to me. I'm funny that way...

I would expect a being capable of anything (omnipotent, remember?) but consciously always choosing to do the best. Inherently, that is a more (morally) powerful being than one that is constrained and acting for the good only because it has no choice but to do so. This seems fairly obvious to me. There is a reason we admire the person who can do ill and chooses to do good more than the one who is forced to do good.

But where would this idea of the best come from in the first place? And God is not forced to do good, He is acting on His nature. He is being who he is.

You are attempting to derail the discussion, Seer. We were not discussing atheism - we were discussing the nature of your god.

A quaint phrase. I don't believe in ghosts.

If atheism is true then moral autonomy (or any autonomy) is out the window. You are exactly what you accuse God of being, an automaton...

[carpedm9587]

Yes, and I prefer a God who can not lie to a god who could decide to lie to me. I'm funny that way...

If I believed such a being existed, I would prefer a supreme being who has freedom of choice and is choosing to love me and tell me the truth freely, rather than one who has no choice but to do so.

But where would this idea of the best come from in the first place?

From the same place it has always come from: from our assessment of behavior against what we have come to value. (here we go again... )

And God is not forced to do good, He is acting on His nature. He is being who he is.

It doesn't matter what is the source of the "force," Seer. If a being is constrained to always choose from a certain set, then there is a force at work preventing them from choosing otherwise.

If atheism is true then moral autonomy (or any autonomy) is out the window. You are exactly what you accuse God of being, an automaton...

You cannot know this, Seer. Your conclusion is based on a purely mechanical "pool balls on a pool table" model of the universe. Modern science has shown that reality is far more complex than that. No - we cannot explain how/why we have freedom of choice (limited, of course, by what is physically possible), but we know that we do. The speaker is cute, but he reminds me of the definition of "philosopher" that my old professor used to offer: a philosopher is a person who will argue for 60 minutes that the walls have no actual substance, and then exit the room by way of the door. Once the speech is over, I'm sure the speaker sat down and considered his options for where he was going to deliver his little speech next.

But - just for the sake of argument - what if he's right? What if reality is mechanistic and choice is an illusion? If that is what is real, then that is what is real. We get to live our lives with the illusion of free choice, and then we pass on. The problem is?

[seer]

If I believed such a being existed, I would prefer a supreme being who has freedom of choice and is choosing to love me and tell me the truth freely, rather than one who has no choice but to do so.

I the case of God I prefer a being who is unchangeable, for the reasons I stated.

From the same place it has always come from: from our assessment of behavior against what we have come to value. (here we go again... )

Right, in the end there are no universal or certain moral truths in your world, nor can there be.

It doesn't matter what is the source of the "force," Seer. If a being is constrained to always choose from a certain set, then there is a force at work preventing them from choosing otherwise.

That is not force, God is doing what pleases Him. Constrained, yes, forced no since force implies an external compulsion. You by nature may hate, and always hated, brussel sprouts. That is not the result of force, but a constraint of nature and preference.

You cannot know this, Seer. Your conclusion is based on a purely mechanical "pool balls on a pool table" model of the universe. Modern science has shown that reality is far more complex than that. No - we cannot explain how/why we have freedom of choice (limited, of course, by what is physically possible), but we know that we do. The speaker is cute, but he reminds me of the definition of "philosopher" that my old professor used to offer: a philosopher is a person who will argue for 60 minutes that the walls have no actual substance, and then exit the room by way of the door. Once the speech is over, I'm sure the speaker sat down and considered his options for where he was going to deliver his little speech next.

Sam Harris is a scientist, a neuroscientist. And a well regarded one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

But - just for the sake of argument - what if he's right? What if reality is mechanistic and choice is an illusion? If that is what is real, then that is what is real. We get to live our lives with the illusion of free choice, and then we pass on. The problem is?

That would make us all biological automatons, moral or otherwise.

[carpedm9587]

I the case of God I prefer a being who is unchangeable, for the reasons I stated.

Understood, Seer. We are definitely different in that respect.

Right, in the end there are no universal or certain moral truths in your world, nor can there be.

Correct.

That is not force, God is doing what pleases Him. Constrained, yes, forced no since force implies an external compulsion. You by nature may hate, and always hated, brussel sprouts. That is not the result of force, but a constraint of nature and preference.

Constraint is a form of force, Seer. If I cannot do X, something is preventing me from doing X. It may be a lack, or a physical obstacle, or another form of limit, but a limit is a force. You are correct that god is not being forced to "choose X," but they are being constrained from choosing an entire class of actions that essentially forces them to choose from only the moral set. It's like a lover who is not being forced to choose how they express their love, but is being forced to love, because they cannot do otherwise.

Sam Harris is a scientist, a neuroscientist. And a well regarded one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Harris

I know that.

That would make us all biological automatons, moral or otherwise.

It would indeed. And if that is the reality...the problem is...?

[seer]

Constraint is a form of force, Seer. If I cannot do X, something is preventing me from doing X. It may be a lack, or a physical obstacle, or another form of limit, but a limit is a force. You are correct that god is not being forced to "choose X," but they are being constrained from choosing an entire class of actions that essentially forces them to choose from only the moral set. It's like a lover who is not being forced to choose how they express their love, but is being forced to love, because they cannot do otherwise.

If you do what you please or prefer it is not force Carp, whether you could have done otherwise or not. Sorry, you are just stretching the language. Or show me any acceptable definition that would agree with you.

It would indeed. And if that is the reality...the problem is...?

So you have no problem with us all being moral automatons, but it's a problem if God is?

[carpedm9587]

If you do what you please or prefer it is not force Carp, whether you could have done otherwise or not. Sorry, you are just stretching the language. Or show me any acceptable definition that would agree with you.

You're quibbling over semantics, Seer. I recognize that someone may be able to choose among a small set of objects and is not being "forced" to make a specific choice in that set. But they ARE being forced to choose from that set - rather than another one.

So you have no problem with us all being moral automatons, but it's a problem if God is?

I am pointing out an inconsistency in the classic theological argument about god's goodness and omnipotence, which is inconsistent with a god that is limited.

I have no problem with a god that is either free or an automaton because I believe such a being only exists in the minds of those who believe in it. It does not exist in reality. As for the rest, I accept reality for what it is. If we are all "living under the illusion of free will," then my wanting it to be otherwise won't change it. If we are not, then your insistence that it must be so won't change it. I experience my life as (at least partially) in my control and I experience myself exercising freedom of will. If it's an illusion, not much I can do to change it. I'll just keep living my life.

[seer]

You're quibbling over semantics, Seer. I recognize that someone may be able to choose among a small set of objects and is not being "forced" to make a specific choice in that set. But they ARE being forced to choose from that set - rather than another one.

That is not force Carp, that is a limited choice - again show me any acceptable definition that would agree with your definition.

I am pointing out an inconsistency in the classic theological argument about god's goodness and omnipotence, which is inconsistent with a god that is limited.

That is not inconsistent. When we say God is all powerful we don't mean He can do anything, like making a square circle. That has never been the understanding in Christian theism, and being a former (and perhaps future) Christian you should know these things: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APCo...2&article=4668

I have no problem with a god that is either free or an automaton because I believe such a being only exists in the minds of those who believe in it. It does not exist in reality. As for the rest, I accept reality for what it is. If we are all "living under the illusion of free will," then my wanting it to be otherwise won't change it. If we are not, then your insistence that it must be so won't change it. I experience my life as (at least partially) in my control and I experience myself exercising freedom of will. If it's an illusion, not much I can do to change it. I'll just keep living my life.

Right, but you said that you would have no problem if human determinism was the case, yet you seem to have a problem with God's moral nature being deterministic - which you have been arguing about these many posts.

[carpedm9587]

That is not force Carp, that is a limited choice - again show me any acceptable definition that would agree with your definition.

Yes - it is. And we mere humans have to deal with limited choices all of the time. We are, after all, finite. But we are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of all that is. I have long noted that those attributes are not consistent with one another. You are basically making that case.

That is not inconsistent. When we say God is all powerful we don't mean He can do anything, like making a square circle. That has never been the understanding in Christian theism, and being a former (and perhaps future) Christian you should know these things: http://www.apologeticspress.org/APCo...2&article=4668

No one is talking about a logical inconsistency, Seer. I have not suggested this creator god needs to be able to move an unmovable object or make a square circle. There is nothing inconsistent about a being that can choose from any possible action, but never chooses to do ill. You are postulating a being that is not capable of choosing to do ill. The eliminates the concept of morality. If I cannot freely choose to do ill...then I'm not really a free moral agent. I'm just forced to always choose from a particular set of actions: the ones defined as good.

Right, but you said that you would have no problem if human determinism was the case, yet you seem to have a problem with God's moral nature being deterministic - which you have been arguing about these many posts.

No - I have no problem with any god you care to postulate, Seer. It's your beliefs. Believe what you will. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency within your own beliefs. You don't have to change them because they are inconsistent. You don't even have to acknowledge they ARE inconsistent. You can believe anything you wish. But these inconsistencies are part of the reason I don't believe this being exists at all.

The notion of a god is an interesting one. I see it as the psychological equivalent of a vestigial organ. The idea of gods has long served a purpose in human history, but we are now in an age where that idea is less and less necessary. It won't be in my lifetime, but I believe the human species (if we survive) will eventually shed its notion of gods and move on. There will always be some who hold to them, just as there are still those who believe in the early pantheons. But they will be increasingly in the minority.

[seer]

Yes - it is. And we mere humans have to deal with limited choices all of the time. We are, after all, finite. But we are talking about the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent creator of all that is. I have long noted that those attributes are not consistent with one another. You are basically making that case.

No Carp, we were taking about FORCE. I'm still waiting for an acceptable definition of force that would agree that when we act on our own desires and nature that that is force by definition.

No one is talking about a logical inconsistency, Seer. I have not suggested this creator god needs to be able to move an unmovable object or make a square circle. There is nothing inconsistent about a being that can choose from any possible action, but never chooses to do ill. You are postulating a being that is not capable of choosing to do ill. The eliminates the concept of morality. If I cannot freely choose to do ill...then I'm not really a free moral agent. I'm just forced to always choose from a particular set of actions: the ones defined as good.

Again Carp, this all hinges on your definition of what a moral agent is (I notice you slipped the word free in there). As I'm sure you know there is, in philosophy, there is no hard fast definition. It could include the freedom to chose otherwise, or accountability or simply as I linked a while back the ability to discern between right and wrong. So yes, God is a moral agent by that definition. And we were speaking of God's goodness being inconsistent with omnipotence. Which is not the case as I have demonstrated, according to Christian theology.

No - I have no problem with any god you care to postulate, Seer. It's your beliefs. Believe what you will. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency within your own beliefs. You don't have to change them because they are inconsistent. You don't even have to acknowledge they ARE inconsistent. You can believe anything you wish. But these inconsistencies are part of the reason I don't believe this being exists at all.

Where is the inconsistency - EXACTLY, because I do not see it. You are just asserting unfounded opinion now...

The notion of a god is an interesting one. I see it as the psychological equivalent of a vestigial organ. The idea of gods has long served a purpose in human history, but we are now in an age where that idea is less and less necessary. It won't be in my lifetime, but I believe the human species (if we survive) will eventually shed its notion of gods and move on. There will always be some who hold to them, just as there are still those who believe in the early pantheons. But they will be increasingly in the minority.

And that day will be called hell...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, we were taking about FORCE. I'm still waiting for an acceptable definition of force that would agree that when we act on our own desires and nature that that is force by definition.

We are talking about limits to the behavior of a supposedly omnipotent being. A being capable of free moral choice, who always chooses to do good, can be said to be omnibenevolent. A being unable to make choices outside of the set of "moral actions" has no moral component whatsoever. They are merely acting as they MUST act.

Again Carp, this all hinges on your definition of what a moral agent is (I notice you slipped the word free in there). As I'm sure you know there is, in philosophy, there is no hard fast definition. It could include the freedom to chose otherwise, or accountability or simply as I linked a while back the ability to discern between right and wrong. So yes, God is a moral agent by that definition. And we were speaking of God's goodness being inconsistent with omnipotence. Which is not the case as I have demonstrated, according to Christian theology.

A being that can discern right from wrong - but it unable to freely choose from "wrong" acts is not a moral agent. They are a thought experiment. Only the sentient being that can freely choose any possible action, and chooses to do good can be called "morally good." Otherwise, they are merely an automaton following their moral programming.

Where is the inconsistency - EXACTLY, because I do not see it. You are just asserting unfounded opinion now...

The inconsistency lies in declaring a being omnipotent and omnibenevolent - but then noting it is incapable of choosing to act in an immoral way. If there is a set of logically possible actions that a being is prohibited from choosing, the being cannot be omnipotent. There is no conflict with omnibenevolence if the being is capable of making the choice - and simply never does.

And that day will be called hell...

Yeah - I know that's part of the god-belief. Sorry, Seer, but I don't subscribe to that notion. When you pass, you will go exactly where I am going: you will simply cease to exist.