Moment of Zen

“I *Can* Get Satisfaction!” by John S. Wilkins (@Evolving Thoughts)

Interactions Between Secular Outpost Authors and Theistic Blog Authors

Lowder:

• With Matthew Flannagan regarding Jerry Coyne’s editorial on goodness without God: Flannagan’s initial post, Lowder’s response, Flannagan’s response, Lowder’s response, Flannagan’s response, my response.

Parsons:

• “This is Parsons’ Critique of Kreeft and Tacelli on Hallucinations” by Victor Reppert.
  • The post doesn’t contain much content, but the comments are interesting.
  • [Editor’s Note (Parsons): For a revised and more detailed version of these arguments, see my essay “Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli on the Hallucination Theory” in The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave (Prometheus, 2005), edited by J.J. Lowder and R.M. Price.]

The Argument from Divine Hiddenness

“Hiddenness and Belief in God” by Helen De Cruz and “Can’t You Hear Me Knocking?” by Clayton Littlejohn (HT: Servile Conformist)

• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): De Cruz, as well as several commenters, question whether a belief that God exists is necessary for a personal relationship with God. Like Littlejohn, I find it difficult to even make sense of the idea that someone could have a relationship with God without believing that God exists.]

“Skepticism about the Argument from Divine Hiddenness” by Justin P. McBrayer and Philip Swenson

• A sort of skeptical theist response to the argument from divine hiddenness.

“Divine Hiddenness as Divine Mercy” by Travis Dumsday

• This is a “First View” article for the journal Religious Studies, so I don’t expect this article to be available for free to non-subscribers for long.
• Dumsday provides an interesting, new reply to the argument from divine hiddenness: God remains hidden to some people at some times to limit their moral culpability.
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): I’ve often wondered about the moral implications, if any, of divine hiddenness. It will be interesting to evaluate Dumsday’s article.]

Miscellaneous

“How to Use Bayes’s Theorem” (@Foxhole Atheism): Given how many of my recent posts have used Bayes’ theorem, I thought this tutorial would be of interest to some readers.

“Objective Morality and Oughts“: a video rebutting William Lane Craig’s moral argument for God’s existence

Victor Reppert on Moral Objectivity, Theism, and Naturalism

The relationship between morality and God is a recurring topic on Victor Reppert’s blog. I’ve compiled an index to what I consider to be some of his best posts on the topic.

“A Moral Argument for God” (May 5, 2009)

• An argument to God from objective moral values in turn from inalienable human rights.
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): As it stands, this argument is unsound because premise 2 is false. Even if we accept that objective moral values are a necessary condition for inalienable human rights, it doesn’t follow that objective moral values are a sufficient condition for inalienable human rights.]

“More on the Moral Argument” (May 6, 2009)

• Reppert argues that moral relativists cannot consistently remain relativists and complain when human rights are violated.
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): Reppert is probably correct that when moral relativists believe they have been wronged in some way, they will complain in a way that betrays their belief in moral relativism. As a moral objectivist myself, however, I’ve never been impressed by this argument. At most, this shows the practical difficulty of being a consistent moral relativist; I do not think this provides evidence favoring the truth of moral objectivism over relativism.]

“When the Secular Foundation for Morality Wears Thin” (June 25, 2009)

• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): In my opinion, item #2 on Reppert’s list is the most challenging item for secular ethics.]

“Reply to Beversluis on Moral Objectivity” (February 24, 2010)

• Reppert summarizes the C. Stephen Evans’ formulation of Lewis’s moral argument for God’s existence. (Phew! Try saying that five times fast!)
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): I found this post helpful precisely because Lewis did not clearly state the logical structure of his argument.]

“The Case for Moral Objectivity” (January 30, 2009)

• Reppert considers 5 arguments: the arguments from implied practice, underlying moral consensus, clear cases, reformers, and human rights.
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): As a moral objectivist, it’s refreshing to find a philosopher actually stating arguments for moral objectivism, as opposed to merely appealing to intuition.]

“Some Arguments Against Objective Moral Values” (January 13, 2008)

• Reppert considers 4 arguments: the arguments from disagrement, nonphysical realities, atheism, and science.
• [Editor’s Note (Lowder): Again, I think Reppert’s post is helpful by providing a useful inventory or catalog of arguments against moral objectivism.]

“From C.S. Lewis’ The Poison of Subjectivism” (April 6, 2009)