Atheism And Moral Progress

[seer]

Yes - depending on your definition of "absolute," as has been noted.

Well God would be the most absolute thing possible.

No - it's perfectly rational. A moral framework is subjective to the person conceiving it. God's moral frame work no more has "authority" over me than yours does, or the moral framework of any other sentient person. You have no means for showing that it does, even if this god DID exist. If I believe "homosexuality is morally neutral, then homosexuality is morally neutral in my moral framework. It may be a moral ill in god's moral framework, but that has no impact on mine. It means god and I disagree, just as you and I disagree. There is no "binding" there in the same way that there is for the laws of logic or mathematics. The laws of logic are not things I (or god) can refute. An argument bad argument will still be a bad argument, even if I think it is a good one. 2 + 2 will still equal 4 even if I say it equals 5. If god and I disagree on morality, the best you can say is "god disagrees with you." So? You also disagree with me.

No... This is about beliefs, you may not believe that the laws of logic are absolute or the laws of math. Yet they still apply to you no matter what you believe, same with the moral law of God which applies to you whether you believe it or not or whether it fits your framework or not. Do the laws of logic or math lose their universal application because they don't line up to ones beliefs?

And you still have not shown this being actually exists - you basically you are projecting your own religiously-based moral framework on a deity you cannot show to exist to lend them authority. Sorry, Seer...I don't buy it. You'll have to do better than "because god says so."

I can't help your ignorance Carp, sorry...

Seer...a single being cannot be "fully human" and "fully god" simultaneously. The two definitions contain explicit contradictions (mortal/immortal; limited/omniscience; limited/all-powerful; created/creator, etc.). You can rationalize to the ends of the earth, but a thing cannot be two opposing things: that is fundamental to logic (except, of course when it comes to Christian theology). The same is true for a triune monotheism - it's an oxymoron. Christianity is riddled with such oxymorons that the faithful parrot and the theologians have expended enormous volumes of ink to have "make sense." They simply don't - unless you drink the Koolaid (and yes, I use that expression selectively).

Nonsense, Christ has two natures. His human nature is fully human, his divine nature is fully divine. Not much different than a human who has a physical nature and a non-physical spirit. No contradiction...

[carpedm9587]

Well God would be the most absolute thing possible.

Depending on your definition of "absolute." And any mythical being can be given any attribute you wish. It doesn't make it real.

No... This is about beliefs, you may not believe that the laws of logic are absolute or the laws of math. Yet they still apply to you no matter what you believe, same with the moral law of God which applies to you whether you believe it or not or whether it fits your framework or not.

No. You are assuming, Seer, that morality is objective and absolute. You may be able to make the case that god's moral framework is absolute (again, depending on your definition of "absolute"), but you cannot make the case that it is objective. It is subjective to god. Mine is subjective to me. If this hypothetical being existed, both this god and I would be subject to the laws of mathematics and logic - but this god would have its moral framework and I would have mine. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Do the laws of logic or math lose their universal application because they don't line up to ones beliefs?

The question is meaningless since the laws of logic and mathematics are objectively true, while morality is a subjective exercise. As I said, apples/oranges.

I can't help your ignorance Carp, sorry...

Actually - ignorance CAN be overcome - with knowledge. Ignorance is not the inability to learn but rather the absence of information. And this response did little to advance your argument.

Nonsense, Christ has two natures. His human nature is fully human, his divine nature is fully divine. Not much different than a human who has a physical nature and a non-physical spirit. No contradiction...

Of course...one being with two simultaneous natures. We see that ALL the time...

And a human does not have "two natures," Seer. We are a physical being capable of thought and self-awareness. Even if we were to accept the "spirit/flesh" dualism you have implied here, there is nothing about the human "spirit" that is at odds with the human "body." Both are created. Both are limited in knowledge and power. The hypostatic union proposes two natures in one being that are mutually exclusive - and then twists language into a pretzel to make the case. An oxymoron is an oxymoron - no matter how you squint. AT the end of the day, you are left with "it's a mystery."

[seer]

Depending on your definition of "absolute." And any mythical being can be given any attribute you wish. It doesn't make it real.

Well you were asking Jim B why it would be absolute.

No. You are assuming, Seer, that morality is objective and absolute. You may be able to make the case that god's moral framework is absolute (again, depending on your definition of "absolute"), but you cannot make the case that it is objective. It is subjective to god. Mine is subjective to me. If this hypothetical being existed, both this god and I would be subject to the laws of mathematics and logic - but this god would have its moral framework and I would have mine. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Carp, you can not prove that the laws of logic are absolute, there are some very intelligent people who disagree that they are absolute:

Royal Institute of Philosophy

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2018528...n_tab_contents

And no Carp, as we discussed God is not subject to the laws of logic, He is the source.

The question is meaningless since the laws of logic and mathematics are objectively true, while morality is a subjective exercise. As I said, apples/oranges.

No it is not, God's moral laws are just as absolute as His logical laws. And the question is not meaningless - the laws of logic apply to you whether you believe in them or not, and so for God's moral laws. There is no distinction.

[carpedm9587]

Well you were asking Jim B why it would be absolute.

Yes - I was.

Carp, you can not prove that the laws of logic are absolute, there are some very intelligent people who disagree that they are absolute:

Royal Institute of Philosophy

https://www.jstor.org/stable/2018528...n_tab_contents

Of course not. We accept them as absolute without proof because we have no alternative. They are considered (by most) self-evidently absolute and universal, until someone shows them not to be (as we have discussed before). So far, AFAIK, that has not happened.

And no Carp, as we discussed God is not subject to the laws of logic, He is the source.

No, Seer - Zeus is the source. Or maybe the FSM.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

No it is not, God's moral laws are just as absolute as His logical laws.

I didn't say they weren't absolute (depending on their definition). I said they were subjective to god.

And the question is not meaningless - the laws of logic apply to you whether you believe in them or not, and so for God's moral laws. There is no distinction.

Sorry, Seer - until you can show morality to be anything other than subjective, you're dead in the water. If this being exists, it's moral framework is subjective to itself. Mine is subjective to myself. Yours is subjective to yourself. Your moral framework is not binding on me - mine is not binding on you - mind is not binding on your god's - and your god's is not binding on me. Each is subjective to the sentience that derived it. You have no way to show morality to be other than that.

We are ALL, however, subject to the principles of mathematics and logic. You like to argue that god is the source...but that position is not a very common one. Indeed, most will note that the principles or logic are principles god also is bound by: most will note that god cannot move an immovable object, or make a square circle, or violate the law of noncontradiction.

And you still cannot even show this being exists...so all of this is a wild hypothetical with no substantiation that it maps to reality.

ETA: I'm predicting that, any moment now, you'll be back to posting your "morality cannot be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective," argument over and over again...

[Tassman]

Whoever is assessing "best."

So your metric is "social cooperation." What do you do about those who use a different metric to assess "best?"

[Tassman]

And no Carp, as we discussed God is not subject to the laws of logic, He is the source.

No he's not.

[carpedm9587]

Tass, Jim is making the claim that morality is based on "what is best" for a society. That is a value judgement. "What is best" is not something that exists objectively. Before you can define "best" you have to first select a metric by which "best" is evaluated. Health? Wealth? Lifespan? Cooperation? Happiness? Peace? Safety? The task of selecting that metric is a subjective one. As a consequence, evaluating "best" is a subjective activity.

There is no question that moral codes evolve/change. I have never questioned that. They change because individuals grow, mature, have changing priorities, or because there are changes wthin a society. So the moral framework of each individual changes. When those changes begin to align person-to-person, society is in the process of changing. We've seen this with the role of women, with slavery, with the LGBTQ community, and the list goes on.

I have no idea what this means, or how it can lead to a specific moral framework. It seems vague, at best, to me.

Morality is simply a product of evolution of the necessary social behavior to survive as a cooperative intelligent social animal. In short, morality is an instinctive survival mechanism.

Well, since humanity is an life form and life forms evolve, there is no doubt that the ability to moralize arises from an evolutionary process, and will have an evolutionary impact. That ability, however, should not be confused with specific moral frameworks. Moralizing is a cognitive act. My ability to think and to moralize is certainly an evolutionary development. That I see same sex relationships as morally neutral is not simply a function of evolution. It is a function of my examining the things I have come to value, and determining which actions will best defend/support/enhance/protect those things and which will attack/undermine/destroy/damage those things.

[Tassman]

Tass, Jim is making the claim that morality is based on "what is best" for a society. That is a value judgement.

"What is best" is not something that exists objectively. Before you can define "best" you have to first select a metric by which "best" is evaluated. Health? Wealth? Lifespan? Cooperation? Happiness? Peace? Safety? The task of selecting that metric is a subjective one. As a consequence, evaluating "best" is a subjective activity.

[carpedm9587]

OK. Try this. Describe what you think is BEST for a society WITHOUT identifying a subjectively selected metric for making that assessment.

So you have selected "communal survival" as your metric. Fine. But other's may choose "wealth" or "happiness" or "low stress."

And even with your subjectively chosen metric of "best," how can you possibly link "Moral Principle A" with "enhanced communal survival?" For some the path seems clear, but we have many moral principles that do not seem to lend themselves to "communal survival." Indeed, in nature, a creature born with a defect will tend to be selected against, and it's flawed DNA will be unlikely to continue in the gene pool. In human societies, however, we require accommodation for people born with birth defects, and we do everything in our power to ensure such people are treated with dignity and have access to all of the resources the rest of the population have access to. We even change our architecture to make it easier for such people to access resources. How can you show that a moral principle that actually endangers the community and species by perpetuating flawed DNA contribute to "communal survival?" Or do you advocate for the elimination of such people?

[JimL]

OK. Try this. Describe what you think is BEST for a society WITHOUT identifying a subjectively selected metric for making that assessment.



So you have selected "communal survival" as your metric. Fine. But other's may choose "wealth" or "happiness" or "low stress."

And even with your subjectively chosen metric of "best," how can you possibly link "Moral Principle A" with "enhanced communal survival?" For some the path seems clear, but we have many moral principles that do not seem to lend themselves to "communal survival." Indeed, in nature, a creature born with a defect will tend to be selected against, and it's flawed DNA will be unlikely to continue in the gene pool. In human societies, however, we require accommodation for people born with birth defects, and we do everything in our power to ensure such people are treated with dignity and have access to all of the resources the rest of the population have access to. We even change our architecture to make it easier for such people to access resources. How can you show that a moral principle that actually endangers the community and species by perpetuating flawed DNA contribute to "communal survival?" Or do you advocate for the elimination of such people?

Because we are all human beings, all have birth defects in a sense, not created equal, which is why the moral adage "due unto others.... applies to all humanity regardless. Morals are simply behavioral laws that best serve the community as a whole. For instance, the moral, as well as legal law, that defines murder as wrong, is a moral that serves the best interests of the whole community. Wouldn't you agree with that? That's why murder is objectively evil, why the moral against it is objectively good, because as a moral, as a law, it serves the best interests of the whole community. That's why theft is objectively evil as well, because the moral against it serves the best interests of the whole of the community. I'm not trying to argue that everything that might be considered moral or immoral are objective truths in that sense, but some obviously are. But being objective doesn't mean that as a rule it has any existence in itself, it simply means that as a rule it best serves the interests of society.

[Tassman]

OK. Try this. Describe what you think is BEST for a society WITHOUT identifying a subjectively selected metric for making that assessment.

So you have selected "communal survival" as your metric.

anything nature has. See above.

[seer]

Of course not. We accept them as absolute without proof because we have no alternative. They are considered (by most) self-evidently absolute and universal, until someone shows them not to be (as we have discussed before). So far, AFAIK, that has not happened.

Sheesh Carp, I just gave you a link where the author from the Royal Institute of Philosophy disagrees with you and me, and you can find the full paper on line.

No, Seer - Zeus is the source. Or maybe the FSM.

Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Where is your evidence that the laws of logic are universal and absolute? And the fact that you can not imagine them being otherwise is not evidence.

I didn't say they weren't absolute (depending on their definition). I said they were subjective to god.

Sorry, Seer - until you can show morality to be anything other than subjective, you're dead in the water. If this being exists, it's moral framework is subjective to itself. Mine is subjective to myself. Yours is subjective to yourself. Your moral framework is not binding on me - mine is not binding on you - mind is not binding on your god's - and your god's is not binding on me. Each is subjective to the sentience that derived it. You have no way to show morality to be other than that.

We are ALL, however, subject to the principles of mathematics and logic. You like to argue that god is the source...but that position is not a very common one. Indeed, most will note that the principles or logic are principles god also is bound by: most will note that god cannot move an immovable object, or make a square circle, or violate the law of noncontradiction.

And you still cannot even show this being exists...so all of this is a wild hypothetical with no substantiation that it maps to reality.

ETA: I'm predicting that, any moment now, you'll be back to posting your "morality cannot be subjective because then it wouldn't be objective," argument over and over again...

And again Carp, when you are backed into a corner you revert to two things: one, well you can't prove God, so... and two, you go into why you are not a christian rant. The point remains, the moral law of God is just as binding on you as are His logical laws. There is no distinction. And you are correct God can not do the logically impossible because by nature He is rational, being the source of logic He can not violate His nature. You can ignore His moral law and there will be consequences, you can ignore his logical laws and similarly face consequences.

[carpedm9587]

Because we are all human beings, all have birth defects in a sense, not created equal, which is why the moral adage "due unto others.... applies to all humanity regardless.

Jim...we all have imperfections in our DNA of one sort or another. But some imperfections are life-threatening, not only for the person who has them, but for any progeny down the road. If they generalize into the gene pool, they represent a threat to the species. I'm not sure how your argument holds up in the face of that.

Morals are simply behavioral laws that best serve the community as a whole.

Again - you keep saying "best," but have not defined an objective metric against which "best" can be measured. Without that metric, "best" is meaningless. It's like saying "that is the best song ever!" Really? To whom? Measured how? Continually repeating "best" does not say anything.

For instance, the moral, as well as legal law, that defines murder as wrong, is a moral that serves the best interests of the whole community. Wouldn't you agree with that? That's why murder is objectively evil, why the moral against it is objectively good, because as a moral, as a law, it serves the best interests of the whole community.

I agree with the statement "murder is wrong," Jim, because a) I recognize the phrase "murder to be wrong" to be true by definition of the terms (i.e., it means "illicit killing") and because the specific types of "killing" we label "murder" align with my subjective moral assessment. But you have no way to make the claim "murder is wrong" without being caught in a circle OR having to define a subjective metric for assessing a particular killing to be "murder" (i.e., wrong).

That's why theft is objectively evil as well, because the moral against it serves the best interests of the whole of the community.

We've already shown that the concept of theft is not universally wrong, and only becomes "wrong" in societies that define the concept of "private property." But, again, you are defining your way to a moral position. When we define "private" property, the term "private" suggests it is for an individual or a designated group. "Theft" violates that notion of privacy. So, again, a subjective principle subjectively selected.

I'm not trying to argue that everything that might be considered moral or immoral are objective truths in that sense, but some obviously are.

So far you have not successfully shown any.

But being objective doesn't mean that as a rule it has any existence in itself, it simply means that as a rule it best serves the interests of society.

And you are back to "best," so "see above."

[carpedm9587]

This is an argument for how humanity developed the ability to moralize: it is simply an outgrowth of sentience. If it has survival value, it will help survival. If it doesn't, it won't. The ability is far too "young" (in evolutionary terms) for us to know whether or not the ability to moralize has survival value. Indeed, we don't even known if sentience has long-term survival value. It may be that sentient beings become to narrowly focused on short-term gain and ultimately end up destroying themselves. So I cannot see how you can argue "moralizing has survival value."

You also have not made the leap from "the ability to moralize" to "holding moral position X."

anything nature has. See above.

See above...

[seer]

Again - you keep saying "best," but have not defined an objective metric against which "best" can be measured. Without that metric, "best" is meaningless. It's like saying "that is the best song ever!" Really? To whom? Measured how? Continually repeating "best" does not say anything.

Carp how may times have you chided me for trivializing your moral opinion by comparing it to a food or or color preference? Yet here you are trivializing what Jim thinks is morally best for society by comparing it to a "best song." So I going forward we can take your moral beliefs as meaningless.