Noted philosopher Kai Nielsen offers an answer to this fundamental question - a question that reaches in to grasp at the very heart of ethics itself. Essentially, this innocent inquiry masks a confusion that so many of us get caught in as we think about moral issues. We fail to realize that there is a difference between judging human behavior within an ethical context, or set of moral principles, and justifying the principles themselves. According to Nielsen, it is precisely this basic muddle that has spawned all sorts of challenges to morality, from relativism and intuitionism to egoism...
Noted philosopher Kai Nielsen offers an answer to this fundamental question - a question that reaches in to grasp at the very heart of ethics itself. ...
Nielsen argues that morality cannot be based on religion, and that there is no evidence to show that nonbelievers despair or lose their sense of identity and purpose. He shows that the implications of Christian absolutism are more likely to be monstrous than are those of a secular ethic that incorporates an independent principle of justice.
Nielsen argues that morality cannot be based on religion, and that there is no evidence to show that nonbelievers despair or lose their sense of ident...
Is there a God? What is the evidence for belief in such a being? What is God like? Or, is God a figment of human inspiration? How do we know that such a being might not exist? Should belief or disbelief in God's existence make a difference in our opinions and moral choices, in the way we see ourselves and relate to those around us? These are fundamental questions, and their answers have shaped individual lives, races, and nations throughout history. On March 24, 1988, at the University of Mississippi, J.P. Moreland, a leading Christian philosopher and ethicist, and Kai Nielsen, one of...
Is there a God? What is the evidence for belief in such a being? What is God like? Or, is God a figment of human inspiration? How do we know that such...
This elucidation and defense of naturalism argues that an uncompromising secular orientation is the best framework to utilize in trying to make sense of life and of society. Part one interprets religion in purely naturalistic terms and seeks to show that religious symbols arise solely from facts about human nature and society, specifically our needs, fears, and aspirations. Part Two examines arguments for and against naturalism, including the defenses of Sidney Hook, Ernest Nagel, Antony Flew, and critical reactions to their views. Special attention is given to the forceful critique of...
This elucidation and defense of naturalism argues that an uncompromising secular orientation is the best framework to utilize in trying to make sense ...
