// Required code

Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

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

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

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

  • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
    I'm not sure I understand the question. Presumably in the same way most people define or recognize moral goodness in concepts such as love, charity, generosity, justice, faithfulness, kindness, etc. We simply recognize God as the source of these things.
    But those things are applied to interpersonal relationships and a god being eternal had no interpersonal relationships until, as is assumed, he created. What did he love, to whom was he charitable, generous, just, faithdful, or kind.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Really Adrift I'm not following. I do believe that God's nature is immutably good. My nature is both good and bad - does that mean that my nature is objective?
      It sounds to me that you're entirely confused on what it means for God's nature to be identified with "the good." While your nature may do good and bad, it is not "the good," and "the bad." I suggest you read something like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig. That may help you understand where you're tripping up, because it seems the more I attempt to work through it with you, the more confused you're getting. I may just suck at explaining these sorts of things.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by JimL View Post
        But those things are applied to interpersonal relationships and a god being eternal had no interpersonal relationships until, as is assumed, he created. What did he love, to whom was he charitable, generous, just, faithdful, or kind.
        It's typically argued by Christian philosophers that there is interpersonal play within the Christian conception of the eternal God, namely between the persons of the Godhead within the trinity.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          It's typically argued by Christian philosophers that there is interpersonal play within the Christian conception of the eternal God, namely between the persons of the Godhead within the trinity.
          Might as well call them three distinct gods then, with distinct needs and disires etc. That's a very weird concept, the trinity.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
            It sounds to me that you're entirely confused on what it means for God's nature to be identified with "the good." While your nature may do good and bad, it is not "the good," and "the bad." I suggest you read something like Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by J. P. Moreland, William Lane Craig. That may help you understand where you're tripping up, because it seems the more I attempt to work through it with you, the more confused you're getting. I may just suck at explaining these sorts of things.
            I have actually read Moreland, and watched many of Craig's debates. Yes God is the good - I fully agree. He has a particular kind of nature, but we also have a particular kind of nature. Both being objective - don't you agree?
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

            Comment


            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
              But those things are applied to interpersonal relationships and a god being eternal had no interpersonal relationships until, as is assumed, he created. What did he love, to whom was he charitable, generous, just, faithdful, or kind.
              As Carp rightly said morality is not about interpersonal relationships, it is about ought and ought not. It could be that God did not display His moral character until He created sentient beings, but that character was always there, and unchangeable.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

              Comment


              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                As Carp rightly said morality is not about interpersonal relationships, it is about ought and ought not. It could be that God did not display His moral character until He created sentient beings, but that character was always there, and unchangeable.
                Ought and ought not would not apply to an eternal god existing alone. Ought and ought not do what to whom?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  I have actually read Moreland, and watched many of Craig's debates. Yes God is the good - I fully agree. He has a particular kind of nature, but we also have a particular kind of nature. Both being objective - don't you agree?
                  No.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by seer View Post
                    I have actually read Moreland, and watched many of Craig's debates. Yes God is the good - I fully agree. He has a particular kind of nature, but we also have a particular kind of nature. Both being objective - don't you agree?
                    No, you do not have both a good and a bad nature objectively. Actually according to your religion you just have an evil nature. But in reality, you are neither good or bad, or good and bad objectively, you simply do what is considered either good or sometimes what is considered bad.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                      Ought and ought not would not apply to an eternal god existing alone. Ought and ought not do what to whom?
                      Jim, the point is God would have a particular moral nature even if there were no sentient beings to interact with. Our existence or non-existence does not change that.
                      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by seer View Post
                        Jim, the point is God would have a particular moral nature even if there were no sentient beings to interact with. Our existence or non-existence does not change that.
                        And my point is that a moral nature makes no sense for a being existing eternally alone doing nothing. That would explain the amoral nature of the universe itself. Morality is a human concept which applies only to social communities.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                          And my point is that a moral nature makes no sense for a being existing eternally alone doing nothing. That would explain the amoral nature of the universe itself. Morality is a human concept which applies only to social communities.
                          Jim, none of that would change or diminish His moral character. Never mind the fact that being omniscient He always knew how he would interact with sentient beings. For instance, He always knew He would forgive men under certain conditions even when there were no men around.
                          Last edited by seer; 09-17-2019, 10:50 AM.
                          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            Great video! I especially appreciate the exercise of establishing epistemological duties in reasoned discourse, and I find this one of the greatest weaknesses of carpe's epistemology. carpe seems to want to argue that there are ways one can progressively reason out of wrongly held views, but in order to do so he implicitly holds right reason as an objective standard to progress towards.
                            Great point. Cuneo argues for a normative web-like structure, that epistemic and moral claims are implicated in each other. If you accept the normative aspect of one, you have to accept it of the other. The fourth argument presented in the video, about moral progress and convergence, I think begs the question, because it assumes that there is such a thing as moral progress, but I think maybe it can be re-stated to where it doesn't beg the question.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                              To be clear, my view is that it would neither be subjective or objective (from God's point of view). If subjective, then God takes the horn of Euthyphro's dilemma that suggests that he wills the good. If objective, then God takes the horn of the Euthyrpho dilemma that suggests that the good is something that God recognizes beyond himself, and/or that he conforms himself to. I agree with Dr. Craig that God neither merely wills the good, nor that the good is something he recognizes outside of himself, but that by being the greatest conceivable being, a being of pure perfection, and creator of all that there ever was, is, and will be, is the good. His commands are based upon his very nature. From OUR perspective, then, the good is objective because God, by his very nature, is the basis of the "good."
                              Yes, I agree that this is how you can avoid the Euthyphro dilemma, but it would be "good" to clarify in what sense you mean the word "is." By this approach, wouldn't God also be the basis for everything, since God is the ground of Being itself?

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Well since I believe that God is also immutably rational, the very laws of logic are sourced in His being. You seem to be suggesting that there are logical or moral truths that are independent of God.
                                Yes. Conceptually distinct. I have trouble seeing how God could be the source of His own oneness or His own threeness or His own self-identity. But what I meant was that we humans don't need direct divine epistemic commandments to know how to think rationally.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                                8 responses
                                76 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                                9 responses
                                60 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post siam
                                by siam
                                 
                                Started by mattbballman31, 08-26-2020, 11:42 AM
                                23 responses
                                474 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 07-27-2018, 08:47 AM
                                2,045 responses
                                105,573 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X