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…
Forget about the religion part, it is just how i ended up post this.
So first things first, I am not saying take something random as premise, what i am saying is you can take a related premise like god to base your actions(praise, not lying etc.). And someone else can question that premise, which is god.
From here i want to question something else, premises that are more foundational like analytical truths. For example: A is B B is C C is A
Here I just want to ask a one simple question: How?
What does “A is equivalent to B” mean here. That’s what I say. Me, myself couldn’t find an answer to this question. It is just obvious, intuitional but I just can’t answer “How?”.