From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:53 AM To: alt.atheism.moderated Subject: Re: evidence of god? for Holtz [G Riggs] "Elizabeth Hubbell" wrote: > > to figure out how people invent novel yet first-rate > > ethical principles [vs.] to figure out how to get > > people to follow the ethical principles that already > > have been invented. > > I feel both aspects are equally important Saying the former issue is important is inconsistent with your admission that you think it's not possible for someone to invent an ethical principle better than your favorite one (altruism/reciprocity/cooperation). > there is too much of a ho-hum attitude to following them in too > many corridors of power today. Vague. > primarily it was a concern that the powerful should be given a > freer rein that appears to have spurred the earliest atheism If non-robust ancient atheism was just an excuse for greed, then it's not surprising that the obvious non-greedy theories of ethics were first stated by ancient non-atheists. > Whatever might have rendered the most ancient atheism *sometimes* > unpopular--and, again, I dispute that it was unpopular in all cases--had > relatively little to do with exasperation over half-baked cosmolog[y] Then what, praytell, besides lame cosmology made it "sometimes unpopular", and what besides greed made it "sometimes popular"? Nothing you've said so far makes your identified correlation surprising or significant. > What I do expect from the ancients of both sides is some engagement > with the moral implications of what it means for humanity to live in a > cosmos of *either* a)pure atomism or b)naturalism and supernaturalism. > Odd that we don't *appear* to have examples of this in both camps. Again: if ancient atomism/atheism was hobbled by lame cosmology and only motivated by greed, it's hardly "odd" that ancient atomists/atheists didn't value "empathy" (which you admit is what you mean by "engagement..."). > All ethics, IMHO, begin with empathy essentially. You obviously mean just "all ethics I would agree with". I note that my ethics do not begin with empathy, but they end up valuing pretty much the same ends that your ethics values. You can read how such an amazing feat is possible in section 1.3 (Philosophy / Axiology) of my book. -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net