Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, July 23, 2012,
In :
Philosophy
Are humans getting better?
Due to our up and coming Tippling Philosopher’s meeting entitled “Are humans getting better?” I thought I would put a piece together to get a few thoughts down. This is an interesting question because it promotes going down all sorts of rabbit-holes. I will try and keep my thoughts tight, however.
First of all, we are not talking about the world, but about humans which keeps things nice and specific. “Are humans getting better?” straight away implies ... Continue reading ...
Posted by B__e on Thursday, May 24, 2012,
In :
Religion
Here is a post from an ex-Christian called B__e who has been ruminating on this for a whiile. See what you think:
Ten Commandments or Ten
Suggestions?
By B__e
I have
sometimes heard that the Bible has the Ten Commandments and not the “Ten
Suggestions.” I’m not so sure that
Yahweh thinks so based on the Scriptures themselves, since He appears to break
or flout them all. You be the judge…
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Friday, April 27, 2012,
In :
Religion
I am writing a post in reaction
to something about which I was talking with my Christian friend (let’s call him
Colin). We were talking about homosexuality and his approach to it given his
Christian background. Some points were interesting and some I fundamentally
disagreed with. Here are his views:
As according to the Bible, homosexuality is wrong.
This morality is grounded in God.
He is not homophobic and detests that label as it
automatically halts any further informed discu...
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, April 16, 2012,
In :
Religion
I have seen the opening statements of both. I almost burst
out laughing at the poor poor tack taken by Darrel. Firstly, he sets out
deconstructing Avalos' epistemology and morality. This is both a red herring
and a shifting of the burden of proof. It matters not one jot, because that is
not the focus of the debate. The debate is "Is the bible a source of
absolute moral rules for today?" I can only see that Darrel should make a
defensive stance. Avalos could have come out and said "I derive my...
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Sunday, January 15, 2012,
In :
Philosophy
I was wondering today, as I lay there with one of my twins
in my arms, as to whether oughts can be derived from a natural pre-programmed’
behaviour. For example, if an evolved characteristic, such as aggressiveness in
males (I am generalising here, of course) or to want to eat meat, or, if it
could be proven, that it were ‘natural’ to be heterosexual was inherent in a
human, are we then obliged in some way to act in accordance with that ‘natural’
inclination?
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Sunday, December 18, 2011,
In :
Philosophy
Quite often, theists posit arguments, but when they are met with difficulties, they necessitate extra premises. This is the case in Glenn Peoples' Moral argument, as pointed out by
Stephen Law on his blog.
Here is what he had to say about what this does for the likelihood of the argument then being true:
Glenn Peoples' blog has been interesting me lately. He has just out up his version of a moral argument for the existence of God.
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, December 12, 2011,
In :
Philosophy
If a theist or God declares that I ought to do something, say A (such that it is good and I would get
to heaven, but which is supposedly intrin, out of intrinsic duty, then this
scenario seems to render that divinely inspired ought as meaningless:
If I want to go to
hell, then in what sense of the word can it be said that I ought to do A? The
duty to do good is circular so that I cannot say I ought to do good in order to
do good, since this is tautologous. I ought to put oil in the car so...
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Monday, October 24, 2011,
In :
Religion
Does Morality Depend on God? - P. Wesley Edwards
(updated 20-Aug-2004)
Introduction
I have rarely engaged in a debate with a theist where the issue of morality justification has not come up. The theist’s complaint typically takes the following form.
If there is no God, then why is it wrong to murder and steal? Even if you don't want to murder and steal, on what grounds can you criticize someone who does, since morals must be completely relative and arbitrary to an atheist? Without God there ...
God comes to you and tells you
there are transcendent, unconditional moral oughts. Just imagine that in this
world all the things you ‘ought’ to do, from a moral point of view (a moral
ought), happen to cause unfathomable pain, suffering and injustice and will
land you up in hell where you will experi...
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Friday, July 8, 2011,
In :
Religion
When debating morality and ethics with Christian theists,
scorn is often poured on secular ethicists who adhere to moral disciplines that
are not grounded in God. Usually, these moral approaches are consequentialist
in nature. In other words, moral actions are defined by the consequences they
deliver as opposed to the intrinsic morality of the action itself. The ends
justify the means. As an example, such an approach might well be
utilitarianism. Though this appears in many guises (for exampl...
Posted by Jonathan Pearce on Tuesday, April 12, 2011,
In :
Philosophy
I am a conceptualist who does not believe in objective
existence. The burden of proof would be on Craig to prove objective existence.
Without this, his whole argument of objective morality falls apart. This is why
he needs to debate a good philosopher who would take him to task on his
foundational assumptions.
There is no such thing as objective morality, because any
idea is subjective. Abstract ideas do not and cannot exist objectively.
It is anthropocentric. Imagine a more intellige...