Calling out Suzianne -- Moral Freedom

In another thead, Thread 161552, you claimed many times that God is not capable of sin and is essentially righteous. I took you to mean that it is not possible for God to do anything morally wrong; that there are no possible worlds wherein God does something morally wrong.

However, when coupled with your views on free will, this all becomes puzzling. When we combine your conception of freedom and the above considerations, it should follow that, on your view, God does not have moral freedom; God is basically a moral robot. Yet, on the other hand, you maintain that moral freedom in humans is a critical good. For instance, appeal to human moral freedom is a critical, explicit component of your attempts at theodicy and is also, on your view, a necessary component for God's creative purposes for us. But this seems a problematic combination of commitments. Here is a paper that gives some background on why this is potentially problematic:

http://spot.colorado.edu/~morristo/whats-so-good-about-moral-freedom.pdf

Specifically, one of the puzzling aspects, at least on first inspection, is that you are committed to the stance that moral freedom is a critical good; on the other hand, your supposed perfectly righteous moral exemplar does not exemplify this supposed good in any meaningful form. You'll perhaps rebut, maintaining that, well, God does not want us to be robots; we have to be morally free in order to meaningfully accept or reject His offer of love toward us. But, this type of response only seems to make the problem more acute. You're claiming that moral freedom is necessary for us to be loving creatures; and yet, God is supposedly the very embodiment of things like love and yet, on your view, He is a moral robot. You cannot have it both ways: either moral freedom is necessary for things like love; or not; but it cannot be both.

So, from what I can tell, your view is incoherent in this respect. Could you please clarify this?

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thead, Thread 161552, you claimed many times that God is not capable of sin and is essentially righteous. I took you to mean that it is not possible for God to do anything morally wrong; that there are no possible worlds wherein God does something morally wrong.

However, when coupled with your views on free will, this all beco ...[text shortened]... , from what I can tell, your view is incoherent in this respect. Could you please clarify this?

I predict a response that leads directly to the Euthyphro dilemma.

Well there ya go Suzzainne. Your religious beliefs are silly and invalid.

That's why you should seriously consider a religion based upon crystals, for scientists hypothesize that they had a great deal to do with the formation of life. In fact,I know a lady who placed a diamond in her jewelry box, and when she opened it there were two little eyes staring back at her. She killed it before having time to examine exactly what it was........

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thead, Thread 161552, you claimed many times that God is not capable of sin and is essentially righteous. I took you to mean that it is not possible for God to do anything morally wrong; that there are no possible worlds wherein God does something morally wrong.

However, when coupled with your views on free will, this all beco ...[text shortened]... , from what I can tell, your view is incoherent in this respect. Could you please clarify this?

My view is incoherent to you merely because I believe in the God of the Bible, and you do not believe in any god. And yet, you feel you can 'take me to school' on topics regarding God. That makes your view incoherent to me.

God is not man; man is not God. They cannot be compared, cannot be held to the same standards. Let me type this slowly so you can understand it. You fail to grasp this concept because you do not believe in God, God is nonsensical to you no matter from which viewpoint you look at Him.

And no, I do not have the view that God is a moral robot. We cannot have any further meaningful conversation (in fact I doubt if we can even now, merely because you refuse to see things unimpeded by the handicap of your disbelief; faith is a mandatory component of the clearest lens in this case) if you continue to misrepresent "my view".

Originally posted by whodey
Well there ya go Suzzainne. Your religious beliefs are silly and invalid.

That's why you should seriously consider a religion based upon crystals, for scientists hypothesize that they had a great deal to do with the formation of life. In fact,I know a lady who placed a diamond in her jewelry box, and when she opened it there were two little eyes staring back at her. She killed it before having time to examine exactly what it was........

You may be trying to be facetious, but chances are you'd say the same thing to me regarding my political beliefs (and be deadly serious).

Originally posted by bbarr
I predict a response that leads directly to the Euthyphro dilemma.

Not today, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by Suzianne
My view is incoherent to you merely because I believe in the God of the Bible, and you do not believe in any god. And yet, you feel you can 'take me to school' on topics regarding God. That makes your view incoherent to me.

God is not man; man is not God. They cannot be compared, cannot be held to the same standards. Let me type this slowly so ...[text shortened]... andatory component of the clearest lens in this case) if you continue to misrepresent "my view".

No, your view is not incoherent to me because you believe in God and I don't. Your suggesting otherwise makes about as much sense as a box of frogs. Your view is incoherent to me because it seems to me to entail contradictions. I'm supposing, provisionally, that these concerns of mine are superficial and resolvable under further elucidation and clarification of your view by you. Unfortunately, you have provided no substantive clarification yet. I'm asking you for the clarification that could clear up what you claim to be my misunderstanding of your position, so feel free to actually provide some.

So you claim that your position does not imply that God is a moral robot. But how exactly have I misrepresented your position on this? So God is morally free on your view? In virtue of what? By the way, pursuant to this point, I would like to remind you of one more thing that you have consistently argued on these boards: that knowledge precludes freedom. For example, here is a direct quote from Thread 161443:

"I've said this for years, it is what makes Free Will possible. Free Will enables one to make a choice before "knowing" you are right. I've said free will cannot exist after knowledge." --Suzianne

Now, are you not committed to the idea that God is more or less maximally knowledgeable when it comes to virtually all matters, including moral matters? Well, if knowledge precludes freedom; and if God is maximally knowledgeable when it comes to moral matters; then what is the logical conclusion regarding whether or not God is free with respect to moral matters? So, yet again, it seems that on your view God is a moral robot. Please feel free to provide some actual clarification of my misunderstanding here....

Originally posted by bbarr
I predict a response that leads directly to the Euthyphro dilemma.

Hi bbarr. Nice to see you around the forums again!

Originally posted by LemonJello
Hi bbarr. Nice to see you around the forums again!

Hey LJ! Thanks, and likewise.

Seems like there aren't a lot of theists around here anymore that engage substantively in philosophical debate. Too bad. I think these topics at the intersection of modal logic, morality and freedom are fascinating. I'm actually surprised that Suzianne et. al. aren't interested in wrestling with them.

Where's Lucifershammer when you need him, eh? We need some more Catholics around these parts.

Originally posted by bbarr
Where's Lucifershammer when you need him, eh? We need some more Catholics around these parts.[/b]

I think he got tired of banging his head into a wall trying to get his points across.

Originally posted by Suzianne

God is not man; man is not God. They cannot be compared, cannot be held to the same standards.

Why not? I have a bunch of virtue concepts like 'compassionate', 'honest', 'respectful', etc. I know what these concepts refer to and how to apply them to the motivations and actions of agents. If a man, moved by the suffering of another, acts to mitigate that suffering, the concept 'compassionate' seems to apply. If God, moved by our suffering, acts to mitigate it, the concept 'compassionate' seems to apply. What's the problem here?

Originally posted by bbarr
Hey LJ! Thanks, and likewise.

Seems like there aren't a lot of theists around here anymore that engage substantively in philosophical debate. Too bad. I think these topics at the intersection of modal logic, morality and freedom are fascinating. I'm actually surprised that Suzianne et. al. aren't interested in wrestling with them.

Where's Lucifershammer when you need him, eh? We need some more Catholics around these parts.

I know (and respect) the Catholic arguments pretty well thanks to my education, and my willingness to access newadvent.com and endure its tediousness on various subjects of interest.

The Dilemma is a logical next step but so is he cognitive dissonance argument Suz presents. It's just not as intellectually satisfying.

Whether GOd is free to do good or evel but always chooses good, or lways chooses good because of compulsion, or by his word or action defines the good (for Him or for us perhaps differently case by case) is a hair's breadth from the Dilemma, but the point I see is that "God only does good" is an irreducible, absolute truth to Suz, that needs no further elucidation, especially to a non-believer. Reminds me of CS Lewis' intro to "The Problem of Pan" -- you have to approach it with faith in hand.

Originally posted by Suzianne
We cannot have any further meaningful conversation (in fact I doubt if we can even now, merely because you refuse to see things unimpeded by the handicap of your disbelief; faith is a mandatory component of the clearest lens in this case) if you continue to misrepresent "my view".

So lets get this straight.
1. Anyone who doesn't have faith is unqualified to talk about faith.
2. Anyone who doesn't believe is incapable of understanding the logic in your beliefs.
3. You cannot coherently explain your beliefs to someone who doesn't share them.

Sorry, but I am not buying. I think you just don't want to deal with the problems in your beliefs.

Originally posted by LemonJello
In another thead, Thread 161552, you claimed many times that God is not capable of sin and is essentially righteous. I took you to mean that it is not possible for God to do anything morally wrong; that there are no possible worlds wherein God does something morally wrong.

However, when coupled with your views on free will, this all beco ...[text shortened]... , from what I can tell, your view is incoherent in this respect. Could you please clarify this?

Does Naturalism give you ground to assume moral freedom?

The questions you ask here, do they represent a search for moral truth? Or do they just evidence the fissing and bubbling of chemicals that are acting deteminantly, machine like ?

You question then out of no rational seeking for truth but rather only out of the fissing of chemical reactions determined by a cause and effect chain since the Big Bang.

Naturalist philosopher Derek Pereboom - "our best scientific theories indeed have the consequences that we are not morally responsible for our actions."

According to your Atheistic Naturalism mechanistic cause and effect explanations are always to be preferred above personal, goal-directed ones. We do not really make choices then. Our "choices" and "beliefs" are mechanistically determined.

Your own view robs you of personhood in favor of a mechanistic cause and effect machine fissing away in its chemical composition. Your Naturalism undermines moral responsibility. Despite feeling that you are free to be the source of right moral actions you are really "more like a machine than we ordinarily suppose."

According to Atheistic Naturalism there has to be some neurophysical account for why you are asking questions. There is no commonsense, goal-directed seeking of the soul and no intentional search for truth. There has to be just some physical explanation going on in the grey matter of your meat. Your questions then are no result of an intentional desire to search out truth about morality.

Your physical meat of the brain is simply reacting to certain initial conditions and natural laws that dictate how the brain will behave.

All your questions to Suzianne and thoughts on the subject are no credit to you as a rational seeking of moral truth. At best all we can assume from your atheist moral sense is that there must be "good" atoms and "evil" atoms somehow. And for some unknown and arbitrary reason the further chemical fissing of "hope" in us is that "good" atoms will do most of the activity in our bodies.

Originally posted by sonship
According to your Atheistic Naturalism mechanistic cause and effect explanations are always to be preferred above personal, goal-directed ones. We do not really make choices then. Our "choices" and "beliefs" are mechanistically determined.

You clearly don't understand very much about how atheists think. But unlike Suzy, I don't think that you are incapable of understanding without becoming an atheist. In fact I would be happy to point out some of your obvious errors if you start a thread on the topic. Do you have any input to the topic of this thread, or did the OP irk you so much that you just had to go off on a tangent rant?