tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7187570039274233195.post8308647682494433378..comments2011-03-09T04:09:39.880-05:00Comments on Just Thinking: Non-Theism and Other Minority ViewsCTShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16532540954799875055noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7187570039274233195.post-72986411419898480092011-03-09T04:09:39.880-05:002011-03-09T04:09:39.880-05:00I think the notion of 'objective ethics' i...I think the notion of 'objective ethics' is problematic for atheistic materialism - which generally entails a positivist worldview which does not have room for objectively true ethical statements. But, for some less materialistic non-theism, not necessarily so. I think an idealist or dualist non-theist could believe in objective ethics without much problem. (But, if one is a non-materialist, why non-theism - why not pan(en)theism for instance?)<br /><br />You ask, does the deity choose to follow some independently existing objective standard of goodness? Or is the objective standard of goodness the product of the deity's arbitrary choice as to how to define good? There is a third option: the definition of goodness is part of the essence of the deity, which is a self-necessary being, such that it could not choose to be other than good, or to adopt some different definition of goodness, for being self-necessary it cannot choose to be other than it is.<br /><br />I don't think atheists have any necessary difficulty with passing on moral views to their children. Well, my parents are Christian (my father rather nominally, my mother more substantially, yet ultimately of questionable orthodoxy) -- but I don't feel I got from them any coherent moral worldview -- I never felt my parents encouraged moral reflection, or reflection in general -- their genes probably helped though where their actions didn't. My moral worldview I discovered for myself without their help. So, I suspect most atheists don't do a good job of passing on a moral worldview to their children, but on the other hand most Christians don't do a good job either.<br /><br />Still, if one wants an objective moral worldview, how does one ground that philosophically? I don't see how non-theistic materialism can do that -- the most logical metaethics for a materialist seems to me to be that favoured by the logical positivists, emotivism -- ethical claims lack literal truth or falsehood, their linguistic function is not to express truth or falsehood, but rather to express approval or disapproval, encouragement or disapprobation. Now, a non-materialist non-theism doesn't have this problem, but I wonder to what extent an idealist or dualist non-theism makes sense. It needn't entail a theism in the classical Christian sense, but what about a more pantheistic or pan(en)theistic or deistic theism?<br /><br />The problem is, to say one is a theist or non-theist, one must have a definition of 'God' which one is agreeing or disagreeing with. But the definitions of 'God' are so variable, it is pointless to say one is a theist or non-theist without specifying more precisely what exact idea of 'God' one is agreeing or disagreeing with. And even if one is a non-theist with respect to one idea of 'God', maybe one is in fact a theist with respect to another concept of 'God' one has not yet considered?<br /><br />Zarnacy<br />http://zarnacy.blogspot.com/Zachary W. Martinezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08741313866132322095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7187570039274233195.post-82933376328346398872009-05-04T15:43:00.000-04:002009-05-04T15:43:00.000-04:00"One can point out that either (a) god[s] accepts ..."One can point out that either (a) god[s] accepts the Good and Right because they are the Good and Right – in which case no god is needed, or that (b) god[s] simply selects the Good and Right – in which case the Good and the Right are not objectively grounded at all"<br /><br />How many ways can we say false dichotomy fallacy?<br /><br />That you would list this as a compelling argument makes me think you do not understand the issue at all or how a theist comes to it. We need to be able to talk about things from a reasoned perspective and not just spout clichés he have learned over the years. This sounds like an argument you learned early on and you just trot out because you think it sounds convincing.<br /><br />Your argument assumes reality is something that exists over God.<br /><br />I hope I can make you understand this. The Bible makes a very profound statement in Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning God..." God was in existence eternally before any creation. This means that God is the author of reality, He is not subject to it. This case is not covered by your false dichotomy which assumes God must either look at reality and come up with Good and Right or willy nilly choose it.<br /><br />If God exists above reality, your false dichotomy is answered. God has invented the reality that exists. Thus when God chooses it is not subjective. His invented reality is objective. It is only because you do not consider the true Creator God that you think your false dichotomy is reasonable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com