Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

My confidence in the truth of atheism has been shaken by my reflections on the nature of morality. Perhaps my reflections are poor and I am making some very great mistake. But I think that morality may require a god. That doesn't show a god to exist, of course, for perhaps morality is an illusion. But it reduces its credibility to some extent.

Here is why I think morality requires a god. first, however, I want to distinguish between moral phenomena and morality itself. I use the term 'moral phenomena' to refer to moral sensations (so, the deliverances of our moral sense) and moral beliefs. I take it as beyond question that moral phenomena exist. But it does not follow that morality itself exists, for morality is not a sensation or a belief. it is the thing sensed, the thing believed. To believe an act to be wrong is to believe the act has the attribute of wrongness. One has the belief, but whether the act really has that feature - indeed, whether such a feature exists at all - remains an open question.

Anyway, here was the though that first set me off doubting atheism. Morality is normative: it instructs, favours, commands. It is not enough for it to appear to do these things. A morality that does not instruct or favour or command is no morality at all. Morality actually does these things. This seems to be a conceptual truth about morality. Yet, for the life of me I find it hard to conceive of how anything other than an agent could do such things.

I won't ramble on further - I'll just see if I've made a mistake at this early stage! (for it gets worse!)

[paulpablo]

If I understand you right, that morality is specific instructions which appear to be guided by an outside agent, then I would say you are mainly correct, I think most people on earth get their morality from an "agent" but this agent is usually a parent or guardian, aswell as that empathy towards other humans, being able to feel aggression that makes you think " I want to punch that person in the face" But also having the brain power to imagine "What if I was that person being punched in the face".

I don't see why morality would make you consider there is a god anymore than animal instincts in general, such as killing and breeding, that is if you consider processes in animal behavior which involve commands to be a sign of god.

[Inigo]

Thank you for your reply. But aren't you explaining the moral phenomena? You're explaining, unless I've misunderstood you, how it may have come to pass that I - and others - have come to have the impression that there are external instructions with which we have reason to comply, whatever our interests. But for such impressions to be veridical there would need to actually be external instructions with which I have reason to comply whatever my interests. If my parents lie behind such impressions then I think you are right that the instructing nature of morality has been captured, we do not capture the rational authority. For I have no special reason to comply with instructions my parents issue to me. Granted, it may often be in my interests to comply with such instructions. But it will not always be, and plus moral instructions are instructions that somehow give rise to me having reason to comply with them. Whereas instructions from my parents (or my society etc) would only be ones I'd have reason to comply with if I happened to have interests that complying with them would serve.
So, if it is an essential feature of moral norms that they are norms that have categorical rational authority, then instructions from my parents or community are not going to qualify. Such things may be causally responsible for my having moral impressions - but they do not vindicate the impressions, they debunk them. Or so it seems to me at present.

[paulpablo]

Too many big words to read, are you basically saying that morals must be supernatural because you abide by them even when there is no benefit in following them?

[FallentoReason]

Anyway, here was the though that first set me off doubting atheism. Morality is normative: it instructs, favours, commands. It is not enough for it to appear to do these things. A morality that does not instruct or favour or command is no morality at all. Morality actually does these things. This seems to be a conceptual truth about morality. Yet, for the life of me I find it hard to conceive of how anything other than an agent could do such things.

Through evolution, it's who we've become. What you describe has been hardwired to us through the generations because it's what works best to survive.

[Inigo]

Too many big words to read, are you basically saying that morals must be supernatural because you abide by them even when there is no benefit in following them?

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind because this is what it would take for there to exist instructions with which everyone has reason to comply whatever their interests.

[paulpablo]

Too many big words to read, are you basically saying that morals must be supernatural because you abide by them even when there is no benefit in following them?

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind because this is what it would take for there to exist instructions with which everyone has reason to comply whatever their interests.

What instructions does everyone have a reason to comply with?

[Foxaèr]

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind.

Finally, I understand what you are stating. You would be wrong, of course. Morality, as FallentoReason has already stated, arose through evolution as a means of survival. It is anthropologically sound. There needs to be nothing divine behind anything in this world, for anything can be explained naturally. For those things we have yet to explain, however, claiming a higher power is behind it is mere intellectual laziness.

[bennyboy]

Thank you for your reply. But aren't you explaining the moral phenomena? You're explaining, unless I've misunderstood you, how it may have come to pass that I - and others - have come to have the impression that there are external instructions with which we have reason to comply, whatever our interests. But for such impressions to be veridical there would need to actually be external instructions with which I have reason to comply whatever my interests. If my parents lie behind such impressions then I think you are right that the instructing nature of morality has been captured, we do not capture the rational authority. For I have no special reason to comply with instructions my parents issue to me. Granted, it may often be in my interests to comply with such instructions. But it will not always be, and plus moral instructions are instructions that somehow give rise to me having reason to comply with them. Whereas instructions from my parents (or my society etc) would only be ones I'd have reason to comply with if I happened to have interests that complying with them would serve.
So, if it is an essential feature of moral norms that they are norms that have categorical rational authority, then instructions from my parents or community are not going to qualify. Such things may be causally responsible for my having moral impressions - but they do not vindicate the impressions, they debunk them. Or so it seems to me at present.

Excessively grandiose verbiage and unnecessarily complex sentence structure aren't a propos of a forum. And that's veridical, Ruth.

[Inigo]

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind.

Finally, I understand what you are stating. You would be wrong, of course. Morality, as FallentoReason has already stated, arose through evolution as a means of survival. It is anthropologically sound. There needs to be nothing divine behind anything in this world, for anything can be explained naturally. For those things we have yet to explain, however, claiming a higher power is behind it is mere intellectual laziness.

I don't think you have understood me, in my view. An evolutionary account of the development of our moral sense and moral beliefs would not show how morality can exist. All it would show is how and why it appears to us that morality exists.
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.

It is not enough to provide an account of how we have come to have the impression that morality exists. of course you can do that. That isn't in any serious doubt. But morality itself - the thing our moral sensations give us the impression exists - is different. It is morality itself that I am suggesting would require a god.

---

Thank you for your reply. But aren't you explaining the moral phenomena? You're explaining, unless I've misunderstood you, how it may have come to pass that I - and others - have come to have the impression that there are external instructions with which we have reason to comply, whatever our interests. But for such impressions to be veridical there would need to actually be external instructions with which I have reason to comply whatever my interests. If my parents lie behind such impressions then I think you are right that the instructing nature of morality has been captured, we do not capture the rational authority. For I have no special reason to comply with instructions my parents issue to me. Granted, it may often be in my interests to comply with such instructions. But it will not always be, and plus moral instructions are instructions that somehow give rise to me having reason to comply with them. Whereas instructions from my parents (or my society etc) would only be ones I'd have reason to comply with if I happened to have interests that complying with them would serve.
So, if it is an essential feature of moral norms that they are norms that have categorical rational authority, then instructions from my parents or community are not going to qualify. Such things may be causally responsible for my having moral impressions - but they do not vindicate the impressions, they debunk them. Or so it seems to me at present.

Excessively grandiose verbiage and unnecessarily complex sentence structure aren't a propos of a forum. And that's veridical, Ruth.

This is a philosophy forum and I assume people are familiar with certain terms. As for complex sentences, which ones do you not understand?

---

No. I am saying that real moral instructions would have to be the instructions of a powerful supernatural agent of some kind because this is what it would take for there to exist instructions with which everyone has reason to comply whatever their interests.

What instructions does everyone have a reason to comply with?

Moral instructions. That's just what a moral instruction is. It is an instruction that automatically confers a reason to comply. In this way moral instructions differ from, say, your instructions or the instructions of a club or the instructions of etiquette.