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

  • #16
    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    I agree with most of this but the crunch for the likes of seer is that "objective morality" must be eternally objective and unchanging (which to him means God-based). His problem is that he can never say what it is...other than a few vague references to the morality as contained in the New Testament or the Golden Rule.
    That is wrong Tass and you know it, I have given you, more that once, a long and defined list of universal 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


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      God's law is not arbitrary, since it is grounded in His immutable moral character and on His omniscience.
      But presumably you think his decrees are based on the situation humanity happens to be in at a given time.

      e.g. Moses ask for laws for the people, and God gives him a set of laws appropriate for that people. So a Moral Person of that time would have being obediently reading/learning those law codes and following those rules.

      Then, later, with Jesus, we see a rejection/"fulfillment" of the ritual/sacrificial laws given to Moses. God gives a different set of rules to the people. The Moral Person of that time is then no longer reading/learning/following those Mosaic law codes, but is now following a set of New Testament behaviors that are God-mandated.

      In light of that, I have to wonder how you could define "moral progress". If we compare a group of Israelites attempting to follow the Law as they understood it and being reasonably successful at doing so, to a group of Christians attempting to follow the NT teachings as they understood them and being reasonably successful at doing so, is there any "moral progress" there? Or is "moral progress" just a thing for a specific individual as they become better at following God's will as they understand it? Or is it when they are better at understanding God's will? Has a Seventh Day Adventist made moral progress over a Roman Catholic simply by virtue of being the one and not the other?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Really Star, how do objective or universal morals exist in your atheist world? What does that even mean?
        Given how many times I have explained it to you in the past, I think you're just incapable of learning.

        But I totally reject your definition of the word "objective" and think you're just completely wrong about what that word means. You use it totally wrong and have completely made up your own fantasy meaning. I suggest you entirely avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" ever again and instead explain yourself more clearly using other words and phrases.

        Your signature makes me laugh at you btw.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          But presumably you think his decrees are based on the situation humanity happens to be in at a given time.

          e.g. Moses ask for laws for the people, and God gives him a set of laws appropriate for that people. So a Moral Person of that time would have being obediently reading/learning those law codes and following those rules.

          Then, later, with Jesus, we see a rejection/"fulfillment" of the ritual/sacrificial laws given to Moses. God gives a different set of rules to the people. The Moral Person of that time is then no longer reading/learning/following those Mosaic law codes, but is now following a set of New Testament behaviors that are God-mandated.

          In light of that, I have to wonder how you could define "moral progress". If we compare a group of Israelites attempting to follow the Law as they understood it and being reasonably successful at doing so, to a group of Christians attempting to follow the NT teachings as they understood them and being reasonably successful at doing so, is there any "moral progress" there? Or is "moral progress" just a thing for a specific individual as they become better at following God's will as they understand it? Or is it when they are better at understanding God's will? Has a Seventh Day Adventist made moral progress over a Roman Catholic simply by virtue of being the one and not the other?
          So what is your point? Of course the Christian would say that following the moral principles in the New Testament is moral progress, and even if the Christian is not under the Mosaic civil code you also know that there are moral principles that transcend both Testaments. And this would apply to the individual, of course as more individuals follow these principles the more the larger culture or church body will be influenced.
          Last edited by seer; 07-28-2018, 10:09 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


          • #20
            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
            Given how many times I have explained it to you in the past, I think you're just incapable of learning.

            But I totally reject your definition of the word "objective" and think you're just completely wrong about what that word means. You use it totally wrong and have completely made up your own fantasy meaning. I suggest you entirely avoid using the terms "objective" and "subjective" ever again and instead explain yourself more clearly using other words and phrases.

            Your signature makes me laugh at you btw.
            Objective means that which exists independently of the viewer (God's law exists independently of humankind, the viewer) . If you don't like that use universal. And no Star you have not explained this in the past. So I will give you another chance, name one universal moral truth and why it is universal.
            Last edited by seer; 07-28-2018, 10:11 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


            • #21
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              So what is your point? Of course the Christian would say that following the moral principles in the New Testament is moral progress, and even if the Christian is not under the Mosaic civil code you also know that there are moral principles that transcend both Testaments. And this would apply to the individual, of course as more individuals follow these principles the more the larger culture or church body will be influenced.
              If the the rules of behavior change you call it the civil code of conduct rather than the moral code of conduct. Can you explain?

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by JimL View Post
                If the the rules of behavior change you call it the civil code of conduct rather than the moral code of conduct. Can you explain?
                Most of what was sin (or immoral) in the Old Testament is the same in the New Testament. The civil code largely was about how to punish these wrongs under the Theocratic government of Israel.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  Objective means that which exists independently of the viewer (God's law exists independently of humankind, the viewer)
                  The word "objective" in standard usage doesn't mean independent of a viewer, it means independent of all viewers, including God. The moral views you outline are "subjective" according to normal definitions because they depend on God.

                  If you don't like that use universal.
                  Universal in what sense? Let's take the Golden Rule which has reoccurred throughout human history and in many different cultures and religions:"do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Is that "universal"?

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    That is wrong Tass and you know it, I have given you, more that once, a long and defined list of universal moral truths.
                    No you have not. The best you have provided are vague references to the Golden Rule and the morality contained in the New Testament...whatever that means. Re the latter the huge number of Christian sects, all based upon differing scriptural interpretations, is indicative of the lack of clarity re the morality contained in the New Testament.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      Now you know that is a lie Star, God's law is not arbitrary, since it is grounded in His immutable moral character and on His omniscience. Human law on the other hand is fickle, and based in ignorance of future consequences.
                      Well we've all seen how religion-based societies go compared to the more secular-based ones. The former tend to be more brutal and inequitable whereas the latter tend to be more equitable and happy. As Dr. Phil Zuckerman, professor of secular studies at Pitzer College opines: "Those societies today that are the most religious — where faith in God is strong and religious participation is high — tend to have the highest violent crime rates, while those societies in which faith and church attendance are the weakest — the most secular societies — tend to have the lowest.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        BTW on my to-read list is Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (That link takes you to a full PDF version of the book, for anyone interested in reading it online or on their ebook reader). Obviously seer, that's an example of a leading modern atheist moral philosopher talking about "moral progress", so you could learn from him how atheists think about moral progress. I believe the thesis of the book is that over history the people we have cared about being moral toward have expanded from "us and our immediate family" out to "our tribe" out to "our country" out to "our race" out to "the entire world".

                        In social-science the idea of a group we feel loyalty to / moral duty toward is the idea of an "ingroup-outgroup". And it can be quite enlightening in any situation to look at who a person perceives as the 'ingroup' and who they perceive as their 'outgroup'. One of the big findings of the research of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt is that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals in the US is that liberals perceive the entire world to be their ingroup and have no outgroup while conservatives have ingroup-outgroup loyalty and this comes across as animosity toward their outgroups (Muslims, non-Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, etc).

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Most of what was sin (or immoral) in the Old Testament is the same in the New Testament. The civil code largely was about how to punish these wrongs under the Theocratic government of Israel.
                          Most, or all?

                          And if the punishment is immoral now, then it must have been immoral then as well, no? Like "the punishment" of stoning gay people to death, I think we can agree, even as a punishment, would be immoral behavior in itself today, so it must have been immoral then as well, no?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by seer View Post
                            Most of what was sin (or immoral) in the Old Testament is the same in the New Testament. The civil code largely was about how to punish these wrongs under the Theocratic government of Israel.
                            MOST!!! Who decides that "what was "immoral" in the Old Testament is no longer immoral in the New? You're supposedly proclaiming the existence of universal, immutable, objective moral laws. So how can you pick and choose?

                            And, what's this division into an absolute moral law including a death penalty, e.g. adultery, into Civil Code vis-a-vis God's Law? This is merely an interpretation of the Law according to modern values, not unquestioning obedience to it.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              Universal in what sense? Let's take the Golden Rule which has reoccurred throughout human history and in many different cultures and religions:"do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Is that "universal"?
                              Again, moral progress is that which more and more conforms to New Testament moral principles.

                              The word "objective" in standard usage doesn't mean independent of a viewer, it means independent of all viewers, including God. The moral views you outline are "subjective" according to normal definitions because they depend on God.
                              God's nature, including His moral nature, would be the most objective thing possible. But the point is His moral law exists independently of humankind, even if it is subjective to Him. It would have absolute authority over all mankind, and means that it is not dependent on the subjective whims of men. And universal in the sense that God is universal, His laws holds in every corner of the universe.
                              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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                BTW on my to-read list is Peter Singer's The Expanding Circle: Ethics, Evolution, and Moral Progress (That link takes you to a full PDF version of the book, for anyone interested in reading it online or on their ebook reader). Obviously seer, that's an example of a leading modern atheist moral philosopher talking about "moral progress", so you could learn from him how atheists think about moral progress. I believe the thesis of the book is that over history the people we have cared about being moral toward have expanded from "us and our immediate family" out to "our tribe" out to "our country" out to "our race" out to "the entire world".

                                In social-science the idea of a group we feel loyalty to / moral duty toward is the idea of an "ingroup-outgroup". And it can be quite enlightening in any situation to look at who a person perceives as the 'ingroup' and who they perceive as their 'outgroup'. One of the big findings of the research of moral psychologist Jonathan Haidt is that one of the main differences between conservatives and liberals in the US is that liberals perceive the entire world to be their ingroup and have no outgroup while conservatives have ingroup-outgroup loyalty and this comes across as animosity toward their outgroups (Muslims, non-Americans, Mexicans, Blacks, etc).
                                How does show moral progress, what is moral progress to the atheist?
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Diogenes, 10-10-2020, 08:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                86 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Andius, 10-07-2020, 07:38 PM
                                10 responses
                                66 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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
                                105,581 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post thormas
                                by thormas
                                 
                                Working...
                                X