You’re an atheist right? Why don’t you use moral antirealism to argue against theism. In fact, why does no atheist seem to do it? It seems like a pretty straightforward argument:
Premise 1: God is necessarily objectively good
Premise 2: There is no such thing as being “objectively good”
Conclusion: There is no God
Maybe atheist, even atheist antirealists, avoid this argument for political reasons (e.g. certain religious people will use it to say atheists are immoral)? But even in the context of dry academic discussion I’ve not seen it. Not sure why it isn’t used…
I think “grounds”, “reasons”, or “justifications” can play important hortatory roles in some contexts, but I don’t know in what other sense I’d “need” them.
The "need" idea is rooted in this weird idea philosophers have that we "need" or "must" have justifications for things, often accompanied by these justifications being something other than "because I want to." I don't need the universe's permission to have preferences or beliefs or to do anything.
Once you remove all want- or desire-based considerations, I’m left with nothing to grab. Do they say much about that “something other”? Heaven forfend the answer involves enchanting the word “irrational”.
Actually there is growing new evidence that psychopaths don't necessarily lack empathy.
Otherwise, a good essay.
You’re an atheist right? Why don’t you use moral antirealism to argue against theism. In fact, why does no atheist seem to do it? It seems like a pretty straightforward argument:
Premise 1: God is necessarily objectively good
Premise 2: There is no such thing as being “objectively good”
Conclusion: There is no God
Maybe atheist, even atheist antirealists, avoid this argument for political reasons (e.g. certain religious people will use it to say atheists are immoral)? But even in the context of dry academic discussion I’ve not seen it. Not sure why it isn’t used…
I wonder why others don't use that argument. I wouldn't use it because I wouldn't accept premise 1. I don't think realism has much to do with theism.
I think “grounds”, “reasons”, or “justifications” can play important hortatory roles in some contexts, but I don’t know in what other sense I’d “need” them.
The "need" idea is rooted in this weird idea philosophers have that we "need" or "must" have justifications for things, often accompanied by these justifications being something other than "because I want to." I don't need the universe's permission to have preferences or beliefs or to do anything.
Once you remove all want- or desire-based considerations, I’m left with nothing to grab. Do they say much about that “something other”? Heaven forfend the answer involves enchanting the word “irrational”.
Yep they will say you're irrational or a psychopath or conceptually impoverished, etc.