Moral responsibility. (page 16)

Drearyweather

DW: Millions of babies every year are killed before they are born. Is God responsible for that too?
Cofty: No ... and?Is your defence of god something like, 'humans do bad stuff too'

Sorry Cofty, maybe I didn't phrase the question right.

Shouldn't God be responsible for abortions too? Doesn't the idea of God allowing bad things to happen by other humans make him responsible for them, going by the concept of willful inaction?

Sorry if I am not able to express my view clearly. These are my questions (with an assumption that a xian God does exist):

At what point does God stop being responsible for evil?

Even if he is not responsible for some evils solely attributable to humans, wouldn't people hold him ultimately responsible for all evil?

What kind of an ideal world should exist to make the idea of a Christian God believable? As an analogy, we have a world where everyone is hard-wired only to make good choices, i.e. no free will. Or we have a world where free will exists, but God interferes whenever someone makes a bad choice.

TonusOH

Sea Breeze: If, out of our own free-will we ask God to give us the new nature he promises, one that cannot sin

It doesn't matter if we want it or not, either way we are not the same person afterwards. You yourself describe this as our nature. If we change that, we change an integral part of ourselves, don't we?

Sea Breeze: The removal of the sin nature doesn't make sin impossible or render us incapable of independent thought or action.

But, you said above that the new nature is one that cannot sin. Indeed, this raises the question of how this sinful nature works: Did Adam and Eve have this nature? Did Satan? Did the angels who later joined him? If not having a sinful nature means we can still sin, what is the difference in having or not having it? If not, why would god burden humanity with it?

Sea Breeze: This is the primary purpose of man - to love God

A being of incomprehensible power creates a massive universe so that the can put humans on a vanishingly tiny speck, whose primary purpose is to love him. This does not personify love, it personifies narcissism. How can I have value in this context, where I am created primarily to provide something that god could do without? And where, no matter how much I love him, a misstep might lead to eternal suffering?

Sea Breeze: So, you think that the origin of morality is a convention?

I don't know what the origin of morality might have been. It's development has been a process, which continues now and will probably continue for a long time yet.

Sea Breeze: The problem is that the atheist cannot account for it with his stated worldview. It violates his own presuppositions of chaos, happenstance, copying mistakes and chemical accidents.

I did not become an atheist because I decided that there was an alternative. I was trying to prove god because I was sure he existed and I wanted a way to convince others. I realized I could not do so without presuppositions, which meant I didn't really know if he was real. My worldview changed relatively little after I realized I did not believe in god. Most of the refining was in understanding that being an atheist meant that I rejected those models or concepts of god that I could not make sense of.

The atheist worldview consists of one point: I am not convinced that your god exists. That's it. That's all. Some people will express more doubt, and at the other end are the diehards who insist that god isn't even possible. What they share is only that one point. Maybe there are some who have decided that it's all chance and chemical accidents. I don't know enough to say. You imply that the only alternative to god is an impossible scenario. Perhaps you are right. I know only that the god you describe is even less likely than chance and chemical accidents.

I didn't replace my resuppositions when I stopped believing in god. I dropped them. That means I have to admit that I don't have some of the answers, and I can't allow myself to cheat by making them up. But it also means I am not satisfied with accepting a starting point that I cannot determine is true.

LoveUniHateExams

What is the difference between subjective - objective and absolute morality? - great question.

As far as I can see there's no actual difference.

There's just 'morality'.

cofty

Dreary weather - I think it's a reasonable response for theists to object that god cannot be held responsible for the actions of humans when he has told us not to do those things.

But that doesn't begin to get him off the hook.

He specifically advocates for evil actions such as slavery, kidnap, rape and genocide. Jesus told his disciples to literally abandon their wives and children to follow him.

But more damningly is the evil that god does himself. He made a world that is perfectly designed to maximise suffering. No creature dies peacefully in its bed. All fall victim to disease, starvation, exposure or predation. That includes all of our human ancestors. The entire history of life on earth is one of carnage.

Then there are the natural disasters that are entirely of god's making. Tens of thousands of innocent children drowned in a tsunami that god could have prevented without any impact on free will.

The most popular response from theists is to assert that god can do anything that he wishes. I agree. But he can't behave like an evil monster AND be the god and father of 'gentle Jesus meek and mild' who keeps track of the number of hairs on our heads.

They say we just can't possibly understand god's ways. But that doesn't work. It negates the ministry of Jesus who came to reveal a god of love and show how that love is demonstrated in action, caring for the practical needs of others.

In years of discussing this topic I have yet to meet a theist who will face the challenge of theodicy with intellectual honesty. In this thread Sea Breeze has taken dishonesty to a whole new level. I have sent a PM to appeal for a more useful conversation. Time will tell.

Sea Breeze

Doesn't the idea of God allowing bad things to happen by other humans make him responsible for them, going by the concept of willful inaction?

@Drearyweather

If God did nothing forever, then yes by default that makes him an enabler of sin at minimum.

God can either make sin impossible, or he can judge sin. All God has to do is take away our freewill, make us robots and immediately sin would stop.

The only problem with that is that robots can't love you back, which is what God desires. So, he decided to judge sin so that the possibility of love for him could be preserved as well as justice.

Futhermore, he incarnated himself and took our death-penalty punishment for each of us. He offered himself as a scapegoat for anyone who wanted it.... thus preserving both the possibility of love for him and our choice in the matter.

nischansr

Moral responsibility post?

No moral responsibility! We are not every child's parents the parents are responsible for letting their child run loose without supervision!

nischansr

It is NOT true that God can do anything!

God can not lie, sin, do anything against his nature or anything that would make him less God i.e. create a rock so big that even he can not life it!

There are numerous times in scripture where God left humans to their own devices especially after he has already warned them of the consequences of their actions. See the blessings if you do and the curses if you do not do as he says in Deuteronomy.

cofty

nscansr - Of course the god of xtian theism can do anything that is LOGICALLY POSSIBLE. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

However your god specifically advocates for evil actions such as slavery, kidnap, rape and genocide. Jesus told his disciples to literally abandon their wives and children to follow him.

But more damningly is the evil that god does himself. He made a world that is perfectly designed to maximise suffering. No creature dies peacefully in its bed. All fall victim to disease, starvation, exposure or predation. That includes all of our human ancestors. The entire history of life on earth is one of carnage.

Then there are the natural disasters that are entirely of god's making. Tens of thousands of innocent children drowned in a tsunami that god could have prevented without any impact on free will.

How do you defend your god from the accusation that he is a moral monster?

Moral responsibility.

Share this