franz kiekeben
  • Home
  • Blog
  • Philosophy
  • Publications
  • Contact

ANOTHER REASON FOR DOUBTING MORAL OBJECTIVISM

3/30/2016

0 Comments

 

Moral objectivism is the view that there are moral truths that apply to everyone, whether they agree with them or not – just as there are truths about physics or geology or mathematics.

One argument commonly used against moral objectivism is that people often disagree about ethical matters. By itself, however, this isn't a very strong argument. After all, there are disagreements in every area. For instance, some people believe the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, others that it formed more than 4 billion years ago – but in spite of that, the age of our planet is a perfectly objective matter. Mere disagreement, then, does not mean anything.

But there is a different argument along the same lines that makes a much stronger case. At the very least, it shows that there is something odd about moral objectivism.

The argument begins with the observation that in other areas, there are facts that are obvious, and that as a result just about everyone agrees with. For instance, everyone agrees that fire is hot, or that 1+1=2. Where there are disagreements, it is because the matter is not regarded as something really obvious.

In ethics, however, that's not the case: there are many things that are regarded as obvious by many – even by most people – but which nevertheless are denied by large numbers of other people. For example, the principle that killing an innocent person is (almost always) wrong is one that, for those who agree with it, seems perfectly obvious – about as obvious as that fire is hot or that 1+1=2. And yet, plenty of people disagree with this principle.

Mere disagreement might not mean anything; but disagreement over what is supposedly obvious is much harder to explain. Why is it just about no one doubts simple truths in arithmetic or simple empirical truths, but so many doubt what – given that they are regarded as equally obvious – should be simple truths in ethics? Might it be because they are not actually truths?

(For more on objectivism and subjectivism in ethics – and why subjectivism is compatible with taking morality seriously – see chapter 5 of my book The Truth about God.)
​
0 Comments

ERIC HOVIND ON WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A CHRISTIAN

3/10/2016

0 Comments

 
Christian fundamentalist Eric Hovind is one of those people who love to present mistaken but confusing arguments to trip up his opponents. Consider the way he attempted to defeat ex-Christian Bernie Dehler during this debate by insisting that Dehler had never been a real Christian. Hovind maintained that to be a Christian is to have a personal relationship with Christ. He then asked Dehler if he ever had such a relationship – “Yes or no?” Of course Dehler, who doesn't believe there is a Christ, had to answer no. He at one time thought he had such a relationship, but obviously it wasn't real. Christ would have to exist before anyone could have a relationship with him.

According to Hovind, then, “to say I used to be a Christian assumes that God does exist”!

All of this is of course part of a strategy Hovind uses to make his opponent's case appear weaker. For if his opponent never was a Christian, then he can't claim to have an insider's understanding of Christianity. But it doesn't take much to realize just how ridiculous Hovind's argument is.

To begin with, when an atheist says “I used to be a Christian” – or when anyone not professing to be a Christian uses the term “Christian,” for that matter – what he means is not “someone who has a personal relationship with Christ,” but at most “someone who believes that they have a personal relationship with Christ.” Obviously, one cannot consistently mean the former and at the same time deny that Christ is real. So anyone who doesn't accept Christianity isn't going to accept Hovind's definition of it – not if they want to continue using the term meaningfully.

Suppose, though, that one does go along with Hovind's definition. Well, in that case, then, there are no Christians – not unless the people who call themselves Christian are actually right. All the atheist needs to say in this case is, “Okay, if you go by that definition, I was never a Christian – but only because there never has been a Christian, including you!”

There is another problem with Hovind's argument, though. Hovind claims that “if you say I thought I did [have a relationship with Christ], but I didn't, then… you never were a Christian.” But that doesn't follow. If you go by his definition and the Christians are right, then the atheist who says “I used to be a Christian” could be correct. For if Christ does exist and people have relationships with him, then it could be that the atheist was one such person. The fact that he now no longer believes that the relationship was real does not prove it wasn't.
​

Hovind, then, is once again wrong about everything.


0 Comments

    Archives

    August 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014

    Categories

    All
    Atheism
    Creationism
    Determinism And Free Will
    Ethics
    Infinity
    Politics
    Presuppositionalism

    RSS Feed

Link to my author's page on Amazon