Below is a response to an atheist who claims that God is either evil or non-existent because of all the evil and suffering we find in the world. Previously, I had responded that in order to make this claim, He had to use God’s standard of objective moral goodness in order to discount His existence. However, without His existence, all judgments would be merely personal and subjective, and therefore he couldn’t indict God with merely his own personal judgments. It would be like saying, “I don’t like chocolate. Therefore, it doesn’t exist”:
You argue that you can indict God:
“If we cannot make a moral judgment of God, it is logically incoherent to maintain that he is good! That is a moral judgment. I've already explained numerous times that the idea of an absolute morality is itself logically incoherent: one can always ask ‘Why should we accept that standard?’"
On the one hand, you are claiming that you can bring a MORAL judgment against God, but then, on the other hand, you also claim that “the idea of an absolute moral judgment is itself logically incoherent.” By taking this position, you are admitting that your judgment is subjective – and therefore you admit that you are in no position to judge anything, let alone God – but then you use your subjective standard to bring an OBJECTIVE indictment against God! Hmm?
In contrast to your position, I do believe that we can theoretically bring an indictment against God, because He has imparted to us an absolute moral standard including “Injustice is wrong, and love is right!” You were created to know these things in your heart. Therefore, when you are the victim of injustice, you’re response isn’t, “Oh well, that just life – the survival of the fittest. It’s nothing to take seriously because there’s no truth, and so there’s no violation of non-existent justice.” Instead, you become indignant and want to file legal charges according to laws that you don’t acknowledge as truth.
You ask “Why should we accept that standard [even if it is an objective standard]?" For one thing, you have no viable choice. It’s written on your heart. To deny that standard would be equivalent to deny the reason and logic imprinted in your mind. Without them, you would flounder helplessly as a fish out of water. It would be like expecting a computer to run without any operating instructions.
When you attempt to live morally without believing in moral truth, you become schizoid. While your mind says “no” to moral truth, your conscience says “yes,” and will punish you if you violate it, unless you’re a sociopath.
On the positive side of the ledger, embracing and living in accordance with these moral truths is deeply fulfilling as so many psychologists have affirmed. In addition to this, it’s a joy to know that I am following my Savior!
Indeed you are free to question the existence of moral absolutes and ask as you do, "Why should we accept that standard?" However, your skepticism doesn’t negate moral absolutes any more than questioning if 2 + 2 = 4 negates the truth of this equation. The sun shines whether or not we observe it.
Nevertheless, I can sympathize with the fact that the idea of eternal judgment is a very disturbing idea for you. It would also be for me if I wasn’t assured of Christ’s love. However, more important than its offensiveness to you is the question of whether or not it is true! You can cut through all of this verbiage by simply humbling yourself to ask the Lord to show you the truth. In accordance with the teachings of the Hebrew Prophets, Jesus made it very simple. He stated:
"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8
As easy as this might sound, I must confess that it is terribly difficult for us. Our own commitments and agendas always tend to trump a sincere questioning and openness to what we might hear. Here’s my suggestion – Pray that God would reveal to you the truth. If you can’t sincerely pray this way, this would suggest that you don’t want the truth.
Ok, Daniel, I'll try to go through the argument against Divine Command theories here, since you don't seem willing to read it yourself.
ReplyDeleteWe'll start with what Wielenberg calls "God as the source of morality". This necessitates the inclusion of two claims:
Control Thesis: Every logically consistent ethical claim, E, is such that God could make E true.
Dependency Thesis: Every true ethical claim is true in virtue of some act of will on the part of God.
The Control Thesis basically states God could modify morality such that torture of innocents is good.
The Dependency Thesis states that nothing is "good" independant of God's nature.
Acceptance of both the Control Thesis and Dependency Thesis Wielenberg calls the "Strong Position", while acceptance of just the Dependency Thesis the "Weak Position".
All good so far?
I think in previous exchanges, you've basically assented to hold the Strong position, correct?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI think I'm following you!?! Morality is a product not only of God's will but also of His very Being -- the essence of which is implanted within us!
Mann: Morality is a product not only of God's will but also of His very Being -- the essence of which is implanted within us!
ReplyDeleteThat strikes me as so much pablum, Daniel.
The ridiculous and rather strange nature of the Strong position is illustrated by Wielenberg thus:
"Imagine a contest in which the prize is omnipotence. There are two competitors in this contest. The first competitor hopes to win the prize and use his omnipotence for his own selfish, nefarious purposes. He plans to slaughter most of humanity and force the rest to live in excrement pits where they will work themselves to death as his slaves and be subject to torture at his hand for his amusement. As it happens, the second competitor wins the contest and becomes omnipotent. It seems clear that the worst has happened - a thoroughly vicious being has become all-powerful and the world in on the verge of being plunged into evil. Fortunately this does not happen. This is because the first use to which the winner puts his newly acquired omnipotence is to change certain ethical facts. He makes it the case that the slaughter of innocents is fantastically good, that undeserved suffering is just, and that a human life devoted to serving him has the greatest possible amount of internal meaning. He also makes it the case that he himself is a morally perfect being. He does this not by changing the nature of his character (his desires, motives, goals, and so on are just the same as before), but rather by changing the nature of moral perfection. He then implements his now fantastically good and just plan. He slaughters most of the humans, throws the rest into the pits, and so on. But because he changed the ethical facts first, the story has a happy ending. All is for the best. The film version of this scenario would leave you grinning like a fool as you left the theatre."
The above seems not only ludicrous, but also incorrect to me, but assuming you still claim the Strong position, which entails the example above, perhaps you believe that while silly, this is simply the way things are?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteAs you might expect, the above doesn't represent my position nor either my God. The above pictures a sadistic god. However, ours is clearly benevolent. He supplies all of our needs. We thirst, and He provides water. Perfecto! We hunger, and He has made food. We tire, and there is sleep that perfectly addresses our need. We're lonely, and there are friends and family. We need beauty and we find that we are in a beautiful world.
Havoc, if you think that you owe your parents gratitude,even more so do you owe it to God!!!
More Pablum, Daniel? :-)
ReplyDeleteThe example was to try to illustrate a point - if someone were to claim that God sets the "rules" of morality, so to speak, that God could have made the torture of innocents "good", then the scenario outlined above highlights the ridiculousness of that notion.
You seem to take issue with this, so can I assume you don't accept the Control Thesis?
If so I'll move onto discussing Wielenberg's arguments against the Dependency Thesis, which implies that due to some essential part of God's nature to have a certain type of character, making some things good or right would be incompatible with that essential nature, which I assume you do accept?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteApart from your remark about "pablum," I am failing to follow your arguments. Yes, God does set the rules, but I fail to see its relevance to the torture of innocents!
So, under your beliefs, is the example scenario a possibility?
ReplyDeleteIf so, then it seems your God could make the torture of innocents a "good"?
If not, then would you agree that due to some essential part of God's nature (his "loving" character, for example), there are some things God simply could not make "good"?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteIndeed, some things violate His nature. Therefore, He wouldn't will them into our hearts or His revelation to us.
Good. So we're agreed that you believe your God's omnipotence doesn't extend to the ability of making any logically consistent ethical claim true (Such as "One ought to torture innocents").
ReplyDeleteThis is similar to those who limit God's omnipotence to what is logically possible.
This means you aren't claiming the Strong Position regarding the relationship between God and morality, which means we can move on to looking at the Weak Position, and the Dependency Thesis.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI wish you would translate the discussion into your own words -- common language -- instead of the "Strong" and "Weak" position. I'm not sure that you can place my position or God into either of those boxes. Once you try to, then I'll scream "foul," and we'll be back at square one again.
I say this just to facilitate our discussion.
Daniel, you said earlier that you don't believe your God could make any arbitrary ethical statement true, so that dispenses with what Wielenberg labels the "Control Thesis". we can safely say you don't hold that position.
ReplyDeleteWhat is left, at least as far as someone who claims that God is required for morality (as I believe you do) is what Wielenberg calls the Dependency Thesis, which is where you seem to sit. As I've written before, this is the claim that all ethical truths are true in virtue of some act of will of God - there is nothing which is not ethical true in and of itself.
If you feel that this does not cover your position adequately, then perhaps you ought to try to put it into your own words. If you do, please try to be concise and avoid the flowery words and praise :-)
Ethics is a product of God's nature, judgment and will.
ReplyDeleteThat seems to fall within with what Wielenberg calls the "Dependency Thesis" as I've outlined it above.
ReplyDeleteNow, this position seems almost as absurd as the previous position (the claim that God can make any logically valid ethical claim true).
basically it amounts to saying there is nothing to be preferred in not inflicting gratuitous harm on another person in and of itself. It is only due to God's disapproval that such gratuitous harm becomes an "evil". Though the claim is that God could not will it another way, it does seem that there is some intrinsic value to gratuitous harm or suffering (or indeed the torture of innocents).
Wielenberg states:
"If an act of will on the part of God bestows value on something distinct from God, that value cannot be intrinsic. It will be value that the thing has in virtue of something distinct from itself.
I think this implication is problematic for the simple reason that some things distinct from God actually are intrinsically good and some things actually are intrinsically evil. Pain, for example, seems to be an intrinsic evil. It is evil in and of itself; its badness is part of its intrinsic nature and is not bestowed upon it from some external source. Yet the theist who accepts the Dependency Thesis must reject this, and maintain instead that pain is bad only because God made it so."
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteEven though God is the source of all good, nevertheless, pain can be intrinsically wrong because He made us/the world to judge/recognize it as such.
Daniel, you're comments are inconsistent.
ReplyDelete"Ethics is a product of God's nature, judgment and will." seems in opposition to "pain can be intrinsically wrong...".
If we simply judge pain as wrong, then it is not intrinsic. If God judges that pain is wrong, then it is not instrinsic.
I'm not sure the claim that "pain" is bad only because we/God judge it as bad is easily defensible, if at all, Daniel.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to make a distinction here -- although God is the source of all the laws/truths, from our point of view, certain things are intrinsically or intuitively wrong. This is simply because God's truth have become our reality, our operating system. As such, we find these truths within ourselves.
I'm trying to be precise, Daniel. From here it looks a little like you're trying to have it both ways :-)
ReplyDeleteIn support of the view that some things are intrinsically "wrong", Weilenberg quotes Neilsen:
God or no God, the torturing of innocents is vile. More generally, even if we can make nothing of the concept of God, we can readily come to appreciate...that, if anything is evil, inflicting or tolerating unnecessary and pointless suffering is evil, especially when something can be done about it...Can't we be more confident about this than we can about any abstract or general philosophical point we might make in ethical theory?"
Weilenberg also invokes an argument concerning epistemology by Chisolm (in "The Problem of the Criterion") in support of the claim that the Dependency Thesis ought to go:
ReplyDelete"An epistemology that leads to the conclusion that individuals cannot know they have hands should be rejected; similarly, a metaphysics that leads to the conclusion that falling in love is not intrinsically good, or that pain is not intrinsically evil, should be rejected."
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteAs I stated, I can applaud this concept of intrinsic rightness or wrongness. God created a reality in which things are intrinsically right and wrong.
Furthermore, as a Christian I'm glad you believe that torturing babies is intrinsically wrong. It means that you are in touch with the moral law written on your heart. However, if there is no God (and no higher truth), then what is written on your heart, what you regard as intrinsically wrong, is no more than a giant accident. Therefore, this idea of intrinsic wrongs is no more than a delusion foisted upon you by your genes. It's no more than an electrical-chemical reaction. So don't take it so seriously!
Mann: As I stated, I can applaud this concept of intrinsic rightness or wrongness.
ReplyDeleteSo, do you accept the claim that some things are "good", "evil" etc, which are not due to the will of God? While, on your belief, God created everything, that some things are intrinsically wrong (as you seem to accept) indicates that they're wrong (and would be wrong) regardless of what your God thought of them. Correct?
Mann: It means that you are in touch with the moral law written on your heart. However, if there is no God (and no higher truth), then what is written on your heart, what you regard as intrinsically wrong, is no more than a giant accident.
That doesn't follow, Daniel. I'm unware of any arguments which claim which demonstrate thate the simple absence of a deity means that morality is an "accident". Even the arguments in favour of an evolutionary basis to our sense of morality do not make or rely upon such a claim. In fact, it's mostly theists like yourself who make this claim, and yet I'm not aware of it being justified :-)
Mann: Therefore, this idea of intrinsic wrongs is no more than a delusion foisted upon you by your genes. It's no more than an electrical-chemical reaction. So don't take it so seriously!
A statement which seems to demonstrate an ignorance of non-theistic moral philosophy, not to mention neuroscience, psychology, sociology and other disciplines.
But, this is just a diversion. You've still not plainly stated whether you believe the Dependency Thesis (or something rather similar) is true or false.
You seem to want to accept the Dependency Thesis, because it means that your God is responsible for morality (good and evil are solely dependant on the will of God).
You also seem to want to deny the Dependency Thesis because you also want to claim that some things are intrinsically good/evil. Claiming that some things are intrinsically good/evil indicates that your God is not involved in making that particular moral proposition true/false, something you seem loath to do.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI think I've been very forthright about this. You want to squeeze the Biblical position into a narrow box where it just won't go.
You state "Claiming that some things are intrinsically good/evil indicates that your God is not involved in making that particular moral proposition true/false, something you seem loath to do."
I've maintained that God is the source and also that, because of this, some things are intrinsically wrong from the standpoint of the reality He created. I think your paradigm is artificially restrictive and therefore not usable.
Daniel, you're still not being clear and concise, sorry.
ReplyDeleteIf something is intrinsically wrong, then that "wrong"ness is an essential part of the nature of that thing. Therefore, if gratuitous suffering were intrinsically wrong (for example), then regardless of whether God exists or not, regardless of your Gods nature/will regarding the matter, it is wrong. "2 + 2 = 4" seems to be something which is intrinsically true (given the basic axioms of math).
As it is you still seem to want to have your cake and eat it too, though probably not wilfully so. Claims of my "paradigm" being too restrictive won't help, as you're statements concerning your beliefs on the matter are inconsistent.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteWe have a different understanding of what it means to be "intrinsically wrong." While we both believe that this pertains to the nature of things, you believe that somehow this precludes God while I think it DEPENDS upon God.
Indeed we do. However, mine appears to be the accepted usage of the term, while you seem to be using it to describe something which is extrinsically wrong.
ReplyDeleteDaniel, to continue this discussion we'll need to sort out your view on whether there are some things which are intrinsically wrong, or whether everything is extrinsically wrong.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to want to claim the former, but are unable to due to an adherence to the latter.
Perhaps if we were to consider whether you think morality is objective (which I believe you do). If something is objectively so, then the beliefs or will of a person doesn't seem to come into it. On this view, claiming objective morality, I don't see a way around accepting that some things are intrinsically wrong.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteLet's try it this way -- God extrinsically made certain things intrinsically wrong.
Intrinsic:
ReplyDeleteOf or relating to the essential nature of a thing; inherent.
Extrinsic:
1. Not forming an essential or inherent part of a thing; extraneous.
2. Originating from the outside; external.
I don't think your statement is coherent, Daniel.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI do understand your definitions, but I think that your paradigm is needlessly rigid and exclusive of certain necessary considerations.
There is no incoherence there. Instead, what seems to be incoherence is a matter of perspective. What's extrinsic to us is intrinsic to God's nature and the created reality.
God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted,
ReplyDeleteIf ... there are ... objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have ... a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.
But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective moral values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution." Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains,
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . .. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they, are referring above and beyond themselves, . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation, Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .
Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life 'I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.
But we've got to be very careful here.
The question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live a moral life? I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I think we can. Rather, the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?
Like Mackie and Ruse, I just don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has became taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really morally wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. And thus without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.
But the fact is that objective values do exist, and we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse-aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5," Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.
God provides the best explanation for objective moral values in the world. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted,
ReplyDeleteIf ... there are ... objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have ... a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.
But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective moral values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution." Professor Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science at the University of Guelph, agrees. He explains,
Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . .. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they, are referring above and beyond themselves, . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation, Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . .
Friedrich Nietzsche, the great atheist of the last century who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life 'I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.
But we've got to be very careful here.
ReplyDeleteThe question here is not: Must we believe in God in order to live a moral life? I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God? I think we can. Rather, the question is: If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?
Like Mackie and Ruse, I just don’t see any reason to think that in the absence of God the morality evolved by Homo sapiens is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust called the planet Earth, lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of human development has became taboo. But that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really morally wrong. On the atheistic view, if you can escape the social consequences, there’s nothing really wrong with your raping someone. And thus without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.
But the fact is that objective values do exist, and we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects. Actions like rape, torture, child abuse-aren't just socially unacceptable behavior. They're moral abominations. Even Ruse himself admits, "The man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5," Some things are really wrong. Similarly, love, equality, self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.
WLC
Andrey, your (or WLCs?) quote of Mackie doesn't show he believed that objective moral values entails the existence of God, and so your claims of mackie denying the existence of God doesn't follow.
ReplyDeleteYour further quotes of Mackie and Ruse are arguments against the existence of objective moral values (at least in the sense you seem to be using the term).
Further, the claims that without God, objective moral values do not/cannot exist only apply to the sense in which you're using the term (some sort of transcendant objectivity). The naturalistic account of morality presented is simplistic and is not representative or the more fleshed out naturalistic accounts - it's a strawman.
I always love this quote when it turns up:
"But the fact is that objective values do exist, and we all know it. There is no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of physical objects."
That's a very poor defense of the existence of objective moral values. The analogy between objective reality and objective morality fails (one is for the most part uniformly experienced, the other not).
The Divine Command Theory which WLC holds is rather disgusting, btw.
Mann: I do understand your definitions, but I think that your paradigm is needlessly rigid and exclusive of certain necessary considerations.
ReplyDeleteAnd I find your lack of precision in wording troubling and incoherent, as it leaves claiming 2 mutually exclusive positions.
Mann:Instead, what seems to be incoherence is a matter of perspective. What's extrinsic to us is intrinsic to God's nature and the created reality.
Which leads me to believe you're claiming that nothing is intrinsically wrong, Daniel. There really is no other way to view it that I can see.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteHere's my suggestion -- if you have a killer-point to make against the existence of God, try using a different vehicle. this one just goes round and round and round.
It seems to be going round and round because you seem unwilling or unable to state a coherent position regarding intrinsic good/bad.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, no "killer point" Daniel, just an argument which purports to demonstrate the superfluousness of God as regards reality.
Perhaps you could take the time to read the Chapter of Wielenberg's book and see what you think of it, "from the horses mouth" so to speak?
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI guess I'm just going to have to wait patiently until some other argument is able to show me how superfluous God is.
That's pretty funny Daniel. You're unable to commit to a position on intrinsic good/evil, and you've been pointed to an argument which purports to show that your beliefs regarding the relationship of God (should it exist) and morality is false/flawed.
ReplyDeleteInstead of being willing to find out if indeed your beliefs are false, you're content to just sit around, safe in the knowledge that you're "right".
I can't decide if that constitutes intellectual laziness or cowardice :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI really feel quite comfortable with my position -- no sense of cognitive dissonance, laziness or cowardice! But I do appreciate your perseverance in trying to enlighten me.
Mann: I really feel quite comfortable with my position -- no sense of cognitive dissonance, laziness or cowardice
ReplyDeleteAnd yet you won't read ~20 pages of text, nor attempt to clarify your position further?
Strange :-)
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteRemember that I did try to read it and found it incoherent. Besides, it's apparent that his model is needlessly constricted to several strawman choices, as our conversation has demonstrated.
Daniel, you said you found my summary incoherent (though you never bothered to point out why), and when I suggested you read the original argument, you claimed the discussion was between you and I, and that I should present the argument to you.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you claim that the model is constricted, but all you've shown is an equivocation between intrinsic and extrinsic, which leads me to believe your own position is incoherent. You've not clarified your position to demonstrate that this is not the case.
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI tried honestly to play according to your rules/paradigm. It didn't work. I'd suggest that if you want to continue to carry on this moral discussion that you find a new paradigm.
Daniel, you said you understood the definitions I gave for extrinsic and intrinsic (the standard definitions). You then went on to use the terms in a non-standard, incoherent fashion, and failed to further clarify this usage.
ReplyDeleteThe failure is not mine, nor one of the "paradigm" I'm using (which would simply be logical reasoning), but yours, in lacking coherence and clarification of your position.
What "paradigm" ought we use, Daniel, other than logical reasoning?
It also seems that when we have discussed morality in the past, the impasses we've come to have been on your side, rather than mine (See the initial thread regarding objective morality here for example).
Havoc,
ReplyDeleteI just posted on new essay on "Euthyphro's Dilemma." I think that this paradigm might be more fertile in promoting discussion.