Catch Up With Major Posts You've Missed, While I Catch Up With Work

On September 23rd, I argued that we can talk about good institutions and practices humans create through culture as intrinsic goods: The Facts About Intrinsic and Instrumental Goods and The Cultural Construction of Intrinsic Goods.

On September 25th, I examined what Nietzsche meant when he argued that Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism Are “Equally Childish”.

On September 26th, I catalogued the various ways that the values of the Evangelicals who claim we need their religion in order to justify and sustain distinctively American values are, in fact, the antitheses of American values: American Values vs. Fundamentalist Values. Later that day, I put out a challenge for you to find texts in Nietzsche where Nietzsche sounds like he is completely against objectivity in morality: The Camels With Hammers “Nietzsche and Morality Reader Challenge”. The challenge is still out there, I will write posts replying to the best suggestions showing how I can reconcile them with my ultimately realist account of his ethics. In the spirit of answering such objections, that afternoon I answered a query about what Nietzsche meant when he wrote that “‘Good’ Is No Longer Good When One’s Neighbor Mouths It”.

On September 27th, I asked opponents of the absolute separation between church and state for good moral reasons to want the government to favor their religion over non-belief and minority religions in my post: Questions For Those Who Oppose The Wall of Separation Between Church and State.

On September 28th, I reposted my remarks from a year before On The Incoherence Of Divine Command Theory And Why Even If God DID Make Things Good And Bad, Faith-Based Religions Would Still Be Irrelevant.

On September 30th, in honor of Blasphemy Day, I tried to offer some nuanced examination of the ethics of deliberately offending people under various possible different circumstances in my repost of My Thoughts on Blasphemy Day.

On October 2nd, I tried to explain How Evangelicals Can Be Very Hurtful Without Being Very Hateful.

On October 3rd, I explored Christianity’s Love of the Dark Side.

On October 4th, I wrote about the difference between confidence in a specific area and confidence in yourself (and how to get both kinds) in my post: Confidence vs. Self-Confidence (And The Will To Power).

From October 5-10, I posted discussion of the following ten tips for reaching out to religious believers:

1. Don’t Call Religious Believers Stupid

2. Make Believers Stay on Topic During Debates.

3. Don’t Tell Religious Believers What They “Really Believe”.

4. Clarify What Kinds of Evidence Warrant What Kinds of Beliefs.

5. Help Break The Spell Of Religious Reverence.

6. Don’t Demonize Religious People’s Motives, Focus On Their Objective Harms.

7. Take Philosophy Seriously.

8. Both Refute The Best Counter-Arguments You Can Think Of And Create Gestalt Shifts.

9. Be Unapologetic, Rigorous, Patient, And Gracious With Religious Believers.

10. Love Religious People.

On October 11th, I made the distinction that I am more interested in people being rational than their being atheists: I Am A Rationalist, Not A Tribalist. Then I distinguished that while I tailor my writing for my atheist audience and am willing to offend religious people accidentally, I do not go out of my way to deliberately insult my enemies: Audiences and Approaches. Finally, I clarified the difference between using a justifiably harsh and persuasively vigorous tone, on the one hand, and arguing lazily, misleadingly, and gratuitously insultingly on the other in my post: I Don’t Really Give A Fuck About Tone, Per Se.

On October 12th, I denounced the misogyny in the film 50/50:  Misogyny At The Movies: A 50/50 Film Review.

On October 13th, in preparation for a post I still intend to write explaining how homosexuality can be defended as moral on ethical naturalist grounds, I overviewed numerous objections I have to overcome to make my case. I laid out the case against ethical naturalism and specifically paid attention to ways that its opponents worried that it would encourage  morally negative judgments of gays, all in: Homosexuality As Naturally Good Part 1: Laying Out Objections To Ethical Naturalism, Some On Behalf Of Gays.

On October 14th, I wrote my first post on Nietzsche’s reasons for being suspicious of the value of selflessness. I analyzed his claim that We Cannot “Selflessly” Investigate Morality.

On October 15th, I discussed My Fundamentalist Preacher Brother, His Kids, And Me (And “What To Do About One’s Religiously Raised Nieces and Nephews”).

On October 17th, I distinguished the difference between one’s beliefs having functional effects which differ from their literal content, on the one hand, and explicitly rejecting literal content and not letting literal superstitious beliefs have any functional effects on one’s behavior, on the other: Religious Error Theory.

On October 18th, I laid out 10 good reasons not to call people stupid in Who Are You Calling Stupid?. That night I also recommended Fighting The Dictionary on behalf of normative interpretations of words.

On October 19th, I challenged the naturalistic fallacy in my post From Is To Ought: How Normativity Fits Into Naturalism.

On October 20th, my characters Jaime and Kelly had A Debate About The Wisdom of Trying To Deconvert People.

On October 21st, I explored the lines between reason and emotion and between reason in coercion in my post on Force and Reason.

Your Thoughts?

About Daniel Fincke

Dr. Daniel Fincke  has his PhD in philosophy from Fordham University and spent 11 years teaching in college classrooms. He wrote his dissertation on Ethics and the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. On Camels With Hammers, the careful philosophy blog he writes for a popular audience, Dan argues for atheism and develops a humanistic ethical theory he calls “Empowerment Ethics”. Dan also teaches affordable, non-matriculated, video-conferencing philosophy classes on ethics, Nietzsche, historical philosophy, and philosophy for atheists that anyone around the world can sign up for. (You can learn more about Dan’s online classes here.) Dan is an APPA  (American Philosophical Practitioners Association) certified philosophical counselor who offers philosophical advice services to help people work through the philosophical aspects of their practical problems or to work out their views on philosophical issues. (You can read examples of Dan’s advice here.) Through his blogging, his online teaching, and his philosophical advice services each, Dan specializes in helping people who have recently left a religious tradition work out their constructive answers to questions of ethics, metaphysics, the meaning of life, etc. as part of their process of radical worldview change.

  • mazeRunner

    As I’ve only recently stumbled upon your blog, I guess I have a lot more catching up to do than the posts you recapped. Dunno if I’d ever be able to sit down and read all your posts, but I’ll try reading as many as I can esp. the ones I find interesting.

    Really good stuff, thanks :)


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X