Michael Ruse’s Argument against Moral Realism and for Error Theory

October 10, 2014 by Leave a Comment

Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology and an atheist who is well-known for his writings about evolution. In various writings, Ruse has argued against moral realism by appealing to (Darwinian) evolution. Instead, he argues, the scientific facts about evolution justify the conclusion that moral error theory is correct. In this post, I want to assess Ruse's argument against moral realism and for error theory.In his 1989 book, The Darwinian Paradigm, Michael Ruse argues that evolution, … [Read more...]

Filed Under: metaethics, nontheistic metaethics Tagged With: , , Leave a Comment

Books Like This Should be a Warning Signal to Inerrantists

September 26, 2014 by Leave a Comment

I just saw an announcement of a new book by Paul Copan and Matthew Flannagan. Copan and Flannagan are good guys, but some of the positions they have to defend (because of their commitment to Biblical inerrancy) are not.  I'm embarrassed for inerrantists. Just look at the publisher's description (presumably written by one or both of the authors). Reconciling a violent Old Testament God with a loving Jesus Would a good, kind, and loving deity ever command the wholesale slaughter of nations? We … [Read more...]

Filed Under: apologetics, apologist watch, Bible, ethics Tagged With: , , Leave a Comment

Hard-Hitting Critique of WLC’s Moral Argument by John Danaher “Necessary Moral Truths and Theistic Metaethics”

July 21, 2014 by Leave a Comment

To be precise, this paper applies to WLC's moral argument for God's existence as follows.1. WLC argues that God exists because objective moral values and duties exist.2. Critics (theist, agnostic, and atheist) of WLC's moral argument have pointed out that, according to one version of moral realism, moral truths are necessary truths. Necessary truths neither have nor need an explanation. Therefore, God isn't needed to explain necessary moral truths and, hence, isn't needed to explain o … [Read more...]

Filed Under: moral argument, theistic metaethics Tagged With: , , , Leave a Comment

Does Evolution “Explain” Objective Morality? A Reply to Jerry Coyne

July 18, 2014 by Leave a Comment

Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne recently wrote about Leah Libresco's conversion from atheism to Catholicism based on a moral argument for God's existence. In his article, Coyne promotes the idea, which he has done many times before, that biological evolution somehow "explains" objective morality. While there is a sense in which Coyne is correct, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the kind of moral argument which Libresco finds persuasive. So while I join Coyne in rejecting Libresco's … [Read more...]

Filed Under: moral argument, nontheistic metaethics Tagged With: Leave a Comment

Amoral Atheism Part 2

May 29, 2014 by 3 Comments

Physics cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong. No one says that is a defect of physics because that's not what physics is about.Like physics, atheism is also not about morality. So why should it be a defect of atheism that it cannot justify why anything is morally right or wrong? … [Read more...]

Filed Under: metaethics, moral argument, nontheistic metaethics, theistic metaethics 3 Comments

God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection – Part2

May 1, 2014 by 1 Comment

The key question at issue is whether (S2) is true or false:(S2) But God would neither perpetrate nor permit grand deception regarding the Incarnation and Resurrection.I have raised two objections against one reason that Cavin and Colombetti give for their conclusion that "(S2) is patently false". One reason they gave was a passage from the gospel of Mark which they think shows that the author of Mark, and probably Jesus too, had a concept of God which was such that God could (and would) … [Read more...]

Filed Under: apologetics, Bible, books of interest, Christianity, ethics, logic, miracles, philosophers, philosophy, philosophy of religion, resurrection, skepticism Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , 1 Comment

God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection

April 30, 2014 by 2 Comments

Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti have written an article raising some significant objections to Richard Swinburne's case for the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus: "Swinburne on the Resurrection" (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, No. 2; hereafter: SOR). LINKI'm fully on-board with their overall conclusion that "...Swinburne's argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection...is seriously undermined by the failure to satisfy the requirement of total evidence." (SOR, p.37) As with other … [Read more...]

Filed Under: apologetics, Bible, books of interest, Christianity, ethics, logic, miracles, philosophers, philosophy, philosophy of religion, resurrection, skepticism Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , 2 Comments

An F-Inductive Moral Argument for Theism

March 28, 2014 by 1 Comment

Here is an F-inductive argument for theism based on ontologically objective moral values. Note that this argument assumes that such things exist. If you don't think they exist, then you may want to skip reading this post.As usual, let B be our background information; E be the evidence to be explained (in this case, the existence of ontologically objective moral values); T be theism; and N be naturalism. Here is the explanatory argument.1. E is known to be true, i.e., Pr(E) is close to 1. … [Read more...]

Filed Under: metaethics, moral argument, nontheistic metaethics, theistic metaethics Tagged With: 1 Comment

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X