I'd recommend you looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion. It's simple, elegant and you have no magical and mystical unproven qualities that need reconciliation. From thermodynamics, you can learn theorize better to why life behaves as it does and helps take the mystery out of a lot of it. I'd argue morality is a thermodynamic function, even. Morality being derived from pain/pleasure senses, which derive from chemical processes, etc but of course, no one ultimately knows. But to me, saying "definitions of right and wrong are not based on the relations of objects nor can be perceived by reason" is false. Many people who convert to a religion do so because that religion may make some sort of sense to them. That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on, because it made some sort of logical sense. Not much but just enough to lure me in. You can use that tactic with people for all kinds of uses, to tell just enough truth to get them to believe you and if they like it enough, you can get away with falsehoods. Many use reason to justify their statements about how their gods or moral codes don't have to abide by reason, ironically.
https://www.quantamagazine.org/20140122-a-new-physics-theory...
No one is foolish enough to deny that various societies develop moral codes, generally based on their experiences (eg, pain). The question is whether moral statements (eg, "Humans should not murder") are objective and Real (they refer to some objective Moral Fact) or whether this was just a delusion we invented and used to survive.
>>but the best we can conclude, morality can be derived from reason and emotion
No. This is the entire Is-Ought argument. Saying "Hume is wrong" does not refute Hume. You would need to give a reason.
>>looking at life more in a thermodynamic fashion
Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period.
>>But to me, saying…is false.
As expected, that's not a refutation.
>>That's one of the reasons I became a christian early on
In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further.
>>Materialism cannot point to a source of objective moral values. Period.
Yes, it can. Whatever the material is derived from, it's chained to a more objective link. So yes, you can use relative morality to argue that it, in itself, has objectivity. For example, someone higher in rank says Saturday is a day off yet he gives the order to his inferior that he can then order that Saturday can be either. You have relative order coming from objective order.
>>In my opinion, based on your given conceptions of metaethics, rather than dismiss this avenue of inquiry with the reasoning "it made some sort of logical sense [but not enough]" you could likely have explored the concept further.
Ah, the old 'because you don't believe, you haven't been spending enough decades of your life exploring the religion I want you to believe in'. Meanwhile, hundreds of other religious people want me to explore their hundreds of gods and hundreds of interpretations through hundreds of years of philosophical wankery. I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.
You're right that if the reasoning given for seeking, knowing, or relying on truth was "because man seeks truth" this would be an invalid reason, subject to the Is-Ought problem. But that's not the reason I encourage you to know truth.
>The more you try to make logic of illogic…
As far as Christianity, there seems to be sort of a divide between a Western tradition that intended to show Christianity as ultimately reasonable (ie, scholasticism in the Church of Rome, the Church of England, many Protestant denominations) and groups that sort of just admit the system is fundamentally unreasonable and mystical such as the Orthodox, Roman mystics like John of Ruusbroec, Baptists, and Pentecostals. I sort of side with the latter.
>Yes, it can.…
It metaethics, an individual human's decree/decision is subjective. Maybe start by looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism
>I just could as well say you haven't explored atheism enough and that's why you haven't arrived to it.
"I used to be a nihilist but then I thought, what's the point?"
You generalize atheists and atheism so much as to dilute your target, a common and cheap practice in debate. Atheism is already diluted enough because it's a non-belief, nothing else, so there's little target for generalization there even though you love to employ it in a desperate attempt to find something to latch on to and debate. And the atheists I know, most are relative moralists. That doesn't mean they don't think humanity doesn't have a moral compass, in general, but they tend to mean that there's no facts to demonstrate moral code, as you just said in your link. There's so much wrong with your arguments there, I don't know where to start.