Episode 57 -- Mere Apologetics with D.J. Grothe

Comment on episode 57 here.

I agree there should be some sort of screening for extremism for serving in the military, but I'm not sure I agree that using your allegiance to the U.S. is the best standard to use. If we're determining who should serve based on whether or not they have a personal belief they hold is more sacred than loyalty to the U.S., whether it's religious or secular, wouldn't we then have to ban most people in the U.S. then? Is having a belief that's more sacred than your allegiance to the U.S. always the same thing as being anti-American? Like, what if you're working for Guantanamo Bay and were being threatened by your authorities to torture suspects, if your belief that torture is immoral is more important than your loyalty to the U.S., would you then be branded a terrorist and be banned from the military?

You are fighting in an army who's sole purpose (supposedly) is to defend the said country your in. If you're in that army, while you're in it, the Country and Constitution better top priority. Do they have to be that way all the time? No. Do they need to be while on duty? They better

The discussion on whether or not atheists can have an objective moral compass reminds me of the Rush song Faithless

I've got my own moral compass to steer by
A guiding star beats a spirit in the sky
And all the preaching voices -
Empty vessels of dreams so loud
As they move among the crowd
Fools and thieves are well disguised
In the temple and market place

Great episode. I really like the counter apologetics content.

DJ mentioned that he thinks Jesus' teachings were immoral. Does anyone know whether he has elaborated on these points somewhere?

snafu wrote:Great episode. I really like the counter apologetics content.

DJ mentioned that he thinks Jesus' teachings were immoral. Does anyone know whether he has elaborated on these points somewhere?

I think he might be talking about the "leave your families and friends and come join my ministry" deal. But this is just speculation on my part.

i love you guys, but the discussion on ethics in this episode was just painful. and when grothe said he wasn't an ethicist, he wasn't kidding. if you guys want to talk about ethics you really need to get someone on there who has at least some background in the field on there. just like everything else, study in the area matters. that whole part of the episode was just one long wince. i mean, i wouldn't even know where to start in telling you what was wrong.
i'm sure there are people who do philosophy in your community who you could get on the show. maybe just get someone from the philosophy dept. wherever you guys teach. you just need someone to keep you from making very basic mistakes.

Jim - do you have any recommended reading on the topic? You often point to some good books here on the forum.

What was so wrong with the episode?

You've heard of the saying I'm sure, that "you don't know what you don't know".
If you've got issue with the episode, spell it out a bit please, so at least we can move to, "I know that I don't know about that."

Yeah, I second that, snafu. I must have been spacing out or doing some work when they went over ethics, but I don't recall anything that set off any major red flags. I recall Grothe mentioning Jesus' ethics as being immoral, but that was it.

a lot of it had to do with the characterization of moral facts and the discussion of consequentialism. i'm pretty busy right now, but i'll sit down with the episode in the next couple of days and make some notes that i'll post here.

Jim, I very much value the things you have to say in your posts. I would personally like to hear more of what you didnt like about our discussion with DJ. I released it feeling there were flaws. I wanted to hear more on the meta-ethics of moral facts. And there was definitely a bit of equivication going on with DJ's "fact" that some things have "overwhealming value" to humans like welfare and then the other 'facts' which were the outcomes of our actions in the world. I viewed the discussion as incomplete. But I didnt think it so bad as to be cringe worthy.

Still, Id sincerely like to hear what did make you cringe. I want to do a future cast on meta-ethics and the grounding ones moral beliefs...its a subject Ive only spent a little time getting into.

Obviously were all busy so I am not asking for a thorough critique, just some more input.

Hi guys

New listener here. Great show, really enjoyed it, but I find I must agree with Jim about his criticism of the ethics discussion. Ethics is a wonderful area of philosophy with a rich history of thought both religious and secular in nature. It would be good (if you haven't already done it on an earlier show) to examine a little of the secular history of ethics.

I felt the conversation on the show was quite superficial and assumed a great deal. For example, that morality is 'discoverable' based on consequences begs the question of why we hold certain consequences to be 'bad', why we value what we DO value, and so on.

Nevertheless, I must commend you for an entertaining and even-handed discussion throughout the show. Well done!

Jeff

Arguing that God exists because all people are moral is like saying that Cupid exists because all people fall in love.

Arguing that God exists because all people are moral is like saying that Cupid exists because all people fall in love.

That's priceless. Going to use that one for sure.