It's what's called an "argument to the best answer." It has to be, because there's literally nothing we know in the empirical world (including all of science) by anything other than highest probability. If you wait around to "know" in an absolute sense, you'll find we "know" nothing at all.
The tenets of theism being thoroughly unprovable in every respect,
That's an interesting claim. It's not true, of course, but I wonder what has convinced you of that.
the only option is to formulate What-If thought experiments whether this or that could be true as you have done which in turn subsumes any number of hypothetical conclusions.
Not quite. Each hypothesis only conduces to its own particular conclusions. In the case of Theism, the conclusion is that IF true, it grounds morality. The conclusion of Atheism is that even IF true, it does not. Voila, la difference.
No, that isn't nearly true. There are higher-probability hypotheses and lower-probability hypotheses. The informed person gathers the data, then formulates his judgment on the highest-probability hypotheses.In effect, you have no choice but to render an IF for something never verified as true or factual. It becomes the prime premise for every subsequent speculation which you invariably denote as fact based on a near zero probability of it being so. I’m in the same boat, as is everyone else who speculates on unknowns. The only difference is the credence applied for any such theories. Based on biblical studies and history, not to mention technologies now available that amounts to a fraction above zero at most.
Consider the hypotheses, "The world is flat," and "The world is a sphere." Neither is absolutely true, because the Earth, though spherical, is not a perfect sphere: but would you not say that one was a much better hypothesis than the other?
No, you misunderstand the function of a hypothetical. A hypothetical isn't used to prove what IS true, but to show what WOULD BE true IF something else were the case: in other words, it's used to explore the consequence of holding a particular hypothesis, NOT to prove that hypothesis true.Your entire system of belief is directly contingent on What-If speculations
In fact, my faith rests on several things, none of which is a hypothetical. For instance, it rests one the person of Jesus Christ, a real historical figure. It rests also on the text of Scripture, which is a real book, open for empirical and existential inspection by anyone. Then it also gets some strength from particular proofs from the scientific, mathematical, historical and existential realms, all of which work for me to create a considerable pool of data from which I draw my conclusions. Nothing there depends on a hypothetical argument.
However, the ability of Theism to ground morality, and the incapacity of Atheism to do so, is another telling demonstration IF we already know that morality is a real thing. Almost everyone (save sociopaths, perhaps) thinks it is, but most don't know how to prove that, so that particular argument has to remain hypothetical. But since it depends primarily on logical deduction drawn from Atheism's own premises, it's a pretty darn compelling one. Atheism has no credible response to it, at least none which I've ever seen.
Not at all. They are warranted conclusions, based on syllogisms -- unless you want to argue that one of Atheism's own premises is false, which I think you probably do not.from which you draw equally unwarranted conclusions regarding atheism,
Not true. And making it big doesn't make it any more true.There is no power that can justify any morality unless one can point specifically to that which upholds it but never in history existed beyond speculation.
There are many ways morality could be justified. Any ideology with a creation story can ground morality in that story. The difference will only come when we ask the question of which of these stories is actually true -- but justification of subsequent morality will be no problem for any of them at all.
However, Atheism, since it inherently requires that the world is NOT created, and thus has no teleology, no purpose and no ultimate meaning, cannot ground any morality at all.
Ah, you're trying to substitute the question, "Can an Atheist behave morally," for the question "Can Atheism ground morality?"Strange! Whenever I talk to people, eschewing politics and religion, I can never tell who’s theist and who’s atheist, not that I care.Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:37 am Atheism doesn't "require" anything. It has no values, and grounds no values.
They're not the same question at all. Anyone can choose to behave in a way not relevant to his/her ontological suppositions. That's routine. An Atheist could be a very nice, generous and friendly person -- I know several who are. But that does not mean that their Atheism supplies them with logical warrant for preferring to be nice, generous and friendly over being selfish, vicious and cruel. Atheism leaves no reason why one "must" prefer one or the other. It will only come down to what the individual sees as being in his present interests.
I was speaking again as if from Atheistic suppositions, not Theistic ones. I was simply showing you where Atheism's own logic takes one.If no such things exist then where, pray, does theism get its values from?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:37 am Your conscience is just a phenomenon of your psyche, an inexplicable intuition that is always telling you there are moral values associated with particular acts and things, whereas the truth is that, in reality, no such things exist.
Because Atheism cannot ground any morality. The Atheist might well choose to be moral; but he can never refer to his Atheism to tell him what his morality should be. Atheism has no premises that give him that, and in fact, presupposes that nothing exists that ever COULD give him that.If known by theists why would it be unknown to an atheist?
Atheism cannot connect the conclusion, "Therefore, murder is evil" to any of its own premises. Theism can.Why, for example, would a moral imperative like Thou shalt not kill, steal or give false evidence (the latter especially pertains to you) mean something different for an atheist as it would for a theist who only believes in a god without knowing for certain there is one especially one who seeks to control human behaviour?
I was still speaking from Atheist suppositions here....then why would god, in whom you trust, have endowed us with conscience in the first place if all that was necessary is to accept its rules?Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Dec 28, 2019 3:37 am So your conscience is a self-deception. Why then should you trust it? All it's doing is lying to you.
Of course, if we change that supposition, and say that there's a God who could create a world with objective moral values and give us a conscience that is attuned to some of those moral values, then the situation is very different. Then objective morality would be known to God and (let us say, at least in theory, even if we leave open the question of whether or not He's done so) communicable to mankind.
However, the second part of your question, about the Theistic reasons for conscience, is a good one. I will do my best to honour it.
There are a couple of reasons. One is that people do not always have immediate and present access to the revealed code of morality in a written form, or even the luxury of communication with someone who, say, knows it already. Therefore, human beings need some kind of internal "alarm system" to inform them of when they are in moral trouble. That's conscience. But also, the purpose of the moral law is not merely to make human beings do or not do certain particular actions: it's to inculcate in human beings the values and perspectives that are good for them and harmonious with the character and intentions of God. So the law itself was never an end in itself: its purpose is to provide good benchmarks for the reform of human character, but it is only an indicative list, or set of benchmarks, not the totality of what it means to be good.
For this reason, those who have thought that Theism is a form of "Divine Command" ethics are simply wrong. The "commands" are but the skeleton of what is going on in Theistic morality. The conscience, the character, and the relationships of human beings are primary in Theistic morality...at least in the Judeo-Christian sorts of morality.
You're going to figure out that I'm totally unimpressed by ad hominems. Boring. Irrelevant. Don't care.