2) James Lazarus has a nice exposition of the Hume's Law inconsistency in applying is-ought. James' conclusion:
3) James also has a nice write-up on why he rejects using some arguments for God's nonexsitence, namely, the following ones (he's an atheist, btw):We cannot see directly that ‘ought’ cannot be derived from ‘is’, any more than we can see directly that a sound in the attic was not caused by any physical substance in the attic. We do not have the capacity to instantly observe that no ‘is’ proposition cannot ultimately lie at the foundation of every ‘ought’ statement. We can only infer this if the evidence happens to point in that direction, and we have no evidence.
It is fallacious at best to use Hume’s Law itself to defeat anybody who wants to challenge the claim that it is impossible to derive ‘ought’ from ‘is’. Any use of Hume’s Law to prove that Hume’s Law can stand up to such a challenge must beg the question and assume Hume’s Law is true.
C1: Religious language is meaningless.________________C2: The notion of God is incoherent.C3: Theism is an intrinsically worthless hypothesis.C4: You cannot be reasonable and be a believer.C5: Theistic hypotheses are the opposite of scientific hypotheses.C6: The existence of God cannot provide us with any ethical obligations.C7: The Argument from Physical Minds is a good atheistic argument.
Technorati tags: God, Philosophy, Creationism
