”Can morality have a rational justification if atheism or naturalism is true?”

Let’s see how Ed Feser tackles this question and if it is (more or less) how I do.
Good so far

Morality understood as a system of rewards and punishments is JUST NOT morality.

Neither does the mere fact of God commanding something make it right, as if God were a cosmic dictator.

These ideas of the relation of morality to God get both God and morality wrong.
Also so far, so good.

The PROXIMATE ground of morality is NATURE, that is, the NATURES of things, and for beings with rational natures, as expressed in the NATURAL LAW.

This classical understanding of NATURE must be distinguished from the MODERN ONE, which has no moral force.
“Good” for a given thing means “that which realizes/completes its nature.”

“Evil” for a given thing is whatever inhibits its realization/actualization/completion of its nature.”
The question that soon comes up, however, is “what obligates us to do what is good?”

Even in the classical conception of Nature, nothing makes being virtuous OBLIGATORY—it is better, it is the path to happiness, εὐδαιμονία, which all men desire. But what makes this BINDING?
Kant thought “nothing at all,” since NATURE (Kant is a modern) provides no obligatory force. Kant thought to find it in REASON. But that just raises the parallel question: Why should I listen to reason? I am a rational creature by nature, but Kant rejects the appeal to nature.
My general view is that what God does—one thing that God does—is to provide morality with is OBLIGATORY FORCE.

Anyway, let’s get back to Feser.
Feser: a natural ground for goodness presupposes at the very minimum a teleological concept of nature, that is, the classical conception rather than the modern “scientific” conception (which is actually not a conception at all, but a methodological stipulation).
So one could be an atheist AND give a kind of grounding to morality, viz. a proximate grounding in the natures of things and the natural law, but NOT on a modernistic “naturalism.”
And of course Feser is entirely correct that THE CLASSICAL TELEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE has NOTHING to do with Paley’s “watchmaker”-style argument or recent “intelligent design” arguments.
Feser: without REAL intentionality (which requires real natural ends, τέλη), there cannot be ANY intentionality, and hence no morality.

Naturalistic morality turns out to be a game of “let’s pretend,” viz. “let’s pretend there’s some obligation to do good or further well-being."
When Sam Harris wants to ground a naturalistic “scientific” morality in “human well-being”, the trouble isn’t so much that he is WRONG about well-being being a natural good, but that HIS OWN NATURALISM DISALLOWS HIM THE CONCEPT—except as a game of “let’s pretend.”
Harris, of course, REALLY agrees with Dawkins, that there JUST ISN’T anything intrinsically more or less moral about “furthering human well-being” than anything else—but he asks that we all “pretend” that there is.
This hustle works because what Harris asks us to “pretend” is true, is actually true, so many people are willing to go along with Harris’ game of make-believe.

It isn’t hard to get people to play make-believe when what you ask them to make-believe is ACTUALLY TRUE.
But the fact remains that what Harris asks us to pretend is true and act “as if” it is true, even though it is true, it CANNOT BE TRUE FOR HARRIS.

It MUST BE make-believe.

Harris can’t hold it to be actually TRUE (even though it happens to be, which is why people accept it).
So it follows that Harris has no answer to the Nietzschean who says “Fuck human well-being. The proper object of human action is to create something GREATER than human, the Übermensch, and that requires A LOT of human suffering, and so what?”
But I digress. Back to Feser.
It’s an important point though:

the “Harris Hustle” works because he asks us all to “pretend” there’s a real basis for morality and to act “as if” there is one—which his own worldview utterly disallows—but the “let’s pretend” and “act as if” WORKS (kind of) because IT’S TRUE.
Now back to Feser.
And of course Feser is entirely correct that THE CLASSICAL TELEOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF NATURE has NOTHING to do with Paley’s “watchmaker”-style argument or recent “intelligent design” arguments.

I forgot to post Feser’s last before commenting on it. 🤦🏻‍♀️
I already commented on this part of Feser’s piece, so let’s go on to the next.
Feser: So while atheism of a sort may be compatible with morality, in a qualified way, NATURALISM is not compatible with morality, and the vast, vast majority of atheists are naturalists.

Naturalistic atheism is NOT compatible with morality.
And non-naturalistic atheism, while (apparently) logically possible, seems very hard to say what it would even be like.
But I’ll kick it back to Feser, because even a non-naturalistic atheism (whatever the hell that is) can only have morality in a qualified sort of way.

Thought through, morality needs an ultimate GROUND and STANDARD which makes NATURAL GOODS good, and morality OBLIGATORY.
That’s it for Feser’s opening statement to Parsons. But I’ll add one of the essays Feser links to, where he fleshes out the dependence of morality on God in an ULTIMATE, though not PROXIMATE, sense.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن

Eve Keneinan 𝛗☦️ن Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @EveKeneinan

10 Dec
Dr. Manhattan from Watchmen epitomizes the scientific attitude (re: the Comedian’s murder):

“A live body and a dead body contain the same number of particles. Structurally there’s no discernible difference. Life and death are unquantifiable abstracts. Why should I be concerned?"
EVERY science begins with a number of foundational principles that are THEMSELVES non-scientific.

Physics begins from the idea that there is a material world, that it is uniform, that it is regular, etc.
Biology begins the the assumption that there are living beings.

This is of course not an irrational thing to believe. It is actually true.

But the point is that SCIENCE doesn’t know that it is true. Physics can’t tell a “living being” from any other being.
Read 8 tweets
10 Dec
One of the things that is most commonly misunderstood in arguments between theists and atheists is the extent to which they go “all the way down”: the disagreement extends far into the question of what the disagreement IS and MEANS and INVOLVES.

Here’s Alasdair MacIntyre:
One striking instance of not appreciating this is Keith Parsons the noted (former) philosopher of religion’s remark here.

“Both theism and atheism begin with an uncaused brute fact.”

This is wrong. Atheism MUST include brute facts. Theism MUST exclude them. They are OPPOSED.
The atheist cannot conceptualize God as other than a brute fact. That is, the atheist cannot conceptualize God.
Read 7 tweets
10 Dec
I’m on the 2nd page (numbered 4), and I have already identified Sobel’s Πρῶτον ψεῦδος / Grundirrtum, i.e. the foundational error at the beginning whence everything that follows goes awry. As St. Thomas says, “A small error at the beginning can lead to great errors later." Image
I thought Sobel’s contention that “God” was a proper name was just a basic error, one I could overlook—although when one is writing a book about God, one really ought to know the grammar of the word—but I was mistaken.

It is a part of a RHETORICAL STRATEGY.
As you can see, Sobel is able, in calling “God” a proper name, to claim that in order to find out what “God exists” means, we’d need to know the KIND of thing “God” is a proper example of, and of course he picks “god.”

“God” is a proper name for a god, just like “Thor.” Image
Read 4 tweets
9 Dec
David Bentley Hart makes some very similar points. ImageImageImageImage
Here is Hart: Image
The experience of God is the BEST POSSIBLE evidence for the existence of God. Any good faith effort to find out whether there is God or not will necessarily involve the methods by means of which one most opens oneself up to the experience of God.
Read 9 tweets
9 Dec
Since we can know that God is perfect, we can know that God is (perfectly) wise and just.

So we know that all God’s acts are perfectly wise and just.

Some of God’s acts may not seem to we fallen & finite beings to be wise and just, but that is because we are fallen & finite.
My general argument in this territory is that we are simply NEVER in a sufficient epistemic position to JUDGE GOD.

This is the teaching of the book of Job.
1 No human being is ever in an epistemic position to justifiably judge God
2 Many atheistic arguments depend on human beings being justifiably able to judge God
3 ∴ any atheistic argument that requires this is necessarily unsound.
Read 11 tweets
22 Nov
Aristotle’s relationship to Plato on this point is misunderstood.

I there were a “Platonism” scale from 0-5, Plato would be a 3 and Aristotle a 2, whereas the members of the Academy against who Aristotle contended would be more of a 4.
Idealism would be a 5, and Nominalism a 0.

Assuming we equate “Platonism” (much too simply) as “realism regarding abstract entities.”

Plato did not, e.g. think artifacts like toasters or houses had an ἰδέα in the full sense.
Aristotle is ENTIRELY clear in the Metaphysics: YES, independent abstract primary substances do exist. In other words, Aristotle affirms the existence of PLATONICA.

He does seem to think these are FEWER than Plato did, but he in NO WAY, SHAPE, or FORM (pun intended) DENIES THEM.
Read 7 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!