• BookTalk.org News will soon go out via email in HTML format. The goal will be to keep people posted on our current book discussions and other relevant news items.
• Contest #2: "On The Importance of Reading" has started. Visit the Contests forum - the very top thread.
Please support our free community by making a credit card donation through our secure PayPal account. We appreciate and depend on the generosity of our members. Thank you!
Posted: Mon Mar 06, 2006 5:53 pm Post subject: Re: Who's reading?
I am reading. I have some thoughts written down and some points marked off.
I will not read all the posts so far as my time is limited. So I will post some of my thoughts and expect comments.
I will say that I accept everything "W" has to say so far...in as much as any philosophical propositions can be accepted. That is...it is all subjective. To me, philosophy is a muddle of mixed thoughts and non-supportable claims. Ponderings. One philosophy is just as good as the other. Religion has no strong hold on ethics. The ethical thought came before religion, from what I can tell. The human animal has developed to be ethical. Why? Who cares. We are...that is enough for me.
I do not believe in a fairy tale god or religion...yet I am an ethical person. Not because I believe in gods or follow religion, but because I am. (for the most part!) But I am not LESS ethical than any Christian, Muslim, Jew or whatever else there is.
As for some comments I have seen..."W" states that he was NOT out to present an "overarching" ethical system. This book, as I see it, was an attempt to answer the claims that without god, anything is possible...that without god, there is no ethics, no meaning and no direction for human beings. That is pure garbage...and "W" has set out to challenge that.
The bottom line is that if Theists shut their mouths about how much more ethical they are than atheists and any who do not belive their crappy fantasy, this whole topic would not be an issue and atheists and humanists would just go along being ethical as we always have been. Besides, WE are not the ones that have much explaining to do.
Mr. P.
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 5:34 pm Post subject: Re: Who's reading?
misterpessimistic: Can you lay out, logically with premises and all, your take on how religion provides the best system for an ethical system?
I'll try to remember tonight to type it up in a systematic fashion and post it tomorrow. I don't think I'm going to have time to present the argument in its best form right now, as I have to log off in a moment.
I don't want to qualify the question just a little, though. I'm not claiming that religion provides the best basis for an ethical system. I'm claiming that naturalism is likely incapable of providing that basis. Which is tantemount to saying that religion provides the only basis for ethics. I'll get into the details in my next post.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 12:10 am Post subject: Jumping in
Mr. P's objections reminded me of some general thoughts I had regarding the book.
First, there's the broader question of the value of philosophical discourse. I'm somewhere in-between Mad and Mr. P in that regard. I read a philosophy book every year or two, and get something out of them, but I generally concentrate on other topics that tend to be more rewarding.
As a follow-up, what's the value of ethical philosophy? Its value is less clear to me than that of general philosophy, since my ethical beliefs are based on my gut reaction instead of contemplation.
When I first heard of this book, my reaction was similar to Mr. P's. Since I'm an atheist and believe that my ethical principles have merit, the book didn't seem that exciting. I voted for other books, though I ended up being interested in the subject enough to read and discuss it.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: Re: Jumping in
Okay, Mr. P (and anyone else who's interested), I've written out the full explanation for why I believe that religion may be the only workable foundation for ethics. I posted in the religion/philosophy forum, a) because I don't want to drag this thread too far afield and b) in case it might be of interest to anyone not reading the book. You can access that thread here.
JulianTheApostate: I read a philosophy book every year or two, and get something out of them, but I generally concentrate on other topics that tend to be more rewarding.
The importance of philosophy is mostly a matter of context. If you know the sort of questions that prompt a philosophical argument, and if those questions are important to you, then the practice of philosophy may be more rewarding. For example, for the last several years, I've been interested in science as a field of knowledge. Studying that topic has brought me to a lot of questions about the nature of knowledge in general. And because my interest in science has made those questions pertinent to me, reading epistemology has suddenly become more rewarding than it might have been before.
As a follow-up, what's the value of ethical philosophy? Its value is less clear to me than that of general philosophy, since my ethical beliefs are based on my gut reaction instead of contemplation.
I address this a little in the essay I linked to at the top of this post. There, I draw a dinstinction between morality and ethics. If you agree with my scheme, then the gut reactions you have as to what is right and wrong would more rightly qualify as morality. The application of logic to that morality, and the attempt to reason from the premises provided by your gut to conclusions that are more sophisticated or complex would be ethical philosophy.
Since I'm an atheist and believe that my ethical principles have merit, the book didn't seem that exciting.
I think your ethical principles have merit as well. But I think they're probably like most modern ethical principles, derived from a morality which is founded (uncritically) on several thousands of years of religious development.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:03 pm Post subject: Re: Who's reading?
Quote:I think your ethical principles have merit as well. But I think they're probably like most modern ethical principles, derived from a morality which is founded (uncritically) on several thousands of years of religious development.
My version: I think your ethical principles have merit as well. But I think they're probably like most modern ethical principles, derived from a morality which is founded (uncritically) on several thousands of years of HUMAN development.
Again, just because religion has predominated does not mean it is the only way ethics would have evolved...it is just the method that our simpler ancestors understood best. We really have no way of testing this though do we? All that means is that religion wins by default.
I WILL address the rest and other topics later (I promise). I have just been so busy and my mind is swirling lately...too much 'real life' getting in the way. I hate when that happens.
Mr. P.
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:25 pm Post subject: Re: Jumping in
misterpessimistic: Again, just because religion has predominated does not mean it is the only way ethics would have evolved...it is just the method that our simpler ancestors understood best.
I address this in the longer post. I think there's a categorical reason that ethics arose from religion rather than from another method.
I WILL address the rest and other topics later (I promise). I have just been so busy and my mind is swirling lately...too much 'real life' getting in the way.
No problem. I understand that time is limited. I do hope that you'll get around to the longer explanation, though. In the meantime, I'm patient.
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:48 pm Post subject: Re: Jumping in
Yeah, well...as usual your posts are ultra LOOONG so I hate starting them unless I can finish. Maybe I will try something new...print it out and make notes.
But my daughter has a BDAY party tonight and play practice this w/e and my wife will be going nuts...so I cannot sit on a computer posting to a message board without getting kinfe blades in the back of my neck!
In other words...my weekend is shot.
Mr. P.
The one thing of which I am positive is that there is much of which to be negative - Mr. P.
The pain in hell has two sides. The kind you can touch with your hand; the kind you can feel in your heart...Scorsese's "Mean Streets"
I came to kick ass and chew Bubble Gum...and I am all out of Bubble Gum - They Live, Roddy Piper
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:07 pm Post subject: Re: Jumping in
misterpessimistic: Maybe I will try something new...print it out and make notes.
I was actually going to suggest that, just because it should be more convenient than trying to read the whole thing in front of your computer. It only comes out to about four or five pages if you print it in 12pt. Times New Roman.
In other words...my weekend is shot.
Ah, have fun with the birthday party. It'll probably be a good memory some day. It won't be too long before they want you to stay home while they spend their birthday with friends.
