LINK: Rosalind Carey’s Review of Michael Martin’s ATHEISM, MORALITY, AND MEANING
LINK Related articles: here, here, here, and here Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
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