I have a question
My philosophical problem starts with morality and ends up at the foundations of reason and truth.
If Christianity is true and God put a moral law in our conscience, what actually forces someone, especially an atheist, to follow it? If conscience can be wrong and is shaped by culture, biology and experience, why should it count as an objective guide?
And if I can doubt conscience, then I can also doubt moral intuitions and even the idea of good and evil. That makes me wonder if morality is really objective at all.
Then the same issue appears with reason. Why should I trust it? If reason mainly evolved because it helps us survive, that does not necessarily mean it leads to truth. It might just be useful for getting by, not for seeing reality as it really is.
But when you try to justify reason or truth, you end up using reason itself, which feels circular. Morality seems to have the same problem.
Thomism says reason connects us to an intelligible reality and truth means matching reality. Instrumentalism says we only need useful models, not deep metaphysical truth.
So the question for me is how you can justify reason, truth and morality without going in circles, or infinite explanations, or just saying “it works so it’s fine.”
This has pushed me away from both simple materialism and easy religious answers, and into a more agnostic position, but still open to ideas like consciousness, the soul, and things beyond just the physical world.
Although I may not be able to respond to everyone, I am very grateful.