Atheism and morality

[Inigo]

<snippetty snip>
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

Well that's confusing. After reading all of your posts this is exactly what I thought you were saying was your issue: that reason pointed to an external moral source.

You want to distance yourself from the Christian God because you find that god to be vengeful. I do not. I find that god to be fully just and morally blameless, and therefore subject to your rationale.

my argument - which I think challenges atheism - also challenges Christianity and a whole host of other religions.

On the grounds that the Xtian God is immoral? You contradict yourself surely?

I think the evidence for the existence of a Christian god just isn't there.

Well that's a separate question. One of knowledge.

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.

The Christian concept of God, from Aristotle/ Aquinas etc is that his goodness is rooted in creation/ him as first cause. That's what presupposes a perfect morality found in him. We cannot reason from a God capable of evil, as that model would implode with contradictions.

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.

I doubt anyone reasons from a God they already believe in. That would be ludicrous. Faith to you is something to derise, but I wonder if you even know what it means in the Christian sense.
Indeed, you are trying to justify atheism from the POV of already being an atheist.
Being honest with yourself is good enough.

I did not get around to replying to this, so I will address what you say now and apologies for the delay.

You are correct that I think morality is something external and that identifying moral instructions with those of a god respects this feature. I think we both agree that morality requires a god (I think we agree on that, anyway). The disagreement seems to be over whether this god is perfectly good or not.

The first thing I'd say is that it is logically compatible with my view that the god in question is perfectly morally good. This would just mean that the god in question possesses the character traits that she instructs or favours others possessing and will punish for not possessing. For goodness in one's character, on this view, just is to possess character traits that are approved of by this god and that this god resolves to harm us for not possessing. So it is possible that the god required for morality is perfectly morally good.

However, I think there is strong evidence that the god in question is not perfectly morally good. This is because this god needs to be vengeful (her instructions won't have inescapable rational authority otherwise) and so the only way she could be perfectly morally good is if she approved of us being vengeful. So, if she is perfectly morally good we should expect to sense that vengefulness is a good character trait. Yet we do not. Or at least, I don't and I suspect others do not either. We sense, surely, that vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue. So, it seems - if our moral sense is to be believed - that the god does not favour us being vengeful. She is vengeful. But she does not favour us being. (She may not even favour herself being - she may just 'be' vengeful and not herself for it). And that is why I conclude that this god is not perfectly good. She does not possess all of the character traits she approves of us possessing.

YOu say that this will generate contradictions. Perhaps, but I do not see any yet. All I see is a clash with a traditional view about what god is like. The assumption that the source of morality must itself be moral is, I think, one that my view shows to be false. The best, simplest way to account for morality is to identify it with a vengeful god, and if our moral sense is reliable then it seems vengefulness is a vice, not a virtue and thus that morality - or the god whose instructions compose morality - is bad, or a bit bad anyway.

I should stress, I do not think this 'has' to be the case. Rather, it seems reasonable to suppose it so and I cannot think of a good reason to think it is not so.

I should also stress that the implication is not that she is thoroughly bad, just that she is something short of completely good. If our moral sense is reliable then for the most part she wishes us to be benevolent and so on, and it seems reasonable to suppose that she wishes such things because that's what she is like as well. But this does not strictly follow - we do not always wish others to be like ourselves. For example, I possess a penis yet I do not wish my girlfriend to have one, indeed I positively approve of her lack of one. (that's was a lie to illustrate a point: I think it'd be great if she had one) Hence, the fact she - the god of morality, that is - disapproves of vengefulness is consistent with her being vengeful.