Deconversion and some doubts

[vulcanlogician]

A more accurate rendition of the question, would be to ask whether if Good did not exist would rape be morally okay?

But Good exists, and we both agree it does. So the matter is settled, and we agree on that.

But this intelligent, personal supra-cosmic force (the thing you call "God") sounds a little bit fabricated to me.

But goodness or the Good seems plenty realistic, and very plausible. But the Good isn't physical. It's metaphysical.

But to me, the Good isn't some kind of "magic" or necessarily related to a divine nonphysical being because it isn't physical.

The truth of the Pythagorean theorem is metaphysical. It is a truth statement about right triangles. But people are free to ignore this truth and misunderstand right triangles. But those who DO understand the theorem will regard right triangles in a particular way. They will understand them better.

Likewise, those who understand the Good will act in a certain way. Because they understand (like the principles of a right triangle) that their actions can be correct or incorrect. Someone who knows the Pythagorean theorem can give you precise measurements of a triangle. But he could also (if he wished) lie to you and tell you the wrong facts about the triangle.

Same thing with a moral realist. A moral realist understands "the right triangle of human suffering"... and has calculated the truth... and his actions reflect his understanding. You want to say there is no OUGHT from understanding this IS.

BUT THERE IS.

Hume is one of my favorite thinkers but he is WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY, WAY too skeptical. If your house is on fire, you ought to gather your loved ones and leave it. Hume says, "How do you arrive at that 'ought'? Why don't you stay in the house and burn?" We get oughts from is-es all the time. Just like we know that effects have causes. If we want to get super skeptical like Hume, we can point out that there are unfounded assumptions at work. And such skepticism is a good intellectual exercise. But at the end of the day, Hume has not proven that the laws of cause and effect are illusory. Nor has he proven that you can't get an ought from an is. He is just asking why we assume that we can. It's hard to answer his query because it's a good question. But Hume doesn't falsify moral realism. He just presents it with a challenge,

I'm up to the challenge. But (also) when I'm making moral decisions, I ignore Hume's radical skepticism. Because Hume has challenged moral realism... not refuted it.

[GrandizerII]

Oughts implies duties and obligation, all of which implies rules, regardless of whether those rules are explicitly spelled out, or listed in their entirety.

If they didn't imply a rule, than it wouldn't be oughts at all. It wouldn't be I ought not steal, but rather synonymous with wishes, I wish you didn't' steal.

Sure, you're talking about oughts in the authoritarian sense. And I believe I have been going along with how you view oughts rather than look at oughts differently. To you, oughts require some form of rule-maker/rule-enforcer authority. And I am saying that the various human societies over the centuries have been playing that role quite easily. Thus, my answer to your question of where oughts come from.

It doesn't matter if you don't like that society has played the rule-maker/rule-enforcer role. Fact is, it has. And it doesn't even matter if you think society is a poor form of such authority. The answer stays the same.

And you need oughts for any sort of coherent moral statement, such as the holocaust is wrong. People ought not do things like the holocaust, rather than I wish people didn't do things like the holocaust.

Nope, not with the way you're describing oughts. "X is wrong" need no authoritarian rule-maker for it to be so. The holocaust is wrong because it caused death and suffering to a very large number of innocent people out of extreme prejudice towards them, not because <the Good entity says it is wrong>. There is no need for authoritarian ought here in order for the Holocaust to be wrong, though society (at the global level) has nevertheless enforced the dictum that such things as the Holocaust ought to not be committed.

If you still disagree, than perhaps you can tell me what you think the difference is between saying someone ought not steal, and saying I wish people didn't steal? What is the nature of "ought" as distinct from the nature of a "wish" here?

According to you, the difference has to do with authority. According to me, it's irrelevant what the difference is. What's relevant is who decides the rules here: humans or God. It's very clear to me that humans are the ones doing so because God (if it does exist) has stayed silent this whole time.

[The Grand Nudger]

A moral goal and a moral structure are not ubiquitously interchangeable.  A person can understand and accept the structure without having or pursuing a stated goal.

We can know something is shitty and have no interest in avoiding it.  VV, as well, of course.  It’s silly to say, in a system that uses harm as the moral metric, that being harmful isn’t what makes something “bad”.  That’s baked into harm based morality by definition.  Objective or subjective.

Without a moral goal, such as we ought not do things that are harmful to others, the structure is just a structure. You'd just be indicating the physical details of that structure. By calling the structure moral, you're sneaking in moral goals. Without goals, subjective or objective, moral statements would be incoherent.

Correct, without a moral goal a moral structure is just a moral structure.....which is to say exactly what you just quoted me saying.......?

Statements aren’t made coherent or incoherent on account of whether or not a person uses that statement as a goal.

For example- I could make the following statement. You are abjectly ignorant of the entire subject of moral philosophy. Now, you won’t make my statement some goal of yours, you aren’t going to run out and fix that problem -and then- respond.......but it’s still a coherent statement.....regardless of whether or not you agree with it or make it some personal goal.

You’re welcome.

[Acrobat]

Without a moral goal, such as we ought not do things that are harmful to others, the structure is just a structure. You'd just be indicating the physical details of that structure. By calling the structure moral, you're sneaking in moral goals. Without goals, subjective or objective, moral statements would be incoherent.

Correct, without a moral goal a moral structure is just a moral structure.....which is to say exactly what you just quoted me saying.......?

No it’s just a structure, it’s neither moral or immoral, call it an amoral one if you like.

[The Grand Nudger]

A moral structure is a moral structure, lol.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you have some personal goal to adhere to it. Think of all of the other moral structures you don’t agree with and have no intent to pursue as goals.

That doesn’t make them “not a moral structure”.

[Acrobat]

Oughts implies duties and obligation, all of which implies rules, regardless of whether those rules are explicitly spelled out, or listed in their entirety.

If they didn't imply a rule, than it wouldn't be oughts at all. It wouldn't be I ought not steal, but rather synonymous with wishes, I wish you didn't' steal.

Sure, you're talking about oughts in the authoritarian sense. And I believe I have been going along with how you view oughts rather than look at oughts differently. To you, oughts require some form of rule-maker/rule-enforcer authority. And I am saying that the various human societies over the centuries have been playing that role quite easily. Thus, my answer to your question of where oughts come from.

It doesn't matter if you don't like that society has played the rule-maker/rule-enforcer role. Fact is, it has. And it doesn't even matter if you think society is a poor form of such authority. The answer stays the same.

And you need oughts for any sort of coherent moral statement, such as the holocaust is wrong. People ought not do things like the holocaust, rather than I wish people didn't do things like the holocaust.

Nope, not with the way you're describing oughts. "X is wrong" need no authoritarian rule-maker for it to be so. The holocaust is wrong because it caused death and suffering to a very large number of innocent people out of extreme prejudice towards them, not because <the Good entity says it is wrong>. There is no need for authoritarian ought here in order for the Holocaust to be wrong, though society (at the global level) has nevertheless enforced the dictum that such things as the Holocaust ought to not be committed.

If you still disagree, than perhaps you can tell me what you think the difference is between saying someone ought not steal, and saying I wish people didn't steal? What is the nature of "ought" as distinct from the nature of a "wish" here?

According to you, the difference has to do with authority. According to me, it's irrelevant what the difference is. What's relevant is who decides the rules here: humans or God. It's very clear to me that humans are the ones doing so because God (if it does exist) has stayed silent this whole time.

Nice strawman. I don’t believe in a rule maker, since I don’t view right and wrong as something created or made.

I’m using ought in regards to what the term implies ie obligations and duties, unlike terms like should or wish.

Saying I ought to do x, unlike saying i should or you wish I do x, implies I have an obligation of duty to do x. To use the term ought in place of where you might mean something like wish is just equivocating on your part.

And no, societies don’t see themselves as as moral rule makers, or as moral authorities, anymore so than they see themselves as makers of objective truth. They may see themselves as a political and legal authority but not a moral one. Pretty much all societies have seen morality as a matter of truth, not of their own making.

Secondly people don’t see their societies as the creators or authority on right and wrong either. If your society put all its legal and political support behind the holocaust, you wouldn’t say okay that means the holocaust is a morally good thing, for the same reason you wouldn’t say the earth is flat, just because most of your society thinks it is.

Secondly granting society moral authority, would be like granting the twitter verse moral authority. If you tried to derive right and wrong from twitter opinions, or social opinions, you’d be more a cartoon, than a good person, a tool, rather than someone to be respected

[The Grand Nudger]

-and yet people are the only creatures we know of to have ever opined on the subject of goodness. You already get your morality from the multigenerational equivalent of twitter, we all do.

[Acrobat]

A moral structure is a moral structure, lol.

It doesn’t matter whether or not you have some personal goal to adhere to it. Think of all of the other moral structures you don’t agree with and have no intent to pursue as goals.

That doesn’t make them “not a moral structure”.

No the term moral has no real meaning, absent of some moral aim or goal, regardless of whether that goal is objective or subjectively derived.

If you think you can have a moral structure absent of this, please give an example absent of this element, and please indicate what calling it moral adds to the description of the structure, as opposed to a description of the structure without using the term?

---

-and yet people are the only creatures we know of to have ever opined on the subject of goodness. You already get your morality from the multigenerational equivalent of twitter, we all do.

People are the only creatures we know of who have ever opined on the subject of truth as well. Yet the world isn’t round because of human opinions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yep, that’s the general idea. We say that things are good and bad...the things you think are good and bad are as much a societal artifact as anything else we say. Either that’s an issue, or it isn’t.

Figure it out.

Just as the term moral means something even if what it means isn’t convenient to your incompetent objections.

Figure it out.

Even if you don’t care to figure either thing out....even if figuring out either thing isn’t some goal of yours......

Well.......figure it out, huh?

[mordant]

Hey guys!

I was raised Roman Catholic, at moments I was definitely believing some of this stuff. For example, I tried to stay away from masturbation (not really succeed ), thought that sex desires are somehow sinful and sex before marriage is bad. After moving out to college I went to church handful of times and after confronting my beliefs with my atheist (at the time) roommate I started to seeing how it all could be false.

It's been around 3 years I started deconverting and I'm still not fully atheist. I feel like religion is still capturing my mind. I know that to some of you some of this stuff might sound pretty silly, but maybe some of exbelievers will be able to help me to sort it out.

Okay, so for the starters I find almost no logical reason to believe in god. Like I can see how someone can find pro-theistic arguments convincing when they start from the position that deity exist, but all of them can be easily refuted.

But I have all these feelings. Like anything that is frowned upon by Catholic church is bad, that I know that Christianity is true, that I'm trying to delude myself from truth, that afterlife exists, that atheist are wrong... it's really messing with me. Like if it's all false, why than am I still experiencing this? I'm in my early twenties, I want to have the best time of my life, party, have sex and stuff But there is still this voice in the back of my head, and though I'm trying to do these things, they are accompanied by worries and guilt. I would like to be convinced that god doesn't exist and start living my only life, but I have this inner block. I'm in the constant battle with myself over this. Also I'm really confused and scared why I feel this way.

Can anyone relate? Any tips? If it's also okay in later posts I will question you about some of my doubts about atheism in later posts. Thanks!

Well Jake, welcome to AtheistWorld. You come looking for some empathy and pointers and after about 12 minutes you get a stem-winding esoteric philosophical debate about the nature of morality which is probably not very helpful or practical to your situation.

As a few helpful others said, your are the product of a lifetime of operant conditioning up to this point. Even absent a Catholic background, which is especially adept at producing guilt and self-doubt, it took me some years to pry my theistic thought habits out of my head with a crowbar. It is just something you have to be patient with (both the process, and yourself). It DOES get better.

Unfortunately, the philosophical debate here probably plays into the very fears that have been programmed into you -- that apart from the mother religion (or a "personal relationship" with god, or whatever), you will be adrift morally and ethically and directionally, like some kind of lost shade wandering the blasted heath of this world, doomed to make horrible mistakes.

In reality, moral decisions are generally simple applications of empathy to others (including yourself, past, present, AND future). Some things are kind and beneficial and some are ugly and harmful. I left my evangelical faith in my mid 30s, and there was nothing generally wrong with the morality I had been taught, and that morality in no way left me when I left the faith. The truth is, my morality was a little overdetermined, and benefitted from pulling the religious stick out of my ass, particularly with respect to sexual matters. But understand that you're basically good to go already to be a positively contributing member of society, and there's no mojo from your faith that enables that. It is just habits you already developed, most of which serve you well, and which can remain in place, although the motivation / reasoning behind them may shift.

Yes you'll feel wrong and bad and guilty and even perhaps ashamed off and on for some time, but over time you'll see that the sky doesn't fall, the center holds, and you just keep on keeping on.