Well, it’s been a while but I’m back. I’ve just uploaded a new article in the philosophy section. “Is There an Echo in Here? Critiques of God based Ethics.”

It’s about the weak point in modern moral philosophy. Open any mainstream textbook on ethical theory, whether it’s by Singer, Timmons, Rachels, or Pojman (and many others), and turn to the section on religiously grounded ethics. Bingo, you found the weak point.

Philosophers – even those who specialise in ethics – lower their standards when it comes to religion. Straw men abound, and ignorance reigns supreme. In spite of the fact that the last forty years as seen a vast literature in philosophy of religion on the relationship between God and morality, especially divine command theories of ethics, the same old tired objections keep getting trotted out with absolutely no interaction with this literature. Heck, I guess religious theories are so stupid that it doesn’t matter how we convince people to reject them, as long as we do. Right?

I’m a bit slow on the uptake with this. Since – astoundingly – I don’t have much time for Richard Dawkins, I tend not to follow Dawkins-related controversies. I think the truth about Dawkins is pretty simple. He’s a popular scientist who has let it all go to his head and hence thinks he’s qualified to make pontifications on God, the Universe and everything, and that so long as he knows how to laugh, he has addressed all matters of religion.

What’s nice to see is that Fellow atheist – and actual philosopher – Michael Ruse has noticed this as well. In his review of Dawkins’ book A Devil’s Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love, Ruse makes a number of pointed, scathing and perfectly accurate complaints. Here are some of my personal favourites:
Interested? Read the rest.

I’m back, and it is shortly after the turn of the clocks into New Year’s Day, 2007. Happy New Year!

Saddam Hussein = dead. I wanted to wait a day after his death before blogging on this, to see some of the reactions. As expected, they vary considerably. Here is a selection of coments from prominent individuals on the sentence.

The one that irks me the most is this, from Cardinal Renato Martino, Pope Benedict XVI’s top prelate for justice issues:

Saddam’s execution punishes “a crime with another crime. … The death penalty is not a natural death. And no one can give death, not even the state.”

So execution is a crime? I wonder if Cardinal Martino is aware of the role played by Cardinals in the Inquisition. Is he saying that his Church engaged in crimes? So why don’t they apologise to the Protestants?

But this for a Cardinal, is appalling. He knows that the Bible unequivocally institutes the death penalty for murder. He knows that the state is referred to as God’s agent, excercising wrath on His behalf. To what, or whom, does he think he is appealing? And why doesn’t he say something like “the infallible Church has changed its mind”?

Saddam’s death was horrible I’m sure. Death is. And he deserved it. Cardinal Martino, are you telling me that the office of the Holy Inquisition is justified in having a person executed for heresy, but Saddam ought not to have been executed for mass murder?