Thursday, December 16, 2010

Theism Does Not Ground Ought

Law grounds "ought," not theism.
An interesting argument from the gallery:
no worldview, apart from theism in which the Creator-God is inherently good, has a foundational IS that can credibly ground OUGHT.
This statement is not true.

No theism, even the theism of an "inherently good" creator-god, can ground "ought."

Why? Because strictly speaking, such a theism represents an hypothesized description of the origins and state of the world.

Atheism doesn't recognize the existence of any gods, and finds gods useless in describing the world. All theisms reverse this: each has a pet god or gods, and uses them to help describe the world. Atheism and theisms alike are descriptive, not prescriptive.

The foundations for prescription, for ought, reside in socio-political organization, notably law.

We don't need to specially plead for someone's brand of theism. It's a worldview like all others and subject to the same limitations.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Feel free to comment if you have something substantial and substantiated to say.