Atheism And Moral Progress

[Anomaly]

Translation for Carpe: "The fact that no one can figure out what the heck I'm even talking about is evidence that my belief is true."

Actually there are a handful of others--none on this board obviously--who've taken the time to figure out what I'm saying without insisting on dumbing the ideas down. They are among the aforementioned 5% on theology boards willing to learn something new.

finis

[carpedm9587]

Actually there are a handful of others--none on this board obviously--who've taken the time to figure out what I'm saying without insisting on dumbing the ideas down. They are among the aforementioned 5% on theology boards willing to learn something new.

finis

[Tassman]

Actually there are a handful of others--none on this board obviously--who've taken the time to figure out what I'm saying without insisting on dumbing the ideas down. They are among the aforementioned 5% on theology boards willing to learn something new.

What you are saying is pretentious gobbledygook masquerading as profound thought beyond the reach of most. .

[seer]

If you don't want to be a teacher, no problem. Not everyone is cut out to be one. But I'm certainly not going to buy the "you don't want to learn" poop.

agreed...

[carpedm9587]

agreed...

Quick...lay down. You're ill!

[seer]

Quick...lay down. You're ill!

The thing is Anomaly's responses to Shuny on the soul and body thread have been very straight forward and understandable. And I'm not ill, just too many shots of single malt.

[carpedm9587]

The thing is Anomaly's responses to Shuny on the soul and body thread have been very straight forward and understandable. And I'm not ill, just too many shots of single malt.

Maybe this thread is an anomaly?


(I've always thought that particular emoji has a very wicked sense about it)

[Jim B.]

It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.

Can't there be a universal moral standard without God though?

[JonathanL]

Can't there be a universal moral standard without God though?

Universal would imply that the standard is authoritative, or binding, for everyone. Even without God one could argue that, for example, the laws of logic are universal in the sense that they hold universally, regardless of whether you believe in them or not, but in an atheistic world it makes no sense to claim that some "moral standard" floating around in the sea of Platonic ideas could ever be authoritative for anyone, much less everyone. On what kind of basis would such a claim even be made?

[Tassman]

Can't there be a universal moral standard without God though?

with a god, because there is no god that is acceptable universally.

[seer]

Can't there be a universal moral standard without God though?

What would that look like? Moral truths, as far as I know, only exist in minds. The mind of God could be the source of universal moral truths, since He is universal. I don't know what else could be.

[seer]

with a god, because there is no god that is acceptable universally.

Tass, it would not matter, the god of Islam certainly could be the source of universal moral truths even if I or you don't believe in Him. Same with the Christian God. Our personal acceptance or not tells us nothing.

[Jim B.]

with a god, because there is no god that is acceptable universally.

That makes no sense at all. If there were a universal moral standard without a God, it would be a universal moral standard even if it weren't universally recognized. Just as there can be truths about the physical world that people can be wrong about.

[Jim B.]

Universal would imply that the standard is authoritative, or binding, for everyone. Even without God one could argue that, for example, the laws of logic are universal in the sense that they hold universally, regardless of whether you believe in them or not, but in an atheistic world it makes no sense to claim that some "moral standard" floating around in the sea of Platonic ideas could ever be authoritative for anyone, much less everyone. On what kind of basis would such a claim even be made?

Morality is the idea that there are things that rational beings ought to do. Things that are implicit in the nature of the rational will. You don't need an authority figure to make something right or wrong, imo. It's inherent in the nature of the act itself. If it depends on an authority, what is the basis on which the authority sets his standard? Do we revert to Divine Command Theory? You might say God IS the standard, that His character is the standard, but the question remains: How does God add to the goodness of good acts? I don't claim to know the answer. It's something i've wrestled with for a while.

[seer]

Morality is the idea that there are things that rational beings ought to do. Things that are implicit in the nature of the rational will. You don't need an authority figure to make something right or wrong, imo. It's inherent in the nature of the act itself. .

Ought to do according to what or whom? How is this implicit or inherent? What does that even mean?