From atheism to tentative agnosticism

[fr0d0]

Hehe

[The Grand Nudger]

When I sense that an act is morally wrong it appears to me that the act is in some way 'not to be done' - it is as if the universe itself wishes me not to do it.

I think that you just might be projecting...a little bit...onto the fabric of the cosmos...lol?

[Inigo]

My arguments have a god as a CONCLUSION. In other words, I haven't put god in, I've gotten god out.

So your presuppositions lead to a conclusion. But they're still presuppositions right?

All arguments have premises. If you know of an argument without any, I'm all ears.

But any attempt to show anything exists, relies on an argument. And all arguments have assumptions or premises. If the argument is valid then the strength of the argument is determined by the plausibility of the premises. Those premises can be defended in turn, of course. If your argument has premises that are more plausible than their negations, then your argument wins. This doesn't mean that the conclusion is true, it just means it is more reasonable to believe that conclusion than any other.

That's how arguments work. That's how evidence works. That's how a rational person tries to figure out what the hell is going on.

By all means reject reason, but if that's the only way to avoid drawing my conclusions that's not really very impressive. That's like avoiding drawing my conclusions by shooting yourself in the head. It'll work, but it was kind of pointless.

---

I think that you just might be projecting...a little bit...onto the fabric of the cosmos...lol?

Yes, if atheism is true that is what I am doing. That's the point. Those external instructions don't really exist if atheism is true, it is just a trick my mind is playing on me. For if atheism is true how on earth can there exist external instructions with which we automatically have reason to comply? It isn't possible. There appear to be such things. Humans have argued about their content for millennia. But such debates would be like debates over whether father Christmas beats his wife. Father Christmas doesn't exist, so both sides are fundamentally mistaken. Simiarly, if atheism is true morality doesn't exist. So all normative moral claims are false.

[paulpablo]

If you think morality is a unified instruction from god then Yeh I'd say morality doesn't exist.

---

I also wonder why you call this argument painfully obvious, yet you have spent all your life being an atheist up until fairly recently.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, if atheism is true that is what I am doing. That's the point. Those external instructions don't really exist if atheism is true, it is just a trick my mind is playing on me.

Meh, even if it isn't it's still likely that you're projecting.

For if atheism is true how on earth can there exist external instructions with which we automatically have reason to comply? It isn't possible.

If it weren't, we'd still be at a loss to explain this - supposing we were at a loss to explain this, which we aren't.

There appear to be such things. Humans have argued about their content for millennia. But such debates would be like debates over whether father Christmas beats his wife. Father Christmas doesn't exist, so both sides are fundamentally mistaken.

Of course father christmas doesn't beat his wife, and of course he exists.

Simiarly, if atheism is true morality doesn't exist. So all normative moral claims are false.

Well that's out of the blue, huh? Morality doesn;t need to be argued into existence. It's existence is a simple observation (unlike a god). Regardless of whether or not there is a god there is morality. Tell you what though, ask your god about this one and get back to me with what he says?

[fr0d0]

So your presuppositions lead to a conclusion. But they're still presuppositions right?

All arguments have premises. If you know of an argument without any, I'm all ears.

But any attempt to show anything exists, relies on an argument. And all arguments have assumptions or premises. If the argument is valid then the strength of the argument is determined by the plausibility of the premises. Those premises can be defended in turn, of course. If your argument has premises that are more plausible than their negations, then your argument wins. This doesn't mean that the conclusion is true, it just means it is more reasonable to believe that conclusion than any other.

That's how arguments work. That's how evidence works. That's how a rational person tries to figure out what the hell is going on.

By all means reject reason, but if that's the only way to avoid drawing my conclusions that's not really very impressive. That's like avoiding drawing my conclusions by shooting yourself in the head. It'll work, but it was kind of pointless.

You didn't address the point that you're working on a conclusion that's based upon a presupposition.

I'm not against you (yet), I'm merely trying to clarify something. I'd have to agree with your discourse above against whomever would object, brother

[MikeTheInfidel]

Those external instructions don't really exist if atheism is true, it is just a trick my mind is playing on me.

So what you're saying is there are two options here:

1. Morality is an objective existing thing, based on God

2. You're not really understanding what you're experiencing

And... you're going with #1.

[Inigo]

I also wonder why you call this argument painfully obvious, yet you have spent all your life being an atheist up until fairly recently.

Well, because I didn't say that, did I? What I claimed was painfully obvious was the distinction between moral phenomena and morality itself. It is painfully obvious to me and always has been. Confusing moral sensations and beliefs for morality itself is as foolish as confusing beliefs about a chair with a chair. This doesn't stop people from making such foolish mistakes. Indeed, this seems to be 'the' major mistake that most people make when they start trying to figure out what morality might be. Rather than focussing on morality, they give historical accounts of the development of our moral sense and so on (and thereby assume they are giving an account of morality - when they are doing no such thing).

Anyway, what morality 'is' in itself is not obvious and I have never claimed it is. I have, by thinking about the matter carefully, come to the conlusion that there is only one thing morality can be, and that is the instrtuctions of a god. That is not through ignorance of other options. But I find the other options to either fail to capture the instructing nature of morality, or they capture that feature but fail to capture its rational authority. I know of no other way than mine of capturing both fetaures at once, and I think both features are essential. But it isn't obvious that morality consists in the instructions of a god. It takes careful reasoning to see it if, that is, it is true.

[The Grand Nudger]

What I claimed was painfully obvious was the distinction between moral phenomena and morality itself. It is painfully obvious to me and always has been.

Not painfully obvious to me, in fact, I can;t make heads or tails of what you mean here...care to make it painfully obvious to me?

[Inigo]

You didn't address the point that you're working on a conclusion that's based upon a presupposition.
I'm not against you (yet), I'm merely trying to clarify something. I'd have to agree with your discourse above against whomever would object, brother

I make two assumptions. The first is that morality instructs and favours. It is normative. The second is that morality's instructions are ones that confer a reason for compliance to all, whatever anyone's interests.

I take both claims to be conceptual truths about morality. I am then arguing that there is only one thing that could have those features, and that's the instructions of a certain sort of god.

perhaps there's some other way of satisfying those features. But I do not know of it. Perhaps those assumptions are false. But nobody has provided me with any reason to think they are false yet.