tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post5342366512759453970..comments2023-10-29T10:32:36.914-04:00Comments on Philosophy, et cetera: The Idea of God - who needs the reality?Richard Y Chappellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-70080784224236152502007-06-10T22:10:00.000-04:002007-06-10T22:10:00.000-04:00Enigman - "My problem with your approach is that w...Enigman - "<I>My problem with your approach is that without God's existence, the only things able to ground our normative ideals, so far as I can see, are self and society.</I>"<BR/><BR/>This misses the central point of my post, namely: "Ideal standards can be grounded in counterfactuals, e.g. facts about what an ideal spectator <I>would</I> recommend."<BR/><BR/>Suppose we want to ground goodness in God's nature. This does not require God to exist. We could just as well appeal to <I>counterfactual</I> natures, and what God <I>would</I> have wanted (had he existed).<BR/><BR/>Consider: you may think (1) that God exists, and (2) that God frowns upon genocide. Now entertain the hypothesis (3) that God does not actually exist after all. You should still hold a modified form of your second belief, namely: (4) God <I>would have</I> frowned upon genocide.<BR/><BR/>I'm suggesting that claim #4 can do everything that claim #2 can. It is just as objective, and can "ground" all the same facts. Any doubts you have about #4 (e.g. "but how can we know it for sure? We could be mistaken in ascribing these judgments to God...") will apply in equal measure to #2. There is simply no relevant difference between them.Richard Y Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16725218276285291235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-35996028440203110142007-06-10T16:35:00.000-04:002007-06-10T16:35:00.000-04:00Hum, very interesting argument. I would agree with...Hum, very interesting argument. I would agree with "The question of how things should be does not fundamentally depend on how things in fact are." And I would agree with enigman's argument about the grounds for our ideals. Good read.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06374984798818886626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6642011.post-9107689506126289622007-06-09T05:19:00.000-04:002007-06-09T05:19:00.000-04:00Clayton's argument was complex, I think (although ...Clayton's argument was complex, I think (although parts of it would clearly transfer nicely to the objective existence of physical objects), but the conclusion of your quote of him ought only to be that God, if it exists, cannot be as he imagines it to be. My problem with your approach is that without God's existence, the only things able to ground our normative ideals, so far as I can see, are self and society. But we think that societies can be wrong, and selves too (both other and own).Martin Cookehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11425491938517935179noreply@blogger.com