RE: Atheism and morality
July 1, 2013 at 12:25 am
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2013 at 12:27 am by 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.
[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.
