God, Objective Morality, and the Difference Between Knowing and Accounting For

Many theists think, and argue, that God must exist for objective morality to exist.

This claim can be interpreted more than one way. When arguing with theists, it is shrewd, for purposes of honesty, clarity, and strategy, to point this out. One reason is the following: Psychologically it seems that quite often people are committed to certain propositions more than they are committed to particular interpretations of those propositions. So, a given theist may be adamant about affirming that God is necessary for there to be objective morality but persuadable that some things that could be meant by that statement are not necessary. What ultimately matters to them to maintain, psychologically and theologically, in order to not feel like they are losing a key, identity-forming belief, is that something about morality requires God. Getting someone to abandon their belief in God is very difficult. Getting them to moderate their interpretation of their faith or to interpret an aspect of their faith they had not thought through yet in a more rational, rather than less rational, way is much easier by comparison. And this is a perfect topic to attempt to do that with. [Read more...]

Just Another Raving Socialist…

Now, according to the natural order instituted by divine providence, material goods are provided for the satisfaction of human needs. Therefore the division and appropriation of property, which proceeds from human law, must not hinder the satisfaction of man’s necessity from such goods. Equally, whatever a man has in superabundance is owed, of natural right, [Read More...]

On God As The Source Of Being But Not Of Evil

Introduction This post is a long one but an important one for understanding what sophisticated Roman Catholic philosophers have traditionally meant when they have said that “God is good” and that the existence of evil is not to be taken as counter-evidence to their belief in God’s goodness.  Very often we atheists are dismissed as [Read More...]

6 Basic Kinds Of Answer To The Question “Why Is There Something Rather Than Nothing?”

by Eric Steinhart Why is there something rather than nothing? This question includes God in its scope: if there is a God, then God is something, so we can always ask: why is there God rather than no God? This implies that the question cannot be answered by appealing to God. It can’t be answered [Read More...]

In Defense Of Curiosity Against The Religious Barnacles

PZ Myers takes on the latest insufferable nonsense from Stanley Fish, this which advances the thought of regressive religious thinkers who, as religious thinkers have always done, attack curiosity as a threat to their superstitions.  Myers’s whole piece is great and worth your time, but for those of you who don’t read it at least [Read More...]

Call It Volitional Love Rather Than Unconditional Love

Earlier today I posted Brendan Palla’s reply to my posts on unconditional love and love in general.  In what follows, I have interspersed my replies to him within the stream of his argument. I want to open with a bit of a critique. I don’t think you’ve captured very well the notion of unconditional love [Read More...]

A Challenge To My Critique Of Unconditional Love

A week ago I posted twice on the theme of love, spending the first post on what I saw to be conceptual problems for the ideal of unconditional love and then focusing the second post on a constructive attempt to characterize love and then locating unconditional love within that new framework. The next day, Brendan [Read More...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X