Atheism and morality

[Foxaèr]

It is morality itself that I am suggesting would require a god.

Morality does not require a god. Plain and simple. You have not even explained how morality would require a god, because as far as I can discern you are merely bombarding us with nonsensical word salad.

[Inigo]

Morality does not require a god. Plain and simple. You have not even explained how morality would require a god, because as far as I can discern you are merely bombarding us with nonsensical word salad.

You are clearly as charming as your photo. here's the argument, not that I think you are very interested in addressing it, preferring as you do to merely assert.


1.Morality instructs/favours/commands
2.Only an agent can instruct/favour/command
3.Morality is an agent

That’s the first step. Obviously this leaves open that morality might be us, our communities, or whatever.

Next step.
1.Morality’s instructions confer reasons to comply whatever of the interests of those to whom they apply. (So, if morality truly does instruct you not to kill you thereby have reason not to kill even if you really, really want to.)
2.Only the commands/instructions/favourings of a supernatural agent who controls our fate in an afterlife would confer reasons to all to whom they are applied.
3.Therefore morality’s instructions are the commands/instructions/favourings of a supernatural agent of the kind described in 2.

[DeistPaladin]

You are clearly as charming as your photo. here's the argument, not that I think you are very interested in addressing it, preferring as you do to merely assert.


1.Morality instructs/favours/commands
2.Only an agent can instruct/favour/command
3.Morality is an agent

That’s the first step. Obviously this leaves open that morality might be us, our communities, or whatever.

Next step.
1.Morality’s instructions confer reasons to comply whatever of the interests of those to whom they apply. (So, if morality truly does instruct you not to kill you thereby have reason not to kill even if you really, really want to.)
2.Only the commands/instructions/favourings of a supernatural agent who controls our fate in an afterlife would confer reasons to all to whom they are applied.
3.Therefore morality’s instructions are the commands/instructions/favourings of a supernatural agent of the kind described in 2.

I'm almost getting vertigo how you are all over the field here, making sweeping assumptions and attaching them to non-sequitur conclusions. It's hard for me to even figure out where to begin.

Hunger is also a drive that favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of hunger also?

The drive to breathe favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of breathing?

On and on we could go. A sex god? A love god? We could "prove" the existence of an entire pantheon here at the rate we're going.

Or perhaps we could just conclude that these are drives that have suited our survival and prosperity as a species. Evolution doesn't just favor the killing machines, you know. This is why humans and not lions are the dominant species of this planet. Pit an unarmed human against a lion and we can guess the outcome. However, we are community beings that depend on one another for survival. Morality is a strength. A sense of fairness in dealing with others is a strength. The ability to work with others and form laws is a strength. The ability to peacefully resolve differences is a strength. The ability for a species to act for the good of the whole is strength.

You are, of course, free to believe a god imprinted this drive in us just as a divine agent may have influenced our evolution to form these superior brains (and opposable thumbs). However, why can we not then jettison religion? If an atheist follows his conscience and this conscience is a directive from God, is this atheist not doing God's work? Even accepting your assumption, you've provided no compelling reason the atheist must believe in a god, much less offered any indication as to which religion is correct, if any.

And where do you get the afterlife part? Perhaps this deity has a scheme of reincarnation in mind? Or perhaps this deity offers us only one shot at the brass ring and our continued existence after death isn't important to him/her/it? Maybe this deity just wants us to work together productively and peacefully so as to build a better civilization but we, individually are not important enough to preserve in the hereafter?

It might be that there is no god but still an afterlife, if there is some natural explanation for consciousness and this mechanic survives the death of the brain (some "energy" or some such). It might also be that there is a god but no afterlife. The ancient Hebrews who wrote the OT seemed to think so, at least in parts of the OT.

The two issues, is there a god and is there an afterlife, are two separate issues.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

A similar account can be given of the development of a sense of god and belief in god - such dispositions have (or may well have) conferred some evolutionary advantage on those who have it. But you wouldn't for one moment accept that in this way one can show how evolution gives rise to a god. It shows only how evolutionary processes may give rise to creatures who have the impression there is a god. So too for morality.

Unless I missed something, according to you, we only have an impression that there is morality. So we act as if there is. Maybe there really isn't. Correct?

Since you're unsure if morality exist, is there a need to even say that it has to come from an external source? When we don't even know if anything is there at all? In fact from the beginning you have mentioned several times that morality may very well be an illusion.

If I were you, doing the reasoning, I'll consider that quite a huge leap.

[Inigo]

[quote]I'm almost getting vertigo how you are all over the field here, making sweeping assumptions and attaching them to non-sequitur conclusions. It's hard for me to even figure out where to begin.[/quote]

Well, you might want to start by using standard terms correctly. A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow. If you inspect those arguments you will note (perhaps) that they were both deductively valid. That means the conclusions did follow from their premises. TO avoid having to draw the conclusions you would need to challenge a premise.

So, just to be clear, the arguments were logically impeccable. If you can't see that, the problem is with you, not me.

[quote]Hunger is also a drive that favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of hunger also?[\quote]

If you are hungry then you favour eating. That's true. However, this just underlines my point. Hunger is something that can only happen in an agent. Tables can't be hungry. We sometimes talk about a car having a thirst for fuel - but we do not mean the car is literally thirsty. So yes, being hungry and favouring eating some food - is something only an agent can be and do.

Note (as you so clearly did not) that my first argument establishes that morality must be an agent or agents, not that it must be a god.

Your attempts at counterexamples fail - they just underscore the truth of premise 2 in that argument.

It is the fact morality's instructions have inescapable rational authority that means the agent has to be a god. Now, when you are hungry you favour yourself eating. And no doubt this means you have some reason to eat. However, it would not follow that you have inescapable reason to eat. You would not have reason to eat 'whatever' your desires. you have reason to eat because you desire to eat. Moral instructions and favourings are not like this.

It is this second feature - rational authority - that implies the agent who is issuing the instructions needs to be a god.

You ask 'why an afterlife'? Well, because we have reason to do as morality commands whatever we desire. Even if I am about to die I have reason to do what morality commands. Furthermore I have supreme reason to do as morality commands. The issuer of the commands would therefore need to have control over my future welfare - a welfare that continues after death. And thus, for morality to truly exist a god would need to exist and an afterlife.

These are awkward conclusions. And some people seem to think that important concepts like morality won't come with any awkward presuppositions. I'm never sure why anyone would think that. Anyway, it seems to me that morality does come with awkward presuppositions and I'm afraid nothing you've said thus far has done anything to damage this view of mine.

---

[quote='pineapplebunnybounce']Unless I missed something, according to you, we only have an impression that there is morality. So we act as if there is. Maybe there really isn't. Correct?

Since you're unsure if morality exist, is there a need to even say that it has to come from an external source? When we don't even know if anything is there at all? In fact from the beginning you have mentioned several times that morality may very well be an illusion.

If I were you, doing the reasoning, I'll consider that quite a huge leap.[/quote]

My argument is that if atheism is true, then morality does not really exist. It appears to, of course. But it doesn't really.

The reason I think this casts doubt on the truth of atheism is, well, frankly it seems more clear and distinct to me that I have moral obligations than that I am not dreaming right now. I am not suggesting I am dreaming right now. My point, rather, is that the reality of the sensible world - the world as revealed by my sense of sight and touch - is less clear and distinct than the reality of morality. After all, I've dreamt of chairs and trees and scientists and so on, but I have never dreamt that nothing is right or wrong. I am not saying it is inconceivable that morality does not really exist. My point is just that it is more apparently real than, say, the chair I am sitting on. thus I think that, if push comes to shove, one should listen to the more reliable witness over the less reliable. One should infer that a god exists rather than that morality does not, in other words.

[Cyberman]

Hunger is also a drive that favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of hunger also?

The drive to breathe favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of breathing?

On and on we could go. A sex god? A love god? We could "prove" the existence of an entire pantheon here at the rate we're going.

Well, my drive to drink proves the existence of Bacchus, clearly.

---

Well, you might want to start by using standard terms correctly.

Illustrated beautifully by your correct use of irony.

[Whateverist]

[quote='Inigo' pid='470867' dateline='1372651987']
[quote]I'm almost getting vertigo how you are all over the field here, making sweeping assumptions and attaching them to non-sequitur conclusions. It's hard for me to even figure out where to begin.[/quote]

Well, you might want to start by using standard terms correctly. A non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow. If you inspect those arguments you will note (perhaps) that they were both deductively valid. That means the conclusions did follow from their premises. TO avoid having to draw the conclusions you would need to challenge a premise.

So, just to be clear, the arguments were logically impeccable. If you can't see that, the problem is with you, not me.

[quote]Hunger is also a drive that favors, commands and instructs us. Is there a god of hunger also?[\quote]

If you are hungry then you favour eating. That's true. However, this just underlines my point. Hunger is something that can only happen in an agent. Tables can't be hungry. We sometimes talk about a car having a thirst for fuel - but we do not mean the car is literally thirsty. So yes, being hungry and favouring eating some food - is something only an agent can be and do.

Note (as you so clearly did not) that my first argument establishes that morality must be an agent or agents, not that it must be a god.

Your attempts at counterexamples fail - they just underscore the truth of premise 2 in that argument.

It is the fact morality's instructions have inescapable rational authority that means the agent has to be a god. Now, when you are hungry you favour yourself eating. And no doubt this means you have some reason to eat. However, it would not follow that you have inescapable reason to eat. You would not have reason to eat 'whatever' your desires. you have reason to eat because you desire to eat. Moral instructions and favourings are not like this.

It is this second feature - rational authority - that implies the agent who is issuing the instructions needs to be a god.

You ask 'why an afterlife'? Well, because we have reason to do as morality commands whatever we desire. Even if I am about to die I have reason to do what morality commands. Furthermore I have supreme reason to do as morality commands. The issuer of the commands would therefore need to have control over my future welfare - a welfare that continues after death. And thus, for morality to truly exist a god would need to exist and an afterlife.

These are awkward conclusions. And some people seem to think that important concepts like morality won't come with any awkward presuppositions. I'm never sure why anyone would think that. Anyway, it seems to me that morality does come with awkward presuppositions and I'm afraid nothing you've said thus far has done anything to damage this view of mine.
[/quote]

Oh look someone has left a turd ball on this thread without flushing it down. Your so called impeccable argument just is a massive turd ball of a mess. Do you really think morality must be the sort of thing which can only make sense if there is a genie standing behind it as guarantor? Your premise that morality must be so and so simply smuggles in the conclusion you're keen to arrive at. I'm not sure if you've managed to put your own doubts to rest but I seriously doubt that you've managed to pawn any doubts off on any one here.

Do you have any idea how insincere and sophomoric it seems for one after the next of you to show up pretending to be something other than the apologist on a mission that you are? Tedious. Far from original. Entirely unconvincing. Please just flush your mess down like a good lad and be on your way.

[Inigo]

Oh look someone has left a turd ball on this thread without flushing it down. Your so called impeccable argument just is a massive turd ball of a mess. Do you really think morality must be the sort of thing which can only make sense if there is a genie standing behind it as guarantor? Your premise that morality must be so and so simply smuggles in the conclusion you're keen to arrive at. I'm not sure if you've managed to put your own doubts to rest but I seriously doubt that you've managed to pawn any doubts off on any one here.

You can't refute an argument by calling it a turd ball. The arguments were deductively valid and they also possessed extremely plausible premises. indeed, no one yet has cast the slightest doubt on them. They have either ignored them, attributed quite different views to me, or offered examples that merely confirm their truth.

You say I have smuggled in my conclusion. Once again, if I have done that just point out the premise that you dispute and dispute it. If you can't do that then what I've done is present you with a very good argument that leads to a conclusion that you dislike. Deal with it. When did you start thinking that the truth would be what you want it to be?

You then accuse me of lacking originality. That's untrue and irrelevant. To my knowledge nobody has defended quite the view I am defending. For the view I am defending is not that morality is composed of the commands/favourings/instructions of the Judaeo Christian god, but that morality is the composed of the commands of a vengeful god who is not perfectly morally good. My arguments, if anything, only underscore the non-existence of the Christian god. But anyway, the originality of an argument has nothing to do with its soundness or validity. So I'm unsure why you mentioned it unless you're just a horrible person.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

My argument is that if atheism is true, then morality does not really exist. It appears to, of course. But it doesn't really.

The reason I think this casts doubt on the truth of atheism is, well, frankly it seems more clear and distinct to me that I have moral obligations than that I am not dreaming right now. I am not suggesting I am dreaming right now. My point, rather, is that the reality of the sensible world - the world as revealed by my sense of sight and touch - is less clear and distinct than the reality of morality. After all, I've dreamt of chairs and trees and scientists and so on, but I have never dreamt that nothing is right or wrong. I am not saying it is inconceivable that morality does not really exist. My point is just that it is more apparently real than, say, the chair I am sitting on. thus I think that, if push comes to shove, one should listen to the more reliable witness over the less reliable. One should infer that a god exists rather than that morality does not, in other words.

What?

Your entire argument was based on what "seems to you", that is "apparently", things you've "dreamed of" and not "dreamed of" and you conclude with "reliable witness over the less reliable". What have you mentioned that is at all reliable?! Sensations and observations and dreams do not come into the realm of determining reality! it merely is what the world appears to us after our brains has processed what we pick up.

And the point that morality has to exist because you've never experienced the lack of morality in dreams before. People do bad and immoral things a lot, that is a better evidence than your dreams. Does morality not exist for them? Is it a different set of morality? These are things you have to deal with before you go on with morality has to exist.

[Inigo]

Your entire argument was based on what "seems to you", that is "apparently", things you've "dreamed of" and not "dreamed of" and you conclude with "reliable witness over the less reliable". What have you mentioned that is at all reliable?! Sensations and observations and dreams do not come into the realm of determining reality! it merely is what the world appears to us after our brains has processed what we pick up.

And the point that morality has to exist because you've never experienced the lack of morality in dreams before. People do bad and immoral things a lot, that is a better evidence than your dreams. Does morality not exist for them? Is it a different set of morality? These are things you have to deal with before you go on with morality has to exist.

First, I did not say that morality 'has' to exist, did I? I said that morality's existence appears more clear and distinct than the existence of the physical world. I do not say that this is a proof of a god. I say only that it calls atheism into question. And this is something that at some level you recognise, I think. For note how eager you are to show that morality and atheism are compatible. You surely recognise that if morality is not compatible with atheism, atheism is less credible. Why? Because something that appears to exist will have to be said not to exist. And other things being equal a view that respects appearances is to be preferred to one that does not.

Note, I am not saying that atheism is definitely false or that morality has to exist.

I have described how things seem to me. If they do not seem that way to you, just say. I can't say how things seem to you, can I? I'm in here- in me! Now, the arguments I gave were deductively valid and so all you have to do is tell me which premise is faulty. Don't just state that it is false, either. Argue it. Present an argument that concludes with the negation of one of my premises and that has premises of its own that are more plausible than my premise. Otherwise you're just spouting hot air.