LINK: Rosalind Carey’s Review of Michael Martin’s ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING
LINK Related articles: here, here, here, and here
Dianelos on the Moral Argument
Dianelos Georgoudis, in reply to my post “Atheism Debunked! Again!,” has conveniently and succinctly offered both “conceptual” and a “practical” moral arguments for theism. I take the liberty of putting the first of these in premise/conclusion format and try to express it a bit more rigorously. I do hope I have not distorted his meaning. … Dianelos on the Moral Argument
Naturalism and Objectively Horrifying Evils
A serious and thoughtful objection against metaphysical naturalism is that it cannot provide a basis for some of our deepest and most intuitive moral judgments. If so, a metaphysical naturalist could bite the bullet and say “so much for our deepest and most intuitive moral judgments!” Still, if this consequence could be avoided, it would … Naturalism and Objectively Horrifying Evils
Wanchick’s moral argument
I probably should have posted this directly here rather than on my own blog, but I’ve offered up a critique of Wanchick’s moral argument in his Internet Infidels debate with Richard Carrier at The Lippard Blog. I believe that not only does Wanchick mainly proceed through the mere assertion of dubious premises, but that at … Wanchick’s moral argument