tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post5092573279107194098..comments2024-02-26T09:41:59.579-05:00Comments on Memeing Naturalism: Getting Along: Civil Disagreements with a Thinking ChristianTom Clarkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08414754510736349472noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-35851232218353422212009-03-28T08:33:00.000-04:002009-03-28T08:33:00.000-04:00Tom, I've posted another response this week. Hope ...Tom, I've posted <A HREF="http://www.thinkingchristian.net/2009/03/tom-clark-empiricism-and-ethics/" REL="nofollow">another response</A> this week. Hope to see you there!Tom Gilsonhttp://www.thinkingchristian.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-45190832664931999422009-03-22T18:33:00.000-04:002009-03-22T18:33:00.000-04:00Jason,I suspect we would disagree about who are th...Jason,<BR/><BR/>I suspect we would disagree about who are the brightest philosophers of the last 100 years. <BR/><BR/>I'm just curious, who are these philosophers which you consider "the brightest" that also hold that belief in God is required for a justified moral philosophy.<BR/><BR/>Or put another way, who are these philosophers who hold, as you do, that a naturalistic worldview provides no ground for ethics.<BR/><BR/>Thanks.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-4497323989136761192009-03-22T18:23:00.000-04:002009-03-22T18:23:00.000-04:00UnB-If the view was "debunked" 2300 years ago, it ...UnB-<BR/>If the view was "debunked" 2300 years ago, it seems nobody informed the brightest philosophers of the past 100 years.<BR/><BR/>"Debunked" in your mind.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-6096394440462634442009-03-21T00:55:00.000-04:002009-03-21T00:55:00.000-04:00Jason,Your position was debunked 2300 years ago.Fo...Jason,<BR/><BR/>Your position was debunked 2300 years ago.<BR/><BR/>For a nice easy to read guide to secular ethics I recommend "Being Good" by Simon Blackburn.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-5336809066041569132009-03-21T00:43:00.000-04:002009-03-21T00:43:00.000-04:00Tom,I very much appreciate your kind spirit and yo...Tom,<BR/>I very much appreciate your kind spirit and your careful thinking. However, and we have toyed with this issue before, I still find it terribly difficult, given your worldview stance, how you can make assertions like:<BR/><BR/>"To put it succinctly and imperatively: everybody play nice!"<BR/><BR/>If you are a sincere and pure naturalist, surely you see that this moral dictate you are placing on everyone else has no grounding within the guidelines of your own worldview.<BR/><BR/>Not that I wish you were cruel, but just that you have no reason not to be, nor does anyone else, according to your position.<BR/><BR/>Again, I know this issue comes up all the time, and I know your responses (my mind is still open to better explanations), but I still have a terribly difficult time understanding how you justify your moral life and you philosophical life.<BR/><BR/>Nietzsche was the most consistent naturalist I know of. If God is dead, so are all objective moral constraints.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-89087409808226851342009-03-18T11:41:00.000-04:002009-03-18T11:41:00.000-04:00Tom, thanks for the note here. It has been a good ...Tom, thanks for the note here. It has been a good exchange to date, and I have not forgotten the other two topics I planned to address. I'll look forward to more interaction.<BR/><BR/>unBeguiled, thanks for reading... if you look around on my blog you'll find that I do believe there are reliable ways to discover truth about the supernatural world. That was not the subject of this set of posts, however.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25268031.post-71730397657378658662009-03-16T19:52:00.000-04:002009-03-16T19:52:00.000-04:00I am reading this exchange and came to this gem:"i...I am reading this exchange and came to this gem:<BR/><BR/>"if you use methods whose competence is limited to discovering the natural world."<BR/><BR/>Will he present a method that is competent at discovering knowledge of the alleged supernatural world? Will the method produce converging results if employed by Hindu, Buddhist, or Christian?<BR/><BR/>I shall read further, but past experience leaves me biased that I shall find his method unreliable. But, I might be wrong about that.GarageDragonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11399828220100913111noreply@blogger.com