From: Brian Holtz [brian@holtz.org] Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 12:49 PM 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 > > > > Saying [this] issue is important is inconsistent > > with your admission that you think it's not possible to > > invent an ethical principle better than your favorite one > > (altruism/reciprocity/cooperation). > > Actually, I believe it's not *probable*. That's still inconsistent, because there's a better way to find out if any ethical principles could be better than yours: by analyzing the space of possible ethical principles. That is what I do in section 1.3 (Philosophy / Axiology) of my book. I've already said or implied that I've there identified ethical principles that are better than yours. It's odd that you haven't followed up, given your alleged interest in this area... > > 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. > > But it remains singularly disappointing, IMHO. Earlier, such surprise was your basis for provisionally asserting theism. Disappointment is hardly such a basis. > how come the attitude of the > minority--a fringe group of the extremely well-off--became attached to a > profession of unbelief, while the attitude of a (however beleaguered) > majority [..] became attached to a profession of belief. By your account, the answer is obviously "self-interest", and not "god(s) probably inspired the latter". > both ancient atomism/atheism *and* theism were equally hobbled by > lame cosmology Theist cosmology is only "lame" in retrospect, because we now have better explanations. At the time, there was no plausible alternative. > it does indeed seem troubling, IMHO, that so much of ancient > atheism may have been motivated by [greed] It's simply fallacious to therefore say that atheism is false. > You say it's hardly "odd" that ancient atheists didn't > value "empathy". But [it's] a keen disappointment as well Earlier, such oddness was your basis for provisionally asserting theism. Disappointment is hardly such a basis. > > my ethics do not begin with empathy, but they end up valuing > > pretty much the same ends that your ethics values. > > I would be glad to end this exchange on such a note of agreement Given the global consensus I've described regarding human rights, it's hardly surprising that neither of us is e.g. a genocidal racist. I was in fact strenuously disagreeing with your statement that "all ethics begin with empathy essentially". -- brian@holtz.org http://humanknowledge.net