RE: Atheism and morality
July 1, 2013 at 12:13 am
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2013 at 12:22 am by 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.
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.
