Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

Which moral instructions are the ones that everyone has a good reason to follow?

Normative moral philosophy is that part of ethics concerned with figuring out just what it is that morality instructs us to do and be. And the truthful answer is that I do not know exactly what morality instructs us to do. My method of figuring this out is going to be exactly the same as yours (I assume). I will consult my moral sense and that of others and try to systemise its deliverances.

Metaethical inquiry is investigation into what morality actually is. Strictly speaking every normative moral theory is compatible with every metaethical one. And what I am doing here is arguing that the metaethical view that morality is composed of the commands/favourings of a god is very plausible. In fact, I think it by far the most plausible metaethical theory, for the reasons I have given.

---

1. Theists are trinitarian Christians? Cool! it was way too crowded with all of those Muslims, Jews, non trinitarian Christians, Hindus... you see what I mean!
2. I've seen your argument (broadly) argued before by trinitarian Christians. They (and I would concur) suggest that presupposing God is the only coherent explanation for reality.
That always remains a result of assumption however.
They're assuming a morally good God just like you, but understand that god to be the Christian God, where you do not.

THank you for your welcome. However, I should clarify my position as it is not as you have assumed. (I am in the uncomfortable position of holding a view that virtually everyone is going to have a problem with - this makes me suspicious that there is something wrong with it, yet to date no-one has been able to tell me). Anyway, to continue alienating people : I do not think morality presupposes a morally good god. In fact I think morality presupposes a vengeful god and I think vengefulness is not praiseworthy. I think it is a bad character trait. Perhaps it isn't, but my moral sense and that of an awful lot of people concur that it is, and so I assume that it is. So, I do not think morality presupposes the Christian god. In fact, my argument - which I think challenges atheism - also challenges Christianity and a whole host of other religions. I think the evidence for the existence of a Christian god just isn't there. My arguments actually bolster the case against Christianity, I would say. Morality becomes evidence against the existence of the Christian god, not for it.

I should also note that to account for morality's features I have not had to posit a god who has created us, or the universe or anything lik that. What I have had to posit is a god who has power over our welfare in an afterlife, that is all. The god in question, therefore, bears more resemblance to a Norse or Greek god than any more traditional one.

But at the end of the day, I am not a man of faith. I am not trying to find arguments for a god that I already believe in. I am just trying to understand what morality is, and my best attempt to do this has led me to posit a god. I'm not happy about this and the worldview that starts to emerge is really rather horrible.