Atheism And Moral Progress

[Jim B.]

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.

It is not only about ought and ought not. Those can apply to prudential considerations, like "I ought not to take Main Street if I don't want to run into road construction and be late for work." There's more to it than that.

[Adrift]

The problem with all of this is that it treats "good" as if it were some intrinsic attribute that something can have. "Good" is an assessment. "Bad" is an assessment. They are value judgments. They don't exist independently - they exist in the mind of an assessor making an assessment. The statement "god is good" is meaningless without specifying "to whom" and "as measured by what?" "Good" is not a color - or weight - or any other objectively real attribute of a thing, and this definition jumps to that assumption.

The Neoplatonic and then later Christian idea of God as "the good" is based on Plato's metaphysical concept of Forms. If you're not familiar with Platonic Forms, that might be where the confusion originates. Also, many thinkers don't take "good" and "bad" as dual assessments. Rather, they see evil as the absence of good (I like Maimonides' take on this in Guide for the Perplexed).

[carpedm9587]

Ought and ought not would not apply to an eternal god existing alone. Ought and ought not do what to whom?

Your asking the wrong question. The "what" part is fine, because we will define which actions we "ought" and "ought not" do - that is the process we call "morality." But the "to whom" is off. Even interpersonal moral precepts don't always specify "to whom," and assume everyone. But some actions are not directed to another person. They can be directed to other life forms (e.g., is it moral or immoral to torture a frog?). Or it may relate to an action that solely affects the self (e.g., is it moral or immoral to terminate our own life?). An individual could even conclude that it is immoral to climb a tree or walk on a particular type of grass. What they consider moral or immoral depends entirely on what they value/cherish deeply - and we value/cherish things even when we are isolated.

Bottom line, we still sort actions into "ought" and "ought not," even in the absence of a society.

[carpedm9587]

But is not subjective to him, it is him. He is the good. You don't talk about any of God's other essential attributes as being subjective to him, do you? It seems to me that it's just unnecessary language that adds a layer of confusion when you talk about moral goodness being subjective to God even if you do so while maintaining that the goodness is grounded in his nature.

The problem with all of this is that it treats "good" as if it were some intrinsic attribute that something can have. "Good" is an assessment. "Bad" is an assessment. They are value judgments. They don't exist independently - they exist in the mind of an assessor making an assessment. The statement "god is good" is meaningless without specifying "to whom" and "as measured by what?" "Good" is not a color - or weight - or any other objectively real attribute of a thing, and this definition jumps to that assumption.

[carpedm9587]

I'm aware it's what you think - but it's simply not supported by the conventional definitions and usage of the terms. Nor is it supported by the obvious existence of moral principles that are not related to interactions.

"immoral" as such.

Same response.

On what basis do you conclude that are immoral in and of themselves if one is isolated and alone. It seems to me you are assuming without evidence that there exists an objective moral standard.

No. Nothing about what I said requires an objective moral framework. My observation is that individuals can and do derive moral principles that are NOT related to interactions with others. For all of the reasons I have previously cited, I believe they do so subjectively. I see no reason to postulate that they would cease to do so if they were entirely isolated and alone. I also see no basis for calling these "moral precepts" if formulated in the context of a society, and "NOT moral precepts" if formulated in isolation. If I have a moral precept against suicide, I can have that moral precept with or without a community. Moral precepts are about actions - not exclusively about inter-actions.

[Adrift]

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?

Unless I'm misunderstanding your question, I don't think so, not unless you're a pantheist or panentheist of some sort.

Dr. Craig explains what he means by God is the good in this way,

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/podc...rt-10#_ftnref2

[Jim B.]

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.

[Jim B.]

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?

[Jim B.]

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.

[seer]

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.

[JimL]

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.

[seer]

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.

[JimL]

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.

[Adrift]

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.

[JimL]

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?