Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 11
If I understand William Craig’s third objection to AMR, then he is basically offering an inductive teleological argument for the existence of God (similar to how Richard Swinburne argues for God) based on the assumption that there are objective moral values plus the claim that humans and the circumstances in which humans find themselves are … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 11
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 10
When I argue against the resurrection of Jesus, I generally take a two-pronged approach. First, I argue that there are various good reasons to doubt the claim that Jesus was alive and walking around on the first Easter Sunday. Second, I make a concession for the sake of argument; I grant the supposition that Jesus … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 10
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 9
I have argued previously that Craig’s first two objections to AMR are weak at best. The third objection might not be as weak as the previous two. However, the third objection is the most unclear of the three, so if it turns out to be a strong objection, that will be because we help Craig … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 9
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 8
I am not impressed by Richard Taylor’s appeal to etymology as an argument for the claim that all duties and all obligations are ‘owed’ to some person or persons (see part 7 for my objections to that line of reasoning). However, to be fair to Craig, Taylor’s appeal to etymology is not specifically and explicitly … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 8
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 5
I am currently considering William Craig’s second objection to Atheistic Moral Realism (AMR): Second, the nature of moral duty or obligation seems incompatible with atheistic moral realism. (WIAC, p.76) The following is a third piece of the paragraph where Craig presents this objection: Who or what lays such an obligation on me? As the ethicist Richard … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 5
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 4
Here, once again, is William Craig’s MOVE (Moral Objective Values Exist) Argument: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. Therefore: 3. God exists. I am considering one possible objection, namely rejection of, or doubt about, premise (1). Atheists who are inclined towards moral realism … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 4
Speaking in Seattle on Saturday
I will be reprising my recent talk to the Central London Humanists, “Evidence About God: What Apologists Don’t Want You to Know,” but this time my audience will be the Creation Association of Puget Sound (CAPS). When: Saturday, May 11, 2013, 7:00PM Where: Avondale Bible Church, 17010 Avondale Road Northeast, Woodinville, WA Here is information … Speaking in Seattle on Saturday
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 3
William Craig’s MOVE argument is simple: 1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. 2. Objective moral values do exist. Therefore: 3. God exists. One obvious atheistic objection would be to reject or cast doubt on premise (2). If one rejects or doubts that objective moral values exist, then this argument … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 3
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 2
I am going to engage in a bit of logic chopping now. But for those who do not have an appreciation for logic chopping, do not despair; my close examination of the bark on one tree will lead me to make some broader points that have significance for philosophy of religion, ethics, and serious thinking … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 2
Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 1
In his essay “Why I Believe God Exists”, William Craig gives three main reasons for believing in God (Why I am a Christian – hereafter: WIAC – edited by Norman Geisler and Paul Hoffman, Baker Books, 2001, p.62-80): One problem with the Kalam cosmological argument is that it fails to establish the existence of a … Atheistic Moral Realism – Part 1