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

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    Truths about the physical world can be tested and verified, whereas the notion of “a universal moral standard” can be no more than a philosophical argument, which cannot be verified.
    You missed the analogy. Even if the epistemology is different, I'm suggesting that there are objective moral truths out there just as there are objective physical truths, even though most people at most times are wrong about most of them.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      Well that is where we disagree, I do hold to DCT, lying is wrong because God decrees that it is, and God decrees it because He is by nature truthful. I don't see how lying would be objectively wrong in your theory, especially if lying benefited the liar.
      I'll have to look this up again, but I don't think you're a DC Theorist then. A DC Theorist thinks that God makes things right and wrong by His decrees. If His morality is inscribed into His nature, then He wouldn't be doing that.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        Moral intuition. the moral law is written on the heart. Nearly all people know, except for sociopaths, etc. Even people who do wrong know they're doing wrong when they do it.
        But intuition is not itself a bases for the morals that we may be intuitive of. An objective standard would still need and objective bases apart from our ability to intuit them.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          First, I do not believe 'most people' necessarily tell the truth. Personal views of 'truth' are too subjective. Second, the concept of 'moral truth' are an oxymoron.
          I think most people do tell the truth on a day-to-day pedestrian level. "Did you pick up the kids?" "What time is it?" "What's for dinner?" There has to be some extraordinary circumstance for even a white lie, even though people do tell white lies every day. I would say that truths outnumber them 30/1 at least.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            A Universal Moral Standard is another 'oxymoron' from the perspective of what is known of history of the nature of natural morality and ethics. Naturally morals and ethics are evolved systems of behavior centering around the survival of the human species. There are common foundations of the natural basis for 'morals and ethics' throughout the known history of humanity since the first human is known to be human and migrated out of Africa more than ~300,000 years ago.

            No known observed 'universal standard of morals' is known to exist. The natural universal basis of everything is ultimately the Laws of Nature.
            That's why it's called a "norm."

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
              I'll have to look this up again, but I don't think you're a DC Theorist then. A DC Theorist thinks that God makes things right and wrong by His decrees. If His morality is inscribed into His nature, then He wouldn't be doing that.
              There are different forms of DCT... God's commands need not be arbitrary, or based on a whim. There are voluntaristic views of DCT and non- voluntaristic views. I hold the latter, try this:https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...ma-once-again/
              Last edited by seer; 05-29-2019, 04:48 PM.
              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


              • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                That's why it's called a "norm."
                I do not believe that "norm" qualifies. Please explain.
                Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                go with the flow the river knows . . .

                Frank

                I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                  Love and justice are parts of God's nature because they are good. That makes more sense than that they are good because they are part of His nature. The fact that they are good seems logically, even if not temporally, prior. How does love's being part of God's nature bestow moral goodness upon love exactly? I know that the Bible says that "God is love," but surely this is meant as a metaphor, as the "is" of predication rather than the "is" of "identity. It seems to mean something more like "God is loving," or "God's nature is to love," etc. So God does not ontologically OWN love any more than He owns justice or fairness. He instantiates and embodies them, but He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into his nature.
                  Jim moral ideals do not have independent existence, they are the product of rational minds.
                  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


                  • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                    You missed the analogy. Even if the epistemology is different, I'm suggesting that there are objective moral truths out there just as there are objective physical truths, even though most people at most times are wrong about most of them.
                    No, I just disagree with your analogy. Objective physical truths can be empirically tested and verified, but there is no substantive evidence of moral truths existing outside of human minds.
                    “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


                    • Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      Love and justice are parts of God's nature because they are good. That makes more sense than that they are good because they are part of His nature. The fact that they are good seems logically, even if not temporally, prior. How does love's being part of God's nature bestow moral goodness upon love exactly?
                      There is no deeper explanation, as I've already said. The basic definition of good is simply "that which is in accordance with God's nature". Asking why exactly that is is akin to asking why water is defined as a chemical substance whose molecules are made up of 2 hydrogen atoms in a covalent bond with 1 oxygen atom.

                      I don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.


                      Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
                      I know that the Bible says that "God is love," but surely this is meant as a metaphor, as the "is" of predication rather than the "is" of "identity. It seems to mean something more like "God is loving," or "God's nature is to love," etc. So God does not ontologically OWN love any more than He owns justice or fairness. He instantiates and embodies them, but He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into his nature.
                      Well, no, He does not create their goodness by incorporating them into His nature. Rather, good is simply defined on the most basic level in the way I defined it above. Defining good without recourse to God can only lead to a definition that while it might possibly be objective in the sense that it doesn't depend on human opinion, has completely lost the most important part of the definition, namely that which explains why we would be obligated, or even want to live in accordance with such a definition of goodness.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I don't see how love and justice could even be logically prior. There is no way to logically argue for the objective goodness of love, justice or any other virtue that we hold as good, without the existence of God. Furthermore, God is the ultimate source of everything in existence, which would include concepts such as goodness.
                        Exactly, Jim needs to explain this.
                        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


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Exactly, Jim needs to explain this.
                          I believe God is the Creator and source of everything by natural methods, logical and arguments fail by 'Begging the Question, and there is no empirical evidence to support these claims. Already explained many many times adequately from the naturalist perspective. If what Chawnus claim is true it would be proof of the existence of God, and there is logical proof without assuming God exists in presupposition for the argument.
                          Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                          Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                          But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                          go with the flow the river knows . . .

                          Frank

                          I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            I believe God is the Creator and source of everything by natural methods, logical and arguments fail by 'Begging the Question, and there is no empirical evidence to support these claims. Already explained many many times adequately from the naturalist perspective. If what Chawnus claim is true it would be proof of the existence of God, and there is logical proof without assuming God exists in presupposition for the argument.
                            1. Empirical evidence is not the only way which we acquire new knowledge.

                            2. 'Begging the question' does not even factor in to the discussion since both I and Jim B. already believes God exists.

                            3. It is only "proof" of God if someone believes that moral virtues such as justice, fairness and goodness are objectively real.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by seer View Post
                              There are different forms of DCT... God's commands need not be arbitrary, or based on a whim. There are voluntaristic views of DCT and non- voluntaristic views. I hold the latter, try this:https://www.reasonablefaith.org/medi...ma-once-again/
                              Then why call it a Divine Command Theory at all? What role does the command play in the right-making or good-making features of an action? The true source of the good would be God's eternal nature. God's will and commands are just filling in the details of how His moral law will be applied.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                I do not believe that "norm" qualifies. Please explain.
                                You don't believe "norm" qualifies as what? We're talking about metaethics, so we're talking about what we believe people ought to do, hence normativity.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X