In my last two posts, I argued that Erik Wielenberg fails to show that Godless Normative Robust Realism (GRNR) avoids some of the standard objections to the autonomy thesis. This brings me to Wielenberg’s third claim III, Wielenberg suggests that GRNR is prima facie preferable to various theistic accounts of axiological properties. Several authors have […]
Entries Tagged as 'Philosophy of Religion'
Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy thesis: part four Intrinsic goodness
March 31st, 2017 23 Comments
Tags: Erik Wielenberg · God and Morality · Intrinsic Value · Linda Zagzebski · Mark Murphy · Moral Realism · Robert Adams · supervenience · Thomas Carson
Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy Thesis: Part Three Standard Objections to the Autonomy Thesis, Human Rights and Dignity without God
March 25th, 2017 1 Comment
In my last post I looked at Erik Wielenberg’s response to the objection that, in the absence of God, people lack compelling reasons to comply with morality’s demands. A second objection Wielenberg briefly addresses is that without certain theological doctrines, one cannot provide a plausible basis for human rights and dignity. Wielenberg, here again, takes Craig […]
Tags: David Boonin · Erik Wielenberg · Infanticide · Loius Pojman · Nicholas Wolterstorff · Peter Singer · Rights · William Lane Craig
Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy Thesis: Part Two Standard Objections to the Autonomy Thesis, Reasons to be Moral Without God
March 20th, 2017 3 Comments
The autonomy thesis contends that there can be moral requirements to φ regardless of whether God commands, desires, or wills that people φ. In his monograph, Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism,[1] Erik Wielenberg offers arguably one of the most sophisticated defences of the autonomy thesis to date. Wielenberg argues three […]
Tags: Erik Wielenberg · God and Morality · Robert Adams · Stephen Layman · Why be Moral? · William Lane Craig
Carrier on infantile moral reasoning: one more time
March 16th, 2017 1 Comment
In a previous post, I discussed Carrier’s defence of “The infantile Objection” to divine a command theory (DCT) of meta-ethics. Some comments he makes in the same paper, suggest a slightly different version of the argument. Seeing I have found this version of the objection relatively common in oral discussions. It is worth having a […]
Tags: Divine Command Theory · Historical Atrocities · Richard Carrier
Erik Wielenberg and the Autonomy Thesis: part one Wielenberg’s criticism of Divine command meta-ethics
March 11th, 2017 2 Comments
The autonomy thesis contends that there can be moral requirements to φ regardless of whether God commands, desires, or wills that people φ. In his monograph, Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism,[1] Erik Wielenberg offers arguably one of the most sophisticated defences of the autonomy thesis to date. Wielenberg argues that: […]
Tags: Divine Command Theory · Erik Wielenberg · God and Morality · Wes Morriston
Is it Immoral to Believe in God? Matt responds to Michael Ruse
November 28th, 2016 1 Comment
The Christian Research Journal have published an online copy of an article I wrote for their journal last year: In a recent op-ed piece in the New York Times, the distinguished philosopher of science Michael Ruse raises the question, Is it morally wrong to believe in God? Some skeptics maintain there is something irrational about […]
Tags: God and Morality · Michael Ruse · New Atheists · Publications
“Thank God for the New Zealand Anti Terrorist Squad” Published
October 6th, 2016 4 Comments
At last years the conference of the American Academy of Religion I participated in a panel discussion on the topic “Just War as Deterrence Against Terrorism”. The papers from this symposium have now been published in issue 18: 21 of Philosophia Christi The abstract to my article “Thank God for the New Zealand Anti-Terrorist Squad” […]
Tags:
A common objection to belief in the God of the Bible is that a good, kind, and loving deity would never command the wholesale slaughter of nations. In the tradition of his popular Is God a Moral Monster?, Paul Copan teams up with Matthew Flannagan to tackle some of the most confusing and uncomfortable passages of Scripture. Together they help the Christian and nonbeliever alike understand the biblical, theological, philosophical, and ethical implications of Old Testament warfare passages.
