Couple of days ago I saw a post about on atheist community about a quote saying atheist can't base their morals on anything.
I commented that if religion didn't accept some premises like god, they wouldn't either. Some said I am wrong and downvoted me. So I decided to post here about to what extent can I be skeptical about premises, to see where I am mistaken (or commenters).
Before that post, for a while I had an idea that even the analytical truth/necessary truth (whatever you name it) like "a is equal to a" are premises which can not be proven (since they are the basics of our logic, which will we be in use to prove claims) even though they seem us to be true by intuition. They just have to be accepted to be able to further think about other things.
So my question is since we can question the correctness of basics of our logic and cant find an answer, we can not justify or learn anything. Also, there lays the problem of do we really understand the same thing from the same concepts, and does language limit us?
If I am mistaken, which is highly probable, please correct me and don't judge. I am not much of a philosophy reader.
I would really appreciate it if you could share some resources (video, article, book, anything...) about limits of our understanding, logic, language and related topics.
Thanks in advance...
I know "regress problem of justification" but checking it out again on stanford encyclopedia really widen my view, but still clueless whats the answer since there is also a conflict about the topic among academia.
Thanks for book recommendation, it touches on many topics, but I certainly will check out.
Expressing this like seem to me as "They are true because we say so". It is supported with how we define it, so there is no external claim to support it, so how can we be sure they are correct.
Without wishing to lay down the law, I think "Euthyphro dilemma" is easy to answer, depending on your definition of god. My definition being: God is the creator of everything. There was nothing before it. It can alter or destroy everything, also it can create anything. So pious things defined by god. It didn't love something and defined it as "good", it willed everything to happen and named things "good".
Socrates says:
Pious didn't exist before god, so "it is pious because god willed".
And may I ask why does god need justification; assuming god(my definition) exists, reasoning, logic and other things can not exist without its will, so they were not there when god was. Doesn't that make god free from logicality?
I hope it is not annoying to answer a clueless like me, thanks for help.
The point of Euthyphro's dilemma isn't just to state the two options and have us to choose what we like, of course. The point is that if you choose to answer with God creating moral facts, you face issues that lead many to reject the choice. I think it's better if I linked you to something short instead of explaining the issues with it myself, page 131-135 of Nicholas Everitt's book (free to read): https://archive.org/details/NicholasEverittTheNonExistenceOfGod/page/n145/mode/2up
What I shared wasn't the normal Euthyphro's dilemma, it was a modified version I found in an ethics book. I'm not sure how to state it better.
I have read it but I have still a question in mind. Okay god doesn't provide moral reasons to act the way it wants so what? It is god, it says us to do something and if we don't it punishes, if we do it rewards.
This is a different way to look at the situation we are in but it doesn't change anything about the situation. If one believes in god, one should still have to act the way god says. That does just mean they don't do what they do for moral reasons, they do what they do for the sake of award given by god.
Thanks for the resource