Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

There is nothing unreasonable about Seer's position, you're either strawmanning his position, or projecting a view that you've heard other people espouse on to him without warrant.

After I posted, I realized that Seer's post was not "inconsistent." It just had nothing to do with the inconsistency I had pointed out.

Then he's being perfectly reasonable. Moral free will must exist for moral culpability to exist. It does not need to exist for morality itself to exist in a Christian worldview where what is good and evil is determined by God's nature, wholly apart from any considerations of whether or not our wills are free or not.

If you murder someone and had the ability to refrain from the act, you're morally culpable. If you were completely unable to stop yourself you were not morally culpable. But in both cases what you did was an act that had moral aspects. In both cases a morally evil event took place.

Again, being a moral being does not require free will. Being able to freely choose is required for moral culpability.

I think you're splitting hairs, Chrawnus. Morality is all about sorting out morally good from morally bad actions. It is all about culpability. If it were not, morality has no purpose whatsoever. A being that is always forced (by whatever agency) to act in a particular way, or forced (by whatever agency) to refrain from a particular class of action (i.e., evil/immoral ones) cannot validly be called a moral agent or a moral being. Their choices are necessarily constrained to one side of the equation, eliminating any meaning to the concept of "moral agency."

It is true for humans. It is true for gods. It is true for any sentient being capable of moralizing.

[seer]

I think you're splitting hairs, Chrawnus. Morality is all about sorting out morally good from morally bad actions.

And God does this.

It is all about culpability. If it were not, morality has no purpose whatsoever.

Now you add culpability to be key for moral agency. And of course God's moral law has a real purpose, probably the most important purpose one can experience (one way other the other).

[carpedm9587]

And God does this.

But, according to you, god is not free to ACT on those choices. Morality is not just about sorting - it's about choice of action.

Now you add culpability to be key for moral agency. And of course God's moral law has a real purpose, probably the most important purpose one can experience (one way other the other).

Seer - I think you and Chrawnus are working very hard to ignore the conflict, and cling to an inconsistent position. As I noted earlier, an irrational position cannot be discussed rationally. So long as someone is telling me "black is white," and refuses to see the problem - there really isn't much else to say. You are welcome to your beliefs, my friend, but they are pretty inconsistent.

[JonathanL]

But, according to you, god is not free to ACT on those choices. Morality is not just about sorting - it's about choice of action.



Seer - I think you and Chrawnus are working very hard to ignore the conflict, and cling to an inconsistent position. As I noted earlier, an irrational position cannot be discussed rationally. So long as someone is telling me "black is white," and refuses to see the problem - there really isn't much else to say. You are welcome to your beliefs, my friend, but they are pretty inconsistent.

So we hold to an inconsistent position because we believe something that conflicts with your view of morality, regardless of whether or not our own positions differ from that view?

[JonathanL]

I think you're splitting hairs, Chrawnus. Morality is all about sorting out morally good from morally bad actions. It is all about culpability. If it were not, morality has no purpose whatsoever. A being that is always forced (by whatever agency) to act in a particular way, or forced (by whatever agency) to refrain from a particular class of action (i.e., evil/immoral ones) cannot validly be called a moral agent or a moral being. Their choices are necessarily constrained to one side of the equation, eliminating any meaning to the concept of "moral agency."

It is true for humans. It is true for gods. It is true for any sentient being capable of moralizing.

This is your view of what morality is. It does not square up with my view, and apparently it does not square up with Seer's either, so there's no inconsistency between the two positions he holds.

[carpedm9587]

So we hold to an inconsistent position because we believe something that conflicts with your view of morality, regardless of whether or not our own positions differ from that view?

No - you hold an inconsistent worldview when you shift the definition/description of morality and what is required for moral agency to sit the current situation. You cannot have one definition for sentient humans and another for sentient gods, simply because you run into a contradiction.

[carpedm9587]

This is your view of what morality is. It does not square up with my view, and apparently it does not square up with Seer's either, so there's no inconsistency between the two positions he holds.

Interesting. So what is "morality" to you and Seer?

[JonathanL]

Interesting. So what is "morality" to you and Seer?

I personally hold that a morally good action is an action, that in the context in which it is performed (I.e, the same action could be good in one context, and bad in another), is in agreement with God's perspective of what is proper. And God's perspective of what is proper depends on His unchangeable nature.

A morally bad action is the opposite, namely an action which in the context in which it is performed, is not in agreement with God's perspective.

[JonathanL]

You cannot have one definition for sentient humans and another for sentient gods, simply because you run into a contradiction.

One could have one definition for humans and another for God for completely different reasons than trying to avoid a contradiction.

[seer]

But, according to you, god is not free to ACT on those choices. Morality is not just about sorting - it's about choice of action.

So what? Carp, if God judges you is that not a moral act? If He forgives you, is that not a moral act? You being on the receiving end makes them moral acts.

Seer - I think you and Chrawnus are working very hard to ignore the conflict, and cling to an inconsistent position. As I noted earlier, an irrational position cannot be discussed rationally. So long as someone is telling me "black is white," and refuses to see the problem - there really isn't much else to say. You are welcome to your beliefs, my friend, but they are pretty inconsistent.

You have to give up that binary thinking Carp. That moral agency MUST include accountability, that is not the case, that was not even included in the accepted definition I linked. Accountability was not even mentioned, though it certainly could be a part of moral agency.

[seer]

Interesting. So what is "morality" to you and Seer?

.

[carpedm9587]

So what? Carp, if God judges you is that not a moral act? If He forgives you, is that not a moral act? You being on the receiving end makes them moral acts.

This is a tangent to the point being made. The point is that god cannot be said to be morally good if god is constrained in his moral choices. If you want to see why this is so - start here:

Claim: god cannot be said to be "all good" because

P1: god creates all things that exist
P2: moral evil exists
C: therefore god creates moral evil

A being that creates moral evil cannot be said to be all-good without contradiction.

You have to give up that binary thinking Carp. That moral agency MUST include accountability, that is not the case, that was not even included in the accepted definition I linked. Accountability was not even mentioned, though it certainly could be a part of moral agency.

I'll let you respond to the above.

[seer]

This is a tangent to the point being made. The point is that god cannot be said to be morally good if god is constrained in his moral choices. If you want to see why this is so - start here:

Claim: god cannot be said to be "all good" because

P1: god creates all things that exist
P2: moral evil exists
C: therefore god creates moral evil

A being that creates moral evil cannot be said to be all-good without contradiction.

You know what our answer is Carp:

P1: God creates all things that exist
P2: God is perfectly good
P3: God created men and angels with moral freedom
P4: Men and angels abused this freedom and did evil
C: Therefor men and angels are the source of moral evil

[carpedm9587]

You know what our answer is Carp:

P1: God creates all things that exist
P2: God is perfectly good
P3: God created men and angels with moral freedom
P4: Men and angels abused this freedom and did evil
C: Therefor men and angels are the source of moral evil

Sorry, Seer - but that response does not work. God COULD have created men (we'll set the angels aside) to be constrained to only do good. There was nothing necessary about them being created to have moral freedom. And given that god knows what will happen, god would have known, even before the creative act, that evil would be the result. Ergo, god knowingly introduced evil into the world. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is something in this world that god did NOT create - which is not consistent with Christian theology.

[seer]

Sorry, Seer - but that response does not work. God COULD have created men (we'll set the angels aside) to be constrained to only do good. There was nothing necessary about them being created to have moral freedom. And given that god knows what will happen, god would have known, even before the creative act, that evil would be the result. Ergo, god knowingly introduced evil into the world. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that there is something in this world that god did NOT create - which is not consistent with Christian theology.

Yes Carp, God knowingly created men free, and knew they would misuse that freedom. Remember, what the greatest command is? To love God. Perhaps God values a love that is freely given over the determined love of automatons? And that is consistent with Christian theology.