Like lightning all thoughts come and pass. Just once look into your mind-depths:
To be fair, the argument is not always as intuitive as theists like to think it is. Essentially, the moral argument seeks to infer God as the best explanation for the objective moral facts about the universe. One of the most popular formulations is as follows: Objective morality cannot exist unless God exists.
There are a host of common objections that are usually blown in the direction of this argument, but for the sake of brevity, I will only deal with five. No proponent of the moral argument has ever argued that an individual cannot be moral unless they hold belief in God.
Rather, the argument deals with grounding, or substantiating, objective morality. If God does not exist, then there can be no basis for objective morality.
Sure, atheists can be moral. In fact, I know several atheists who are more moral than some theists! The issue of belief is not pertinent to the argument. The argument simply highlights the fact that there must be a basis— some kind of standard—that is outside of ourselves, in order for there to be objective morality.
This objection makes a category error of confusing a question of moral ontology Is there a moral reality? It seems that morality is not absolute as you say it is. There is an important difference between absolute and objective.
Absolutism requires that something will, or must, always be the case. Rather, it contends that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions, judgments, biases, and proclivities.
This is what is meant by objective. After all, how do you know that you are not a brain in a vat being electrically stimulated by a crazy scientist who wants you to think that all of this is real?
You could be in the matrix, for all you know take the blue pill! How could you possibly prove otherwise? See where this is going? We believe in the reality of the external world on the basis of our experience of the external world, and we are justified in believing that the external world is real unless we had good evidence to think otherwise.
In the absence of defeating evidence, we are justified in trusting our experience of the external world. In the same way, I think we can know that objective morality exists on the basis of our moral experience. We have access to moral facts about the universe through our moral intuition.
Unless we have good reason to distrust our moral experience, we are justified in accepting the reality of the objective moral framework that it presents us with. The first response is that even though not all cultures share the exact same moral facts, most embrace the same, underlying moral values.
For example, there are certain tribes that practice senicide authorized killing of the elderly due to their belief that everyone in the afterlife will continue living on in the same body that they died with.
Thus, in order to ensure that those in the afterlife are capable of hunting, swimming, building houses, etc. This act is done with the well-being of the elderly in mind. The second response is that some cultures do, in fact, practice certain things that are straight up morally abominable.
Cultures that practice infanticide, female circumcision, widow burning, child prostitution, etc. When a man decides to have his 6-year old daughter circumcised or sold into prostitution, that is not a cultural or traditional difference that we should respect and uphold, rather these are atrocities that need to be advocated against and ended.
We condemn those actions, and rightly so. Take the example of Nazi Germany: Tim Keller summarizes this point succintly: They ought not to have done it. We do not only have moral feelings, but we also have an ineradicable belief that moral standards exist, outside of us, by which our internal moral feelings are evaluated.
Simply because a society practices acts that are contrary to what is moral does not mean that all moral codes are equal. Moral disagreements do not nullify moral truths.
He ordered the genocide of the Canaanites.And I have had more than enough verbal abuse from the Richard Purtills, the Peter Kreefts, and the Thomas Talbotts.
We are all getting older and I, for my part, would much rather read books I want to read (or reread) and listen to great music that I either don't know or want to know better.
|Customers who bought this item also bought||I want to thank my father, Louis Morellaand mother, Regina Morellafor letting me know what it means to be a Catholic through their example of teaching me the Faith of an altar boy at Our Lady of Lourdes Parish, Pittsburg, Kansas - a Faith that I never forgot. Eternal rest, grant unto them, O Lord.|
|Search This Blog||No, I think that more accurately it is Zacharias that has mishandled Epicureanism and Stoicism.|
Footnotes to Plato. Maverick Philosopher Footnotes to Plato from the foothills of the Superstition Mountains. If so I found Peter Kreefts fairness and evident understanding of the side he is refuting makes for a very powerful read.
I have read about 30 of his 80 or so books, went to see him debate, on two separate occasions, two renowned atheist professors at nearby colleges and he wiped the floor with them.
Aug 07, · between theology and science" (page ), but doesn't go on to detail and more recently Peter Kreefts 'Handbook of christian apologetics', however, the 'thinking christian' The Tablet carried a review of Kreefts and Tacelli's book on the 1 June , page Quote 'For anyone concerned with an effective.
The history of the Catholic Church begins with Jesus Christ and His teachings (c. 4 BC – c.
AD 30), and the Catholic Church is a continuation of the early Christian community es. The Philosophy Of Tolkien – The Worldview Behind Lord Of The Rings by Peter Kreeft Ph.D. is quite an insightful book, in which Kreeft searches for phi Sprinkled generously throughout the book are extrapolations regarding Tolkien’s philosophical view, which are employed in answering some of the most vital and profound philosophical questions.