Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

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 you are equating moral with the power of contrary choice. It does not follow. Do you see ANYTHING about free will or the power of contray choice?

Websters

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.

Again Carp, that is ACCORDING to your OPINION. nothing more.

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.

Again, it depends on how one defines omnipotent (and you are not defining it as Christian theism does). But again this is merely your assertion. If God always does good then by definition He is always benevolent. Because He can't do the opposite does not make Him any less benevolent. That is just silly talk.

When you pass, you will go exactly where I am going...

I don't expect to find myself with you in the Lake of Fire...

[carpedm9587]

Again you are equating moral with the power of contrary choice. It does not follow. Do you see ANYTHING about free will or the power of contray choice?

You are hinging your argument on the definition of "morality," which we don't disagree about. The argument is about moral agency. This is defined as:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

Note the end of the definition - capable of acting - with respect to right AND wrong.

Again Carp, that is ACCORDING to your OPINION. nothing more.

Actually, according to multiple, widely accepted definitions of "moral agency." You can redefine it if you wish to, but I would suggest that means you are redefining words so that you can hold to your position.

Again, it depends on how one defines omnipotent (and you are not defining it as Christian theism does). But again this is merely your assertion. If God always does good then by definition He is always benevolent. Because He can't do the opposite does not make Him any less benevolent. That is just silly talk.

The definitions are fairly simple, Seer. Omni means all. Potent means powerful. An omnipotent being is capable of any possible action. Acting immorally is a possible action, so an omnipotent being should be capable of such actions. Omnibenevolent means "all good." You are caught on the horns of the traditional dilemma: if god is all good, god cannot act immorally. If god cannot act immorally, god cannot be all powerful because there are possible actions god cannot perform.

You can redefine "omnipotent" to mean something less than "all-powerful," and that is certainly one way out of the conundrum. That is what Christian theology has done for centuries now. But redefining the words to avoid a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

I don't expect to find myself with you in the Lake of Fire...

I don't expect to find myself with you anywhere after death, Seer. "Lakes of fire" exist as a consequence of volcanic activity, nothing more. It is poetic imagery primary found in Revelations and Milton.

[seer]

You are hinging your argument on the definition of "morality," which we don't disagree about. The argument is about moral agency. This is defined as:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions. A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong."

Note the end of the definition - capable of acting - with respect to right AND wrong.



Actually, according to multiple, widely accepted definitions of "moral agency." You can redefine it if you wish to, but I would suggest that means you are redefining words so that you can hold to your position.

Like I said Carp, there is no hard fast definition, God certainly is a "being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." There is nothing about free will here. But let me ask you Carp, if Sam Harris is right does that mean that we all are no longer moral agents?

The definitions are fairly simple, Seer. Omni means all. Potent means powerful. An omnipotent being is capable of any possible action. Acting immorally is a possible action, so an omnipotent being should be capable of such actions. Omnibenevolent means "all good." You are caught on the horns of the traditional dilemma: if god is all good, god cannot act immorally. If god cannot act immorally, god cannot be all powerful because there are possible actions god cannot perform.

Nonsense Carp, you already know how Christians define omnipotence, and classically have. You may not agree, but let's not pretend that we believe something else.

Again definitions:

The term omnipotent has been used to connote a number of different positions. These positions include, but are not limited to, the following:

A deity is able to do anything that it chooses to do.[2] (In this version God can do the impossible and something contradictory.[3])
A deity is able to do anything that is in accord with its own nature (thus, for instance, if it is a logical consequence of a deity's nature that what it speaks is truth, then it is not able to lie).
It is part of a deity's nature to be consistent and that it would be inconsistent for said deity to go against its own laws unless there was a reason to do so.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence

You can redefine "omnipotent" to mean something less than "all-powerful," and that is certainly one way out of the conundrum. That is what Christian theology has done for centuries now. But redefining the words to avoid a problem doesn't make the problem go away.

According to Wikipedia there are possible different understandings of Omnipotence, see above. These are not controversial, the Romans even applied the term to Emperors, so this is not merely a Christian thing. Now having said that you don't hearing me using the term - I would say that God is supremely powerful and can do anything that is in accordance with His nature.

[JimL]

Like I said Carp, there is no hard fast definition, God certainly is a "being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." There is nothing about free will here. But let me ask you Carp, if Sam Harris is right does that mean that we all are no longer moral agents?





Nonsense Carp, you already know how Christians define omnipotence, and classically have. You may not agree, but let's not pretend that we believe something else.

Again definitions:





According to Wikipedia there are possible different understandings of Omnipotence, see above. These are not controversial, the Romans even applied the term to Emperors, so this is not merely a Christian thing. Now having said that you don't hearing me using the term - I would say that God is supremely powerful and can do anything that is in accordance with His nature.

God seems to be losing more and more of his omni-powers the more we look into it. It's coming down to "well, he can be as omni-whatever as it is possible for him to be."

[carpedm9587]

Like I said Carp, there is no hard fast definition, God certainly is a "being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." There is nothing about free will here. But let me ask you Carp, if Sam Harris is right does that mean that we all are no longer moral agents?

If Harris were right, it would make every human "choice" an illusion, and the concept of moral agency would collapse.

Nonsense Carp, you already know how Christians define omnipotence, and classically have. You may not agree, but let's not pretend that we believe something else.

I didn't say you believed something else. I said that Christians, for centuries, have defined their way out of a contradiction in their belief system. They declare their god omnipotent - and then omit all the perfectly logical/rational things god cannot do as part of "omnipotency." You are free to do this, of course, but it doesn't eliminate the problem. It just makes the rest of us scratch our heads at just how far people will go to hold onto views that are a tad irrational.

Again definitions:

According to Wikipedia there are possible different understandings of Omnipotence, see above. These are not controversial, the Romans even applied the term to Emperors, so this is not merely a Christian thing. Now having said that you don't hearing me using the term - I would say that God is supremely powerful and can do anything that is in accordance with His nature.

Seer - Wikipedia is a source that reports what is. There is no question that what you are reporting is the Christian definition of "omnipotence." I have not said otherwise. What I have said is that Christians had to "adjust" the idea of "all-powerful" to make room for their beliefs. Most of us would say "semi-powerful" or "very powerful." But Christianity has had to reduce "all" to a subset and declare that "omni." That has been done repeatedly throughout the ages for many aspects of the theology. It was upon truly recognizing and accepting this that I was able to move away from the beliefs.

[seer]

If Harris were right, it would make every human "choice" an illusion, and the concept of moral agency would collapse.

But I thought you had no problem with human determinism if true? How would anything change in your life? And again, there is nothing about free will being necessary to moral agency, even in your own link.

I didn't say you believed something else. I said that Christians, for centuries, have defined their way out of a contradiction in their belief system. They declare their god omnipotent - and then omit all the perfectly logical/rational things god cannot do as part of "omnipotency." You are free to do this, of course, but it doesn't eliminate the problem. It just makes the rest of us scratch our heads at just how far people will go to hold onto views that are a tad irrational.

Again, it depends on how you define omnipotent.

Seer - Wikipedia is a source that reports what is. There is no question that what you are reporting is the Christian definition of "omnipotence." I have not said otherwise. What I have said is that Christians had to "adjust" the idea of "all-powerful" to make room for their beliefs. Most of us would say "semi-powerful" or "very powerful." But Christianity has had to reduce "all" to a subset and declare that "omni." That has been done repeatedly throughout the ages for many aspects of the theology. It was upon truly recognizing and accepting this that I was able to move away from the beliefs.

No Carp, Wikipedia link was not only speaking of the Christian view in my quote, but generally. And the fact, in the same link, that Romans even applied the term to Emperors. But like I said, because of such misunderstandings I do not use the term.

[carpedm9587]

But I thought you had no problem with human determinism if true?

The concept of "having a problem with something that is true" is an odd one. If it's true - it's true. Whether or not I have a "problem" with it is irrelevant.

How would anything change in your life?

Nothing would change in my life whatsoever. I experience free choice and will continue to exercise it. If it is an illusion, it's a very effective one and there is nothing I can do about it.

And again, there is nothing about free will being necessary to moral agency, even in your own link.

Note that the definition involves choice of action - and you seem to be purposefully omitting that part.

Again, it depends on how you define omnipotent.

Which is basically what I said: Christianity has defined the term to meet its theological needs. I find that an odd way to proceed.

No Carp, Wikipedia link was not only speaking of the Christian view in my quote, but generally. And the fact, in the same link, that Romans even applied the term to Emperors. But like I said, because of such misunderstandings I do not use the term.

I didn't say it was only speaking of Christians, Seer. I noted that this is a general source that presents of of "what is." It accurately portrays how Christians (and others have defined the term). IMO, and it is an opinion, "all" means "all." It is reasonable to exclude the impossible (i.e., square circles). Any other constraint is merely an attempt, even an ancient one, to define terms to fit a theology.

[seer]

The concept of "having a problem with something that is true" is an odd one. If it's true - it's true. Whether or not I have a "problem" with it is irrelevant.

Nothing would change in my life whatsoever. I experience free choice and will continue to exercise it. If it is an illusion, it's a very effective one and there is nothing I can do about it.

So by your definition moral agency would collapse if human determinism was true and you would have a problem with that. Got it...

Note that the definition involves choice of action - and you seem to be purposefully omitting that part.

I am not sure what part you are speaking of. but even if you (or God) were were determined you are still making choices. God by nature always chooses to do good. But here is your definition again:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.[1] A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

Where is the choice thing?

Which is basically what I said: Christianity has defined the term to meet its theological needs. I find that an odd way to proceed.

Well yes, they do define omnipotent with the caveat that is only applies to things that are intrinsically possible for God to do by nature. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Christian theology knows this. It is not like they are trying to hid this distinction.

I didn't say it was only speaking of Christians, Seer. I noted that this is a general source that presents of of "what is." It accurately portrays how Christians (and others have defined the term). IMO, and it is an opinion, "all" means "all." It is reasonable to exclude the impossible (i.e., square circles). Any other constraint is merely an attempt, even an ancient one, to define terms to fit a theology.

Nonsense, the very definitions that I quoted also made these distinctions, and they were not Christian. So they are not merely made to fit our theology. And as far as Christian theology it would be intrinsically impossible for God to act against His nature, as impossible as square circles.

[carpedm9587]

So by your definition moral agency would collapse if human determinism was true and you would have a problem with that. Got it...

Go back and reread what I actually said, Seer. You missed it by a long shot.

I am not sure what part you are speaking of. but even if you (or God) were were determined you are still making choices. God by nature always chooses to do good. But here is your definition again:

Moral agency is an individual's ability to make moral judgments based on some notion of right and wrong and to be held accountable for these actions.[1] A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong.

Where is the choice thing?

Emphasized.

Well yes, they do define omnipotent with the caveat that is only applies to things that are intrinsically possible for God to do by nature. Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Christian theology knows this. It is not like they are trying to hid this distinction.

All "all powerful" means "everything except what we believe god can't do." This makes sense to you?

Nonsense, the very definitions that I quoted also made these distinctions, and they were not Christian. So they are not merely made to fit our theology. And as far as Christian theology it would be intrinsically impossible for God to act against His nature, as impossible as square circles.

So Christianity has defined itself out of a theological conundrum. Got it...

[Tassman]

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

If God's "choice" is limited, then so is his moral agency accordingly 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.

Of course God cannot do anything logically contradictory, but that is not the same thing as having the moral agency to choose between good and evil.

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.

You object to determinism for humans but don't object when it applies to God's moral nature. A tad inconsistent, perhaps?

[seer]

Go back and reread what I actually said, Seer. You missed it by a long shot.

You have to be more specific since you said that you did not see a problem with human determinism, if that was the case, therefore it follows that you wouldn't have a problem with the collapse moral agency. Since that would necessarily follow.

Emphasized.

But of course God acts with REFERENCE to right and wrong. Again, nothing about free will or contrary choice here.

All "all powerful" means "everything except what we believe god can't do." This makes sense to you?

See this is where I question your honesty. I assume that you already knew how Christians and others modified the term omnipotent, yet you keep on claiming an inconsistency where none existed. Bad form old man...

So Christianity has defined itself out of a theological conundrum. Got it...

There is no conundrum, and never was, if you understood how theologians used the word. Like the Romans and others used the term. But you already agreed that if God could not do the intrinsically impossible (creating a square circle) that that would not take away from His omnipotence. Yet acting against His nature would be just as intrinsically impossible.

[carpedm9587]

You have to be more specific since you said that you did not see a problem with human determinism, if that was the case, therefore it follows that you wouldn't have a problem with the collapse moral agency. Since that would necessarily follow.

What I said was that the notion of "having a problem" with something that is real is an odd construct. If it's real - it's real. My "having a problem with it" won't change it one iota.

But of course God acts with REFERENCE to right and wrong. Again, nothing about free will or contrary choice here.

As you wish, Seer. I was under no illusion that you would see the conflict or acknowledge it.

See this is where I question your honesty. I assume that you already knew how Christians and others modified the term omnipotent, yet you keep on claiming an inconsistency where none existed. Bad form old man...There is no conundrum, and never was, if you understood how theologians used the word. Like the Romans and others used the term. But you already agreed that if God could not do the intrinsically impossible (creating a square circle) that that would not take away from His omnipotence. Yet acting against His nature would be just as intrinsically impossible.

There is no inconsistency, Seer, because Christians have defined the term to avoid it. That has happened repeatedly throughout Christian history. Concepts associated with "fully god and fully man" and "the trinity" and "god's nature" are simply defined around - and then touted as though they are "the truth." Yes - I know how Christians use the language. I also know they are defining their away around conflicts that are pretty evident to anyone looking at it without the religious baggage. It's not bad form - it simply is. You are welcome to live that way - and I am not arguing for you to change your beliefs. I AM explaining one of many reasons I no longer subscribe to them.

[seer]

What I said was that the notion of "having a problem" with something that is real is an odd construct. If it's real - it's real. My "having a problem with it" won't change it one iota.

So you have no problem with moral collapse, if that is the case.

As you wish, Seer. I was under no illusion that you would see the conflict or acknowledge it.

See that is not honest Carp, if you define the term with the modifier. I have a hard time believing that you were ignorant of how we defined omnipotent.

There is no inconsistency, Seer, because Christians have defined the term to avoid it. That has happened repeatedly throughout Christian history. Concepts associated with "fully god and fully man" and "the trinity" and "god's nature" are simply defined around - and then touted as though they are "the truth." Yes - I know how Christians use the language. I also know they are defining their away around conflicts that are pretty evident to anyone looking at it without the religious baggage. It's not bad form - it simply is. You are welcome to live that way - and I am not arguing for you to change your beliefs. I AM explaining one of many reasons I no longer subscribe to them.

Nonsense Carp, it wasn't just Christians who defined it such (as I demonstrated), but you have an ax to grind. And nothing is defined around, except in your biased mind. But why give a pass on creating a square circle, but not on God violating his nature when both are intrinsically impossible?

[carpedm9587]

So you have no problem with moral collapse, if that is the case.

So long as everyone is living in the illusion - they will likely continue in the illusion of morality. I don't see anything significant changing, Seer. And, again, I don't get choose what is "real" based on whether or not I like it or have a problem with it. But I don't actually believe that my actions are determined, so

See that is not honest Carp, if you define the term with the modifier. I have a hard time believing that you were ignorant of how we defined omnipotent.

I'm not ignorant of it, Seer. I'm pointing out that the entire history of Christianity is based on redefining terms to avoid conundrums. There is nothing dishonest about it. So there is a conflict with "omnipotent" and "omnibenevolent?" No problem - lety's just redefine "omnipotent" to exclude the things that conflict with "omnibenevolent" and the problem goes away! That is what has been done throughout Christian history.

Nonsense Carp, it wasn't just Christians who defined it such (as I demonstrated), but you have an ax to grind. And nothing is defined around, except in your biased mind. But why give a pass on creating a square circle, but not on God violating his nature when both are intrinsically impossible?

Seer, Christians weren't the first people to have to define their way out of a conundrum. Faced with an obviously limited and human leader, clearly the Romans would also have redefined the term for their purposes. You're not actually making an argument that is based in any sound reasoning.

So, today, we have all sorts of definitions of "all powerful," each with differing levels of exclusion of what cannot be done. But the notion of having all power - for a being that supposedly created all that is - does not have to be very complicated. It is made more complicated because it runs into conflicts with the other attributes people want to pile onto this supposed being. That is what happens when we create our gods. We have no choice but to create them with attributes that are part of the human experience, because it is impossible for us to conceive of an attribute that is not associated with human experience. But when we try to imagine these attributes held perfectly - they run into conflict with one another. So the terms get redefined to avoid the conflicts.

Humans have been doing it for a long, long time.

[seer]

So, today, we have all sorts of definitions of "all powerful," each with differing levels of exclusion of what cannot be done. But the notion of having all power - for a being that supposedly created all that is - does not have to be very complicated. It is made more complicated because it runs into conflicts with the other attributes people want to pile onto this supposed being. That is what happens when we create our gods. We have no choice but to create them with attributes that are part of the human experience, because it is impossible for us to conceive of an attribute that is not associated with human experience. But when we try to imagine these attributes held perfectly - they run into conflict with one another. So the terms get redefined to avoid the conflicts.

Humans have been doing it for a long, long time.

I will ask again Carp, why give a pass on one intrinsically impossible thing (creating a square circle), but not on another intrinsically impossible thing; God violating his nature. The only reason I see as to why you would accept the former and not the latter is your bias.

As you wish, Seer. I was under no illusion that you would see the conflict or acknowledge it.

You are doing it again, hand waving. How isn't God referencing right and wrong when acting?