Unapologetic Review – Part 10: Evaluation of Reason #9
REVIEW OF ANALYSIS OF REASON #9 In Part 9 of this series, I asserted that the main argument in Unapologetic is Reason #9, and I argued that Reason #9 invoved the following assumptions: 5. ANY claim that is based on faith cannot be reasonably defended. 6. Philosophers ought NOT recognize and participate in an alleged sub-discipline of philosophy that … Unapologetic Review – Part 10: Evaluation of Reason #9
A Puzzle About Morality and Rationality
NOTE: This post has been edited since it was originally published in light of a very important observation from commenter Angra Mainyu. His comment revealed that I made an error in my original presentation of the puzzle. If you would like more information about this issue, please see the third footnote at the end of this … A Puzzle About Morality and Rationality
Retributivism, Punishment, and Moral Value
In the comments on another post https://secularfrontier.infidels.org/2017/01/05/memoriam-derek-parfit-1942-2017/ , the contrast between retributivist and consequentialist models of punishment came up. Here is a thought-experiment I present to my classes on this contrast. Suppose that in lieu of life-imprisonment for major crimes, the technology exists to plug offenders into a Matrix-like situation: they are to be imprisoned … Retributivism, Punishment, and Moral Value
Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver
In Phase 1 of his case for the existence of God (in When Skeptics Ask, hereafter: WSA), Norman Geisler argues for the existence of a “supreme moral Lawgiver”. The argument goes like this (see WSA, p. 22): Geisler’s Moral Argument 32. There is an objective moral law. 33. Moral laws imply a moral lawgiver. THEREFORE: … Geisler’s Five Ways – Part 9: The Supreme Moral Lawgiver
Ethical Subjectivism and the Argument from Outrage
In arguing for the superiority of theistic ethics over secular ethics, apologists sometimes present some version of an argument like this: 1. If theism is not true, then ethics is subjective. 2. Ethics is not subjective. 3. Therefore, theism is true. I think this is a bad argument because I think premise 1 is false. … Ethical Subjectivism and the Argument from Outrage
McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 4: An Eternally Perfectly Morally Good Person
McDowell’s Trilemma Argument (hereafter: MTA), can be found in The New Evidence that Demands a Verdict (hereafter: NETDV) by Josh McDowell (see pages 158-163). The first key premise of MTA is this: None of the canonical Gospels report Jesus as having asserted the claim “I am God” nor the claim “Jesus of Nazareth is God” nor the claim … McDowell’s Trilemma – Part 4: An Eternally Perfectly Morally Good Person
LINK: The Thomistic Natural Law of Animal Homosexuality
LINK
What is Christianity? Part 16
In his book Naming the Elephant (hereafter: NTE), the Christian apologist James Sire raises various objections against his previous analysis of the concept of a “worldview” that he had presented in his earlier book The Universe Next Door (hereafter: TUND). I have reviewed three of Sire’s objections to his earlier cognitivist analysis of the concept of … What is Christianity? Part 16
What is Christianity? Part 15
In his book Naming the Elephant (hereafter: NTE), the Christian apologist James Sire raises various objections against his analysis of the concept of a “worldview” that he had presented in his earlier book The Universe Next Door (hereafter: TUND). I have reviewed three of Sire’s objections to his earlier cognitivist analysis of the concept of a … What is Christianity? Part 15
What is Christianity? Part 14
Here are the main conclusions and claims that I have argued for or asserted in previous posts: