Specific Question For Not Ready and Others

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think finite man cannot create a moral standard that is not ultimate, or having to do with god?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want my place on this infinite merry go round? Have fun.

eastbay

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And why do you think that finite man can create an ultimate moral standard?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you think finite man cannot create a moral standard that is not ultimate, or having to do with god?

[/ QUOTE ]

You want my place on this infinite merry go round? Have fun.

eastbay

[/ QUOTE ]

No, eastbay, you were doing fine. I have plenty of experience with NotReady's unique brand of madness.

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
Your comment doesn't go to why someone should care, which is obviously self-evident, you just disagree with the content.

[/ QUOTE ]

I ASKED YOU why I should care. You have yet to give me a reason. But asking for a reason from the faithful is like asking your dog to do your taxes.

Which is something I don't waste my time on, so I think I'm done here. If you want to address an issue on the basis of evidence rather than dogmatic assertion and circularity, I'd be willing to talk. Until then, all I'm doing is listening to a pre-recorded tape. And that's not very interesting.

eastbay

[fritzwar]

I haven't followed much of this discussion but...

As a professional philosopher, I think the first thing to say here is that people who believe especially your #2 could really use a good University level introduction to ethics and/or ethical theory course. I'm aware of almost no specialists in meta-ethics who believe that objective morality requires a God or anything God-like.

Leaving aside your #2, there are indeed many people who know what they are doing (and many who do not) who fit the profile you sketch. Many of these people have a well thought out and at least intellectually defensible position.

One place to start for a decent College level introduction to philosophy is with, no joke, the book *Philosophy for Dummies* in the popular "for dummies" series. Thomas Morris (now retired from teaching but formerly a well respected Professor here at Notre Dame)wrote up that volume largely from his "intro to philosophy course notes". I don't teach freshman students any more, but if I did I would use the text as part of an intro course today.

Ted Warfield
Associate Professor of Philosophy
University of Notre Dame

[NotReady]

I haven't read Martin's book on Atheism and Morality (don't remember the name), but have read some reviews. He engaged in a dialog with one reviewer on the net. The reviewer was a fellow atheist, and he was complaining that Martin never offered justification for non-theistic morality. Martin finally admitted that if morality means basically the Golden Rule he couldn't justify it.

[NotReady]

OK, then be specific. What exactly is it you're asking about concerning why you should care?

[fritzwar]

The "view" that morality means "basically the Goldem Rule" isn't a position that I'm familiar with from serious philosophers. That's not to say that the view isn't out there somewhere, but few would think this anything having to do with the golden rule is involved in the debate about atheistic moral realist positions.

There have been dozens of volumes devoted to the topic of Moral Realism over the past decade published by many respectable University presses (Oxford, Cornell, etc...). Most work in this area is done by atheistic or agnostic philosophers who accept and defend various versions of moral realism. Of course there are critical discussions of these positions in the relevant professional literature as well. It's a serious ongoing debate in contemporary ethical theory.

[NotReady]

I only brought it up because #2 concerns the question of absolute right or wrong. You said "people who believe especially your #2 could really use a good University level introduction to ethics and/or ethical theory course. I'm aware of almost no specialists in meta-ethics who believe that objective morality requires a God or anything God-like. "

I would guess Martin qualifies as a specialist in meta-ethics, though I could be wrong. I'm not a philosopher and am not familiar with the current vocabularies of the pros. But if he is a specialist, and if he admits he can't justify absolute morality, it would seem he ought to believe it requires God. I know he would say something like objective morality doesn't have to be absolute, but that simply means he claims he can get an ought from an is. I guess by moral realism you mean observing what humans do and calling that morality. But if he can't give an absolute reason for oughtness, how is there oughtness at all?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say there is a god and he requires belief in child molestation in order to be saved..... should i molest children?

[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like a no brainer to me.

Stu

[BluffTHIS!]

I think that David's 4 points illustrate a type of person who is not that rare at all. I am referring to all the millions who have grown up in a Judeo-Christian culture such as our own, and who would say that they believe in God and that the bible is true, while at the same time never going to church or practicing religion. They do this because they have fundamental doubts or most likely because they find it too hard to live up to the moral demands expected of a "true" believer. Nonetheless, they think God will understand them and be merciful to them in the end as long as they are "good" people, i.e. don't actually commit the extremes of moral depravity exemplied by murder, rape, etc. The strong cultural, historical and familial ties of the dominant religious culture further prevent them from actually joining another religion or accepting a non-theistic philosophy.

To me these types of people seem to be hoping in the benefits of Pascal's Wager without really taking it by actually practicing religion.