Atheism And Moral Progress

[shunyadragon]

An interesting video series that addresses the subject of this thread is "Sex, Death and the Meaning of Life." I view on a paid cite and cannot advertise it here, but it is worth the watch.

[carpedm9587]

Including moral values, presumably. Therefore they may be both objective and subjective.

Let's see what Matt has to say about your argument.

[JimL]

If morals come from their god, and they are not subjective, then their god is apparently a non free willed entity.

[seer]

If morals come from their god, and they are not subjective, then their god is apparently a non free willed entity.

I would agree Jim, God can not change His moral character, it is immutable, but that does not mean that He isn't free in other areas. Like whether to create or not, what to create or not, etc....

[JimL]

I would agree Jim, God can not change His moral character, it is immutable, but that does not mean that He isn't free in other areas. Like whether to create or not, what to create or not, etc....

One either has free will or he doesn't, seer. You my friend are just making stuff up to fit your agenda. Besides, if one isn't able to choose then "character" doesn't really apply to them, they have no choice!

[Tassman]

I would agree Jim, God can not change His moral character, it is immutable, but that does not mean that He isn't free in other areas. Like whether to create or not, what to create or not, etc....

If God "cannot change his own moral character" then he is determined by his own immutability and therefore has no more free-will than the rest of us.

[carpedm9587]

If God "cannot change his own moral character" then he is determined by his own immutability and therefore has no more free-will than the rest of us.

The entire language "cannot change his own moral character" turns morality into an attribute of a person like skin color or gender. Moral character is a function of the mind. The language itself doesn't make any sense.

[seer]

The entire language "cannot change his own moral character" turns morality into an attribute of a person like skin color or gender. Moral character is a function of the mind. The language itself doesn't make any sense.

Oh Stop, of course it does. To say that God can not lie certainly makes sense.

[seer]

One either has free will or he doesn't, seer. You my friend are just making stuff up to fit your agenda. Besides, if one isn't able to choose then "character" doesn't really apply to them, they have no choice!

No Jim, it is not illogical to say that a being could be free in one area and not in another. And we are not making stuff up, it is what we glean from Scripture. Whether you buy it or not it immaterial.

[carpedm9587]

Oh Stop, of course it does. To say that God can not lie certainly makes sense.

This is a variant of the free will discussion, Seer. If you are not free to choose both moral and immoral actions, then you cannot be said to be "moral." From the perspective of morality - you are a robot unable to choose other than "the good."

A being who always tells the truth because they are incapable of lying is not acting morally - they are acting under compulsion.

[seer]

This is a variant of the free will discussion, Seer. If you are not free to choose both moral and immoral actions, then you cannot be said to be "moral." From the perspective of morality - you are a robot unable to choose other than "the good."

Yes, I agree God's immutable character makes it impossible for Him to do evil. Yet he can freely choose in non-moral areas.

A being who always tells the truth because they are incapable of lying is not acting morally - they are acting under compulsion.

No, he is acting according to his nature. He is His nature. There is no external compulsion. But to say, as you did, that it doesn't make sense, does not fly. There is nothing illogical about the concept.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, I agree God's immutable character makes it impossible for Him to do evil. Yet he can freely choose in non-moral areas.

Then he cannot properly be called a moral agent.

No, he is acting according to his nature. He is His nature. There is no external compulsion. But to say, as you did, that it doesn't make sense, does not fly. There is nothing illogical about the concept.

It doesn't make sense to attribute "moral goodness" to god when god is morally compelled. That is what makes no sense. You cannot be a moral agent if you cannot choose. Morally, you are simply a robot.

[seer]

Then he cannot properly be called a moral agent.

Like I said in the past, if God acts morally (does moral things) then by definition He is a moral being. There is nothing in the definition that requires freedom of the will, that is something you have added: A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+agent

It doesn't make sense to attribute "moral goodness" to god when god is morally compelled. That is what makes no sense. You cannot be a moral agent if you cannot choose. Morally, you are simply a robot.

Well since He is the source of goodness, and since He acts in moral ways, and since freewill is not required for the definition of moral agency, I have no problem calling him a moral agent.

[carpedm9587]

Like I said in the past, if God acts morally (does moral things) then by definition He is a moral being.

As I have said several times, Seer - god cannot be a "moral being" if he is constrained to always act in a particular way (i.e., not lie). A moral agent requires freedom of will. According to your description, god's will (with respect to morality) is constrained.

There is nothing in the definition that requires freedom of the will, that is something you have added: A moral agent is "a being who is capable of acting with reference to right and wrong." https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Moral+agent

Read that definition carefully, Seer - because your god (as you have described him) is "a being capable or acting with reference to right." There is no reference to wrong - leaving out half the equation.

Well since He is the source of goodness, and since He acts in moral ways, and since freewill is not required for the definition of moral agency, I have no problem calling him a moral agent.

As you wish, Seer. But then the entire argument about god and the existence of evil kind of falls apart. That argument usually takes the form, "god has to permit evil to exist because if he forced all humans to only choose good, they would cease to be true moral agents and would be merely moral robots." Here, you seem to be reversing that argument.

[seer]

As I have said several times, Seer - god cannot be a "moral being" if he is constrained to always act in a particular way (i.e., not lie). A moral agent requires freedom of will. According to your description, god's will (with respect to morality) is constrained.

Read that definition carefully, Seer - because your god (as you have described him) is "a being capable or acting with reference to right." There is no reference to wrong - leaving out half the equation.

Again Carp, having a reference to right or wrong has nothing to with ability (to do or not do). God knows what both good and evil are. Again the definition has nothing to do with the freedom of the will or lack thereof.

As you wish, Seer. But then the entire argument about god and the existence of evil kind of falls apart. That argument usually takes the form, "god has to permit evil to exist because if he forced all humans to only choose good, they would cease to be true moral agents and would be merely moral robots." Here, you seem to be reversing that argument.

Yes God created creatures with a degree of moral freedom, since God wanted men to freely love and obey Him. I don't see the problem.