Announcement

Collapse

Apologetics 301 Guidelines

If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you


This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.


Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

The Human Animal...

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

  • #76
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

    The Euthyphro dilemma perhaps intentionally misunderstands the nature of God. It asks, "Is something good because God approves of it, or does God approve of it because it is good?" The answer, of course, is neither. Rather, goodness is simply that which aligns with the character and nature of God.
    I already addressed the Nature route. The Euthyphro can easily be modified to say:

    Is God's Nature good because it has good making properties or is God's Nature good because God has it.

    In that formulation, there's no divergence from what the original dilemma aims to elucidate.


    Morality, at its most basic, simply says, "Do not do that which contradicts the character and nature of God," and God, as the supreme lawgiver, is a competent authority, the ultimate authority, who has the power to enforce his edicts. Therefore, we are obligated to obey God.
    That would be "might makes right".

    The problem with trying to ground moral obligation in the natural world is that there is no ultimate authority.
    I never attempted to ground moral obligation in the natural world.

    The atheist will often appeal to consequentialism, for instance, "You are obligated to obey the laws of society because society can punish you if you don't,"

    That's not consequentialism, that's "might makes right", which you just used.


    We also know that what secular society considers good and proper can and does change on a whim, and that what is considered unacceptable today could be tolerated and even embraced tomorrow.
    Red herring.

    Who is to say, for instance, that pedophiles are really doing anything immoral? Perhaps they're just ahead of the curve and are simply waiting for the rest of society to catch up.
    Molestation and other ways of child exploitation harms the child. That's always going to be the case despite the whims of society.

    P1) If , then I win.

    P2)

    C) I win.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

      Is God's Nature good because it has good making properties or is God's Nature good because God has it.

      In that formulation, there's no divergence from what the original dilemma aims to elucidate.
      Wouldn't that apply to any claim of good or goodness? It seem to me that something ultimately has to define good, and if it not God's nature then what?
      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


      • #78
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        That's like saying, "I am obligated not to jump from a height of 10-feet because I could be injured." It's a nonsensical statement because the presence of potential negative consequences does not entail obligation.
        Looking at it that way, I suppose you could say that moral obligations are always self-imposed.

        That would of course be true for both atheists and theists.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by seer View Post

          Wouldn't that apply to any claim of good or goodness? It seem to me that something ultimately has to define good, and if it not God's nature then what?
          Under moral realism, the good would be sui generis. That's part of the reason I'm not a moral realist. I don't believe morality is about any sort of properties per se but rather relational. Given human social and cognitive capacities and development, I don't see a need for morality to require a transcendent lawgiver. If anything, all that lends itself is to abuse. If believing in God keeps I'd have to find the exact reference, but I do remember Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort saying that if they didn't believe in God, they'd be in jail. If they need God to behave, that's fine with me despite it being rather pathetic.
          P1) If , then I win.

          P2)

          C) I win.

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

            There's no issue with DCT per se, it's just not moral realism.


            DCT would accept the horn that God's commands are good because God commands them.
            Not if the commands are grounded in His immutable moral character. So they are not good just because God commands them, they are good because God is the source of goodness.
            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


            • #81
              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

              Under moral realism, the good would be sui generis. That's part of the reason I'm not a moral realist. I don't believe morality is about any sort of properties per se but rather relational. Given human social and cognitive capacities and development, I don't see a need for morality to require a transcendent lawgiver. If anything, all that lends itself is to abuse. If believing in God keeps I'd have to find the exact reference, but I do remember Eric Hovind and Ray Comfort saying that if they didn't believe in God, they'd be in jail. If they need God to behave, that's fine with me despite it being rather pathetic.
              But that was not the question I asked. If you have a logical problem with God being the source of good, wouldn't that logical problem apply to an individual or a society?
              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


              • #82
                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                I already addressed the Nature route. The Euthyphro can easily be modified to say:

                Is God's Nature good because it has good making properties or is God's Nature good because God has it.

                In that formulation, there's no divergence from what the original dilemma aims to elucidate.




                That would be "might makes right".



                I never attempted to ground moral obligation in the natural world.




                That's not consequentialism, that's "might makes right", which you just used.




                Red herring.



                Molestation and other ways of child exploitation harms the child. That's always going to be the case despite the whims of society.
                Your recasting of the Euthyphro dilemma strikes me as nonsensical. Goodness is not an external property that God possesses or conveys onto something. Rather, as the author and creator of all that exists, God is the standard, there is no other, and we call that standard "good". When I say that it is good to tell the truth, that simply means that the act of telling the truth is in alignment with the character and nature of God.

                You suggest that moral obligation is about "might makes right". I suppose in a sense that's true, because how can you be obligated to a moral law giver who is unable to hold you accountable for your misdeeds? I don't have a problem with that unless you can present a good argument that concludes with "Therefore, might ought not make right." The obvious difference between human authorities and God is that it is possible to escape the judgement of the former but not the latter.

                Consequentialism judges the morality of an action by its consequences. You say, "X is wrong because society can punish you for it." I say, "X is wrong because it is contrary to the character and nature of God." So not the same standard at all. The next question is, If X is wrong, then to whom am I obligated not to do X? For the theist, the buck stops with God. For the atheist, the buck stops nowhere.

                You say, "Molestation and other ways of child exploitation harms the child." One question that comes to mind is, How do you define "harm"? The second and more important question is, What obligation do we have to not cause harm? And even if you do somehow manage to come up with a semi-coherent answer today, what guarantee do you have that society is not going to reject it tomorrow?
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by seer View Post

                  But that was not the question I asked. If you have a logical problem with God being the source of good, wouldn't that logical problem apply to an individual or a society?
                  I don't believe that there is a source for good per se as a property, whether that's God, an individual, or society. Humans are social and empathetic creatures, barring neural abnormalities, due to our biological makeup. Humans are also cognitively advanced to understand self-relation. Morality is incoherent outside a relational context. Morality, in that context, is a matter social cohesion, interpersonal well-being, and
                  well-being. If you want to add in man's relation to a deity and religious cleanliness, that's fine. Again, that's still a relational context.
                  P1) If , then I win.

                  P2)

                  C) I win.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    Looking at it that way, I suppose you could say that moral obligations are always self-imposed.
                    For the atheist, there is no other way to look at it, and if that's true, then moral obligation effectively doesn't exist, and the concept of right and wrong ceases to have any meaning. Consider, humans are excellent rationalizers and can easily convince themselves and even others that they have a good reason for committing even the most atrocious of acts.

                    Originally posted by Stoic View Post

                    That would of course be true for both atheists and theists.
                    Nope. For the theist, moral obligation is not self-imposed, it is imposed on us by God who is the ultimate moral authority.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post

                      Your recasting of the Euthyphro dilemma strikes me as nonsensical. Goodness is not an external property that God possesses or conveys onto something. Rather, as the author and creator of all that exists, God is the standard, there is no other, and we call that standard "good". When I say that it is good to tell the truth, that simply means that the act of telling the truth is in alignment with the character and nature of God.
                      Thank you for accepting the second horn.

                      You suggest that moral obligation is about "might makes right". I suppose in a sense that's true, because how can you be obligated to a moral law giver who is unable to hold you accountable for your misdeeds? I don't have a problem with that unless you can present a good argument that concludes with "Therefore, might ought not make right." The obvious difference between human authorities and God is that it is possible to escape the judgement of the former but not the latter.
                      There's a whole different thread for that and it's here.


                      You say, "X is wrong because society can punish you for it."
                      I don't say that. There's also the allegedly understood notion that people don't want to be punished. Perhaps Stoic should be more precise in stating apparently non-obvious qualifiers.

                      For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                      Bad Stoic




                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      I say, "X is wrong because it is contrary to the character and nature of God." So not the same standard at all.

                      Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Morality, at its most basic, simply says, "Do not do that which contradicts the character and nature of God," and God, as the supreme lawgiver, is a competent authority, the ultimate authority, who has the power to enforce his edicts. Therefore, we are obligated to obey God.
                      Emphasis added, also, I quoted that same line in my last post to you. Additionally, the use of Heaven and Hell as carrot and stick similarly base obligation on the desirability of the outcome as show above.


                      The next question is, If X is wrong, then to whom am I obligated not to do X? For the theist, the buck stops with God. For the atheist, the buck stops nowhere.
                      Satan believes in God but doesn't accept God's authority so Satan doesn't feel obligated to God. The Christian believe in and accepts the authority of God, so the Christian's following God's commands is based on the Christian's valuation of God's commands.

                      Atheists accept similar obligations in light of personal beliefs and values.

                      But you've already condition obligation to God based on God's ability to enforce God's exist, i.e. might makes right, or I prefer, "might makes right moot".


                      One question that comes to mind is, How do you define "harm"?
                      Getting into morality discussions when I know better.
                      P1) If , then I win.

                      P2)

                      C) I win.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                        I don't believe that there is a source for good per se as a property, whether that's God, an individual, or society. Humans are social and empathetic creatures, barring neural abnormalities, due to our biological makeup. Humans are also cognitively advanced to understand self-relation. Morality is incoherent outside a relational context. Morality, in that context, is a matter social cohesion, interpersonal well-being, and
                        well-being. If you want to add in man's relation to a deity and religious cleanliness, that's fine. Again, that's still a relational context.
                        So "good" does not exist...
                        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


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          For the atheist, there is no other way to look at it, and if that's true, then moral obligation effectively doesn't exist, and the concept of right and wrong ceases to have any meaning. Consider, humans are excellent rationalizers and can easily convince themselves and even others that they have a good reason for committing even the most atrocious of acts.
                          It's true that you can't count on people to care about their moral obligations, whether they are atheists or theists.

                          That's why we have legal obligations.

                          Nope. For the theist, moral obligation is not self-imposed, it is imposed on us by God who is the ultimate moral authority.
                          I'll just remind you that you said, "...the presence of potential negative consequences does not entail obligation."

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by seer View Post

                            So "good" does not exist...
                            And the quote mining begins. I'm shocked and stunned.

                            I'm not a moral realist. You're not a moral realist.

                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            Goodness is not an external property that God possesses or conveys onto something.
                            And MM isn't a moral realist.



                            This is why I should know better than to get into morality discussions with theists.

                            P1) If , then I win.

                            P2)

                            C) I win.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                              And the quote mining begins. I'm shocked and stunned.

                              I'm not a moral realist. You're not a moral realist.

                              Yet I do believe in universal and absolute moral truths.
                              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


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                Thank you for accepting the second horn.



                                There's a whole different thread for that and it's here.




                                I don't say that. There's also the allegedly understood notion that people don't want to be punished. Perhaps Stoic should be more precise in stating apparently non-obvious qualifiers.

                                For the sarcastically impaired the following is said in jest

                                Bad Stoic









                                Emphasis added, also, I quoted that same line in my last post to you. Additionally, the use of Heaven and Hell as carrot and stick similarly base obligation on the desirability of the outcome as show above.




                                Satan believes in God but doesn't accept God's authority so Satan doesn't feel obligated to God. The Christian believe in and accepts the authority of God, so the Christian's following God's commands is based on the Christian's valuation of God's commands.

                                Atheists accept similar obligations in light of personal beliefs and values.

                                But you've already condition obligation to God based on God's ability to enforce God's exist, i.e. might makes right, or I prefer, "might makes right moot".




                                Getting into morality discussions when I know better.
                                If you think I accepted the second horn of the Euthyphro dilemma then I can only conclude that you didn't understand my argument. I tossed both horns away and provided a solution overlooked by the dilemma. Also, I'm not seeing any argument from you that would lead me to believe that might ought not make right.

                                Heaven and hell are not a "carrot and stick" since even those who reject God and deny the existence of the afterlife are still obligated to act morally, which answers your last objection: obligation has nothing to do with our consent. Satan might reject God's authority, but he is still morally obligated to obey God who has the ability and authority to hold him accountable.

                                Originally posted by Diogenes View Post

                                Getting into morality discussions when I know better.
                                Indeed. Atheists and agnostics hate debating morality because they inevitably tie themselves into knots from which they are unable to extricate themselves.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 03:01 PM
                                38 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-17-2024, 04:55 PM
                                21 responses
                                129 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by whag, 03-14-2024, 06:04 PM
                                80 responses
                                422 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post tabibito  
                                Started by whag, 03-13-2024, 12:06 PM
                                45 responses
                                303 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X