tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5542727717489624684..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: If Christian sexual ethics is mistaken, secularists need to work on a replacementVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger89125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23083815912688587142016-07-09T10:37:16.555-07:002016-07-09T10:37:16.555-07:00Angra,
It's fine with me when atheists like y...Angra,<br /><br />It's fine with me when atheists like you refuse to defend key presuppositions of your argument (such as it is) against Christianity. I like it when atheists build skyscrapers on quicksand. Go right ahead. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25762290696048187912016-07-07T09:13:37.837-07:002016-07-07T09:13:37.837-07:00Jeff said:
"A better name for 'intrinsic...Jeff said:<br /><br />"A better name for 'intrinsic value' might be 'non-derivative value' and a better name for 'extrinsic value' might be 'derivative value.' If I ask you, 'Why do you like to go rowing?' and you answer, 'Because I love the feeling of the scull breaking through the water when the boat is at a full sprint,' your answer reveals that, for you, rowing is extrinsically or derivatively valuable: it is valuable because it is a means to an end. If you then ask, 'Why do you like the feeling of the scull breaking through the water when the boat is at a full sprint?' and you answer, 'I just do,' then that feeling is intrinsically (non-derivatively) valuable to you: it is an end, not a means to an end. The point is that, as soon as you make the distinction between intrinsic vs. extrinsic or derivative vs. non-derivative types of value, it is trivial to show that, even on the most reductionistic, materialistic versions of atheism, there can still be intrinsic (aka non-derivative) value."<br /><br />Suppose, due to brain damage, I have an irrepressible urge to swallow lightbulbs. Of course, that's hazardous to my digestive system. Dangerous to swallow or excrete broken glass.<br /><br />If you ask me, "Why do you swallow light bulbs?" I say, "I do it because I love the feeling of swallowing light bulbs." If you ask me "Why do you love it?" I say, "I just do". <br /><br />But surely there's something amiss with that answer. I'm not supposed to love swallowing light bulbs. That's a life-threatening compulsion.<br /><br />Jeff's comparison omits the normative dimension of value. Whether something has value or disvalue independent of how we feel about it, in spite of how we feel about it. <br /><br />In fact, his comparison illustrates subjectivism rather than realism. In his illustration, the experience is right or wrong in virtue of how we feel about it, rather than how we feel about it being right or wrong in virtue of something independent of our attitude towards it. Right or wrong despite our attitude towards it. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12489567799714614852016-07-06T20:20:29.402-07:002016-07-06T20:20:29.402-07:00Ed, honestly, coming onto a thread and completely ...Ed, honestly, coming onto a thread and completely changing the topic is rather bizarre and unproductive behavior.Scotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07597410735412554920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-10926142401896780312016-07-06T13:47:43.809-07:002016-07-06T13:47:43.809-07:00Steve, Are you still a fan of the YEC position?
...Steve, Are you still a fan of the YEC position? <br /><br />Do you still find no reason to admit that the authors of the Bible may have assumed a flat earth with the heavens being the upper stories and sheol (and later "hell" in much Xn thought) being the basement?<br /><br />Do you still insist that scholars are incorrect for agreeing with the above assessment of the biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence for such an ancient flat earth view? <br /><br />Evangelicals other than Denis Lam. (who is not a liberal, but an Evangelical Pentecostal), such as John Walton and others have admitted the evidence from the Bible and the ancient Near East jives well together. <br /><br />Your defense of YECism parallels J. P. Holding's own view of maintaining YEC as his default position, and expressing little interest in learning more about how the age of the earth and cosmos was determined. I guess ancient Near Eastern backgrounds as well as modern cosmological and geological science really aren't worth studying compared with juggling one's interpretation of the Bible so it comes out "inerrant" cover to cover. <br />Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29519217420149102662016-07-06T13:30:31.770-07:002016-07-06T13:30:31.770-07:00STEVE, JEFF AND MORAL REALISM
Definition: Moral R...STEVE, JEFF AND MORAL REALISM<br /><br />Definition: Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them.<br /><br />But exactly which values are we talking about? Let's see a definitive list that mentions exactly how people must behave toward one another, and exactly what the laws of enforcement should be along with the type and duration of punishments when they don't. Please show us a list, and then let's see how many theists from all religious traditions agree with such a list or not. *smile* <br /><br />I suspect that the most basic moral values are just like other things humans have come to assess and define as "valuable" both individually and especially between two or more humans, due to basic shared biology and a shared need and desire to remain around others. <br /><br />In other words, I donʼt think many people have great difficulty agreeing on the most basic values they hold dear relative to the alternatives:<br /><br />1) being healthy rather than chronically ill or in pain<br /><br />2) being mentally healthy, rather than losing oneʼs memories and ability to concentrate<br />eating rather than starving<br /><br />3) having at least a little money rather than living in abject poverty<br /><br />4) being sociable and having some friends rather than being shunned or living in total isolation from other humans and their society or their creations<br /><br />5) living in peace and safety rather than living in fear of having oneʼs life, belongings, family, friends, job, etc., taken from one at someone elseʼs whim<br /><br />6) living in peace and safety rather than living in fear of having oneʼs life, belongings, family, friends, job, etc.,taken from one via natureʼs whimsical disasters, pandemics, genetic mutations, or day to day accidents<br /><br />And if people can't agree on the above, then I don't see how you are going to get everyone to agree on bronze age commandments and means of punishment. Just compare the First Commandment (no other gods before me under penalty of death), with the First Amendment (freedom of speech and religion). <br /><br /><br /><br />Edwardtbabinskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13036816926421936940noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39046198213525116682016-07-06T11:25:51.561-07:002016-07-06T11:25:51.561-07:00I see Jeff did a post on our debate:
http://www.p...I see Jeff did a post on our debate:<br /><br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/07/06/are-atheism-and-moral-realism-logically-incompatible/<br /><br />Two basic problems with Jeff's introduction:<br /><br />1. Nowhere in my statements on the Dangerous Idea thread did I discuss what Jeff says our recent interaction has shown to be the case. In our exchanges on that thread, I didn't discuss the argument from evil or how that's related to moral realism. On the face of it, Jeff is simply using this as a pretext to saddle up his hobbyhorse.<br /><br />And I notice that Jeff's fanboys in the combos don't even register the obvious disconnect. Confirmation bias blinds them to the hiatus.<br /><br />2. Moreover, as I've repeatedly explained on other occasions, I never said that atheists who deny moral realism can't mount an argument from evil. Rather, what I've said is this:<br /><br />i) If an atheist is implicitly or explicitly mounting an external argument from evil, then that only works if he can defend moral realism on secular grounds. Put another way, if an atheist believes the world contains objective moral evils which are incompatible with the existence of a benevolent, omniscient, omnipotent God, then moral realism is a presupposition of his argument. So he needs to be able to defend that necessary presupposition consistent with his atheism. He is judging Christian theism by his own standards.<br /><br />ii) If an atheist is mounting an internal argument from evil, then, in principle, he could do so even if he himself denies moral realism. <br /><br />However, as I've also pointed out, if he denies moral realism, then he implicitly denies epistemic duties, in which case there's nothing morally wrong with believing in Christian theism even if it's demonstrably false. So what is the purpose of critiquing Christian theism if you reject moral realism? What's the rational motivation for convincing people that something is false unless you think people ought to reject falsehood? <br /><br />Why does Jeff find those distinctions so hard to grasp or remember? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74478908600875049402016-07-06T10:51:04.578-07:002016-07-06T10:51:04.578-07:00Let's zero in on one of Jeff's key confusi...Let's zero in on one of Jeff's key confusions. I never suggested, as a general principle, that anything temporary is worthless. Rather, I had specific reference to human existence.<br /><br />A temporarily experience can be, and often is, worthwhile. A remembered experience. <br /><br />A temporary event can be worthwhile insofar as it contributes to the well-being of the individual. The event itself now lies in the past, but it may have a beneficial, ongoing effect, or be a useful stepping stone. <br /><br />If, however, the individual himself ceases to exist, then he can't remember the experience. In the long run, that event won't accrue to his benefit. Oblivion cancels everything out. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17772388162000092422016-07-06T09:37:14.061-07:002016-07-06T09:37:14.061-07:00Satta M. said...
"You make the best of it....Satta M. said...<br /> "You make the best of it."<br />Atheists like Jeff do more than "make the best of it". They promote atheism as if it's good thing. Indeed, far superior to Christianity. <br />"I can only speak for myself, but they don't fill me with existential dread, they just make me feel sorry for you, they show me people who are terrified of death, terrified of not mattering."<br /><br />i) To begin with, fear of death is natural and pretty universal. Atheists are hardly exempt from that.<br /><br />ii) It's easy for you to pretend that you don't dread it when you speak of death as an abstraction that's at a safe distance from you, but when people get into life-threatening situations, their faux nonchalance has a way of vanishing in a flash. When death ceases to be merely an idea, and becomes an imminent threat, most people panic.<br /><br />iii) So a temporary bit of protoplasm called Satta is telling another temporary bit of protoplasm called Steve that she feels sorry for bits of protoplasm like him. But why should I care about Satta's opinion of me when we will both pass into oblivion in less than a century from now? Why does Satta imagine that her opinion of someone else counts for anything in the great scheme of things?<br /><br /> "You make the best of what it is, not the fantasy that you wish it were."<br /><br />From a secular standpoint, what's wrong with entertaining a fantasy? If atheism is true, then when you're dead, it makes no difference to you if your corpse is a Christian corpse or atheist corpse.<br /><br />And if living a fantasy makes you happier, why not live a fantasy? If a godless universe, no one can say it's wrong for me to live a fantasy. What I do with my little life is up to me. <br /><br />"I agree, but do you think that helps the case for Christian theism?"<br /><br />It hurts the case for atheism because you can't say that your wiring is better than Ted Bundy's or Jeffrey Dahmer's. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86983546184054060102016-07-06T09:29:10.884-07:002016-07-06T09:29:10.884-07:00Another problem with Jeff's attempted analogy ...Another problem with Jeff's attempted analogy is that my statement wasn't confined to eventual nonexistence. I also noted that according to atheism, Jeff came into existence for no good reason. But Jeff presumably thinks there is a good reason for money. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80826230248937562842016-07-06T09:14:04.107-07:002016-07-06T09:14:04.107-07:00Steve-
"While Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer w...Steve-<br /><br />"While Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were wired for sociopathology."<br /><br />I agree, but do you think that helps the case for Christian theism?<br /><br />Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62225049063720930472016-07-06T09:13:23.541-07:002016-07-06T09:13:23.541-07:00"You can't be serious. You're using t..."You can't be serious. You're using the same excuse my children use, 'But he did it, too!', as if that makes it okay. Two wrongs don't make a right."<br /><br />So Jeff is telling us he can't think clearly. I never conceded Jeff's allegation of wrongdoing. Rather, I explicitly discussed it from a hypothetical standpoint, to expose Jeff's selective morality. His objection is disingenuous. <br /><br />"This is just more deflection on Steve's part. In effect, he's saying, 'I'm justified in being rude to atheists because atheists can't justify condemning me for my rudeness.'"<br /><br />Actually, I'm pointing to the ironic fact that atheists like Jeff can't stand it when people treat atheists consistent with the reductionist view of humanity that atheism entails. <br /><br />"Even if it were the case that an atheist could not justifying a complaint about being treated rudely, it would still be the case that, as a theist, Steve is a moral realist."<br /><br />As a moral realist, I don't accept Jeff's prissy code of etiquette. I've said many "rude" things about Donald Trump. I've done that because I'm a moral realism, and Trump deserves it. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-65280292525759425592016-07-06T09:12:25.508-07:002016-07-06T09:12:25.508-07:00"He's never been able to grasp the signif..."He's never been able to grasp the significance of the distinction between 'cosmic' or 'ultimate' significance and non-cosmic, non-ultimate significance, or the fact that 'life has no ultimate significance' allows for 'life has significance.'" <br /><br />Actually, I drew that distinction. For some Nazis, Jews had no cosmic or ultimate significance, but they did have non-cosmic, non-ultimate significance when their skin was used to make Nazi lampshades. <br /><br />"It's a bit like complaining that winning one million dollars or even just one hundred dollars from the lottery has no value because the money won't last as long as you would like…If I win a finite amount of money from the lottery, that money will not last forever. Therefore, it has no value. That argument fails for the same reason Steve's argument fails. A thing does not need to have an infinite amount of value--or value for an infinite duration--in order to have value."<br /><br />i) I didn't suggest a thing needs to have an infinite amount of value to have value.<br /><br />ii) Jeff's analogy is quite unfortunate for his position. Money has no intrinsic or objective value. People impute value to money because it's more convenient than a barter economy. But consider the value of Confederate currency after the South lost the war, or the value of money during hyperinflation. The value people assign to money is an arbitrary social convention, as a means to an end. Money can instantly become literally worthless. <br /><br />iii) What Jeff's analogy actually proves is that humans, like money, have no inherent value, given atheism. They only have utilitarian value (like money), or subjective value–insofar as people project value onto other humans. And, of course, that's very selective. <br /><br />"If everything is worthless, then the fact that 'everything is worthless' is itself worthless and we should pay no attention to it."<br /><br />So this is Jeff's feeble attempt to be clever, but it fails:<br /><br />i) To begin with, I'm posing an argument ad impossibile. The fact that atheism is incoherent doesn't mean you can't discuss the consequence of atheism from a hypothetical or counterfactual standpoint.<br /><br />ii) Moreover, I didn't say that if everything is worthless, then nothing is true. Rather, on that scenario, it would be true that everything is worthless. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62706541568071438032016-07-06T05:51:19.822-07:002016-07-06T05:51:19.822-07:00Jeff,
Actually, I do see the importance of those ...Jeff,<br /><br />Actually, I do see the importance of those distinctions. Thank you.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1309810476010716122016-07-05T21:12:15.167-07:002016-07-05T21:12:15.167-07:00Satta M. said...
"I'm wired for empathy...Satta M. said...<br /><br /> "I'm wired for empathy."<br /><br />While Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were wired for sociopathology. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-29327712031971021172016-07-05T16:05:18.999-07:002016-07-05T16:05:18.999-07:00"Honey, I love you"
"Oh, that'...<br /><br />"Honey, I love you"<br /><br />"Oh, that's so sweet."<br /><br />"Not <i>really</i> cookie, I'm just wired that way."Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3877562853224410022016-07-05T15:01:44.627-07:002016-07-05T15:01:44.627-07:00If atheism is true, Jeff's existence has no in...<br /><i>If atheism is true, Jeff's existence has no intrinsic value. At best, it's only subjectively valuable–the way some Nazis (alleged) valued Jews as as raw material for lamp shades.</i><br /><br />Although this statement begs the question, it doesn't work. Steve, like many theists <i>and atheists,</i> has confused "intrinsic value" with "objective value." But these are separate concepts. There are four possibilities:<br /><br />(1) Objectively intrinsically valuable<br />(2) Objectively extrinsically valuable<br />(3) Subjectively intrinsically valuable<br />(4) Subjectively extrinsically valuable<br /><br />(These four possibilities become eight if you add in the possibility of having disvalue.)<br /><br />A better name for "intrinsic value" might be "non-derivative value" and a better name for "extrinsic value" might be "derivative value." If I ask you, "Why do you like to go rowing?" and you answer, "Because I love the feeling of the scull breaking through the water when the boat is at a full sprint," your answer reveals that, for you, rowing is extrinsically or derivatively valuable: it is valuable <i>because</i> it is a means to an end. If you then ask, "Why do you like the feeling of the scull breaking through the water when the boat is at a full sprint?" and you answer, "I just do," then that feeling is intrinsically (non-derivatively) valuable to you: it is an end, not a means to an end.<br /><br />The point is that, as soon as you make the distinction between intrinsic vs. extrinsic or derivative vs. non-derivative types of value, it is trivial to show that, even on the most reductionistic, materialistic versions of atheism, there can still be intrinsic (aka non-derivative) value.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-80251693953325785122016-07-05T15:01:36.540-07:002016-07-05T15:01:36.540-07:00i) Suppose for the sake of argument that Jeff'...<i>i) Suppose for the sake of argument that Jeff's allegation is true. Keith Parsons, who's a regular contributor to the Secular Outpost, routinely makes rude comments about Christians. </i><br /><br />You can't be serious. You're using the same excuse my children use, "But he did it, too!", as if that makes it okay. Two wrongs don't make a right.<br /><br />I don't remember off the top of my head Keith Parsons making sweeping generalizations about all Christians. But if I'm wrong about that and/or if he has been rude in some other way, then he was wrong to do so and I will condemn it.<br /><br /><i>Likewise, the historical library and modern library at the Secular Web contains articles by atheists that make rude comments about Christians. So it's instructive to see Jeff's double standard on display (even assuming that his allegation is true).</i><br /><br />I tried very hard to prevent this from happening in the modern library at the Secular Web while I held a leadership position and I doubt very much that this happened while I was the editor. If it has happened, that is regrettable. I am even willing to try to bring any items in this category to the attention of Keith Augustine, who is the current editor, to try to get them fixed. But, again, this is mere deflection by Steve. This doesn't excuse Steve's rudeness.<br /><br /><i>ii) But this brings us to a substantive point: Jeff thinks that he is important. That his dignity is important.</i><br /><br />This is just more deflection on Steve's part. In effect, he's saying, "I'm justified in being rude to atheists because atheists can't justify condemning me for my rudeness." Even if it were the case that an atheist could not justifying a complaint about being treated rudely, it would still be the case that, as a theist, Steve is a moral realist. But as we've seen, Steve has been unable to demonstrate a logical inconsistency between atheism and moral realism. <br /><br /><i>This is one of Jeff's intellectual problems. He's never allowed himself to appreciate the reductionistic consequences of atheism for human significance. </i><br /><br />This is one of Steve's intellectual problems. (See how easy it is to mirror Steve's condescension right back at him?) He's never been able to grasp the significance of the distinction between 'cosmic' or 'ultimate' significance and non-cosmic, non-ultimate significance, or the fact that "life has no ultimate significance" allows for "life has significance." It's a bit like complaining that winning one million dollars or even just one hundred dollars from the lottery has no value because the money won't last as long as you would like.<br /><br /><i>If atheism is true, then Jeff is worthless. Everything is worthless.</i><br /><br />If everything is worthless, then the fact that "everything is worthless" is itself worthless and we should pay no attention to it. <br /><br /><i>Jeff is a temporary entity that came into existence for no good reason, that will soon pass out of existence. Jeff is interchangeable with billions of other human biological units. He will be replaced. </i><br /><br />Analogy:<br />If I win a finite amount of money from the lottery, that money will not last forever. Therefore, it has no value.<br /><br />That argument fails for the same reason Steve's argument fails. A thing does not need to have an infinite amount of value--or value for an infinite duration--in order to have value.<br />Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58747185252916355752016-07-05T12:05:59.069-07:002016-07-05T12:05:59.069-07:00Could you expand on the way you're using the i...Could you expand on the way you're using the italicized "really" in that sentence? What would make it more real?Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25876375552257587502016-07-05T11:44:57.686-07:002016-07-05T11:44:57.686-07:00"I am wired for empathy"
I see. So, you..."I am wired for empathy"<br /><br />I see. So, you don't <i>really</i> "feel sorry" . You are just wired that way. In that case, perhaps those who are "terrified of death" aren't really terrified of death, they are just wired that way?<br /><br />Apparently, some meaningless and determined conditions that we call "selves" believe that is "true" that their meaningless and determined non-self selves have a more meaningful grasp of meaninglessness.<br /><br />Oy.<br /> <br />Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26955396988829690112016-07-05T10:28:19.547-07:002016-07-05T10:28:19.547-07:00Or something to that effect. Given my mixup on Ada...<i>Or something to that effect. Given my mixup on Adams vs. Pojman, I won't blame anyone if they want to wait until I produce the exact quotation.</i><br /><br />Found it, courtesy of Amazon's "Search Inside" feature:<br /><br />"What <i>is</i> true about goodness if God <i>does</i> not exist, or <i>is</i> not in fact a suitable candidate for the role of the Good? This is a conditional question about the actual world, not about other possible worlds; and I am confident of my answer to it. <b>If there is no God, or if God is in fact not a suitable candidate for the role of the Good, then my theory is false, but there may be some other salient, suitable candidate, and so some other theory of the nature of the good may be true.</b><br /><br />"Against the background I offer the less ambitious approach to the corresponding question about other possible worlds, which I asked on the assumption that God does exist, and is a suitable candidate, in the actual world. A deity would have to satisfy certain conditions (for instance, not being sadistic, and not loving cowardice) in order to be the salient candidate for filling the role indicated by our concept of the Good, thought it is part of the point of my theory that such requirements do not completely determine what the deity would be like. If there is a God that satisfies these conditions imposed by our concepts, we might say, then excellence is the property of faithfully imaging such a God, or of resembling such a God in such a way as to give God a reason for loving. <b>In worlds where no such God exists, nothing would have <i>that</i> property, and therefore nothing would be excellent. But beings like us in such a world might have a concept subjectively indistinguishable from our concept of excellence, and there might be an objective property that corresponded to it well enough, and in a sufficiently salient way, to be the property signified by it, though it would not be the property that we in fact signify by 'excellent'.</b>"<br />-- Robert Adams, <i>Finite and Infinite Goods</i>, p. 46.<br />(All italics are from the original; boldface is mine)<br /><br />I've always respected Adams' work on theistic metaethics and this highly nuanced passage is an example of why.<br /><br />I could be wrong, but I interpret Adams to be saying:<br /><br />(1) Atheism is logically incompatible with moral realism, IF realist/objective moral obligations are determined according to Adams' theory of excellence and his modified divine command theory are true.<br /><br />He does NOT seem to be saying:<br /><br />(2) Atheism is logically incompatible with moral realism about moral obligations. <br /><br />In fact, depending upon how you interpret it, the end of the quotation I just provided seems to be either (a) Adams, saying in his own words, that atheism is compatible with moral obligation, if his theory of moral obligation is wrong; or (b) the difference between what counts as morally right/wrong/permitted on his theory vs. some secular alternative makes no practical difference. <br /><br />And I think that Adams rejects:<br /><br />(3) Atheism is logically incompatible with moral realism about moral value. <br /><br />I think that Adams rejects (3) because he defends a Modified Divine Command Theory of moral obligation (what is morally permitted, prohibited, or obligatory), but he subscribes to a Divine Independence Theory (my name) of moral value (what is morally good or bad). <br /><br />In fact, now that I think about it, the statement:<br /><br />(4) Atheism is logically incompatible with moral realism.<br /><br />Entails both (2) and (3). Even if it were the case that atheism were logically incompatible with realism about moral obligation, it could still be the case that that atheism is logically consistent with realism about moral value. Because (4) doesn't make a distinction between moral obligation and moral value, showing that atheism is logically compatible with moral value is, all by itself, sufficient to refute (4).<br /><br />So maybe I was correct to list Robert Adams after all.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-66899718229301067482016-07-05T10:25:02.486-07:002016-07-05T10:25:02.486-07:00"Why is that?"
I'm wired for empath..."Why is that?"<br /><br />I'm wired for empathyJimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76254970434044029642016-07-05T10:15:13.098-07:002016-07-05T10:15:13.098-07:00"they just make me feel sorry for you"
..."they just make me feel sorry for you"<br /><br />Why is that? If nothing <i>really</i> matters? <br /><br />Feel sorry.<br />Don't feel sorry.<br />Make the best of it.<br />Don't make the best of it.<br />Live.<br />Don't live.<br /><br />Like the kids say these days- whatever.Chrishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04865413665629644313noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91627739799972299082016-07-05T10:06:35.151-07:002016-07-05T10:06:35.151-07:00Two related questions for Jeff:
I'm not a nih...<i>Two related questions for Jeff:</i><br /><br />I'm not a nihilist, so I consider the questions irrelevant to me. But I suppose that, in the spirit of Steve's questions, if I were a nihilist, my answers to both questions would be "no." It would seem to be self-defeating, in a way that would be analogous to creating an organization to promote anarchism.Secular Outposthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10289884295542007401noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18697756577465495822016-07-05T09:56:56.928-07:002016-07-05T09:56:56.928-07:00"If atheism is true,..."
You make the b..."If atheism is true,..."<br /><br />You make the best of it. <br /><br />Your rant here, Dr Craigs essays and chapters on this, what effect do you expect them to have on atheists? I can only speak for myself, but they don't fill me with existential dread, they just make me feel sorry for you, they show me people who are terrified of death, terrified of not mattering. You make the best of what it is, not the fantasy that you wish it were. <br /><br />Jimmy S. M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05429294734852937431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76917800661783251162016-07-05T09:21:57.724-07:002016-07-05T09:21:57.724-07:00Jeffery Jay Lowder "It's ironic that,...Jeffery Jay Lowder "It's ironic that, in an exchange about the alleged superiority of theistic metaethics, Steve is rude to his dialectical opponents who are atheists."<br /><br />i) Suppose for the sake of argument that Jeff's allegation is true. Keith Parsons, who's a regular contributor to the Secular Outpost, routinely makes rude comments about Christians. <br /><br />Likewise, the historical library and modern library at the Secular Web contains articles by atheists that make rude comments about Christians. So it's instructive to see Jeff's double standard on display (even assuming that his allegation is true).<br /><br />ii) But this brings us to a substantive point: Jeff thinks that he is important. That his dignity is important. <br /><br />This is one of Jeff's intellectual problems. He's never allowed himself to appreciate the reductionistic consequences of atheism for human significance. <br /><br />If atheism is true, then Jeff is worthless. Everything is worthless. <br /><br />Jeff is a temporary entity that came into existence for no good reason, that will soon pass out of existence. Jeff is interchangeable with billions of other human biological units. He will be replaced. <br /><br />If atheism is true, Jeff's existence has no intrinsic value. At best, it's only subjectively valuable–the way some Nazis (alleged) valued Jews as as raw material for lamp shades. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.com