Here's the full session: FORA.tv

And oddly enough, theism so often exists without a scrap of morality.

>> ^TheFreak:
And oddly enough, theism so often exists without a scrap of morality.


So true. It seems to me that quite often theists (mainly Christians) use their religion as an "antidote" to sin. It actually allows them to be immoral, provided that they ask for forgiveness later....

Edit: Not to mention the beliefs they hold as a result of their religion that are actually immoral...

God needs Morality.

I think Colin McGinn is somewhat overconfident about the ease of establishing a basis for morality within atheism. Within current philosophy--and most academic philosophers today are atheists--there is very little agreement within meta-ethics, the field of philosophy concerned with grounding our ethical judgments in a bigger ethical theory.

In particular, there seems to be great difficulty in figuring out exactly why we ought to be moral--why there is such thing as an "ought" at all. While theists can generally come to some kind of basic agreement on this question--whether they believe that morality ultimately stems from God's commands as commands, or whether they come from somewhere else as Denys Turner claims--it is not obvious on what basis atheists might come to any kind of consensus.

A sign that there may be quite a bit of confusion underlying McGinn's position is indicated by his mentioning the Euthyphro dilemma. While it's true that Plato seems to undermine the notion that morality is dictated by divine commands, this is only possible for him in the context of a bigger cosmic picture. For Plato, the form of the Good is both a transcendent reality and the root of all genuine morality.

But for an atheist naturalist like McGinn, there can be no such transcendent reality providing for our morality. What, then, is its basis? Reason, as he says? But what kind of reason? And how does it function in this way? What role does the emotional aspect of benevolence and good will play?

*talks *quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by gwiz665.

Adding video to channels (Talks) - requested by gwiz665.

The first time I saw Collin McGinn I was watching "A Breif History of Disbelief" I agreed with him then and I agree with him now.

The second speaker still hasn't answered the arguments made by Collin. He DOES talk fancy though.

Interesting. I disagree with Colin McGinn that the source of morals is reason. Perhaps it is because I think that they are so many unreasonable people in the world and I can't see reasonable people convincing unreasonable people with reason. If you think this is possible, just try having a reasonable talk with a fundamentalist (of any stripe.)

I think Denys Turner starts down the correct path, but then alters the end point to his beliefs. I don't believe that people develop good morals in order to find their gods and that poor morals means they are worshiping false gods.

It seems to me very simple, but of course I am not a scholar - just a man that likes to think. Every society or group of animals eventually comes to a set of rules that usually benefits that group ability to continue living. The variations are great, but usually it settles down to what will continue the society living *to the limit of that society's understanding of the world, etc.* And then society's pressures and man's needs as social animals bring the majority closer to the accepted behaviors.

Again I'm not a scholar, but I think my explanation is more reasonable than relying on reason alone.

Morality develops out of a social need for it. It's the next logical step after creating a society in order to further the species. Groups survive better than individuals, but groups are comprised of individuals with different ideas. Thus, the need for cooperation comes into play. Cooperation cannot occur without a "give and take" in order to find the greatest good for the greatest number of people.