= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
MrHen comments on Wednesday depends on us. - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (37)
By the way, I like how you split the responses up. I think it helps solve any confusions.
(a) I am saying this and we agree, so cool.
(b) I agree that people do use this. I also understand the reason they do so (having used it myself at one point in my life).
(c) Specifically, this part of your post is what I disagree with:
I am saying she is not justified there. Switching the example to something less extreme does not make it more justified.
Perhaps I am focusing on what was intended to be a minor point. I do not mean to make a mountain out of a molehill.
I see: I believe you are saying that Wednesday is not justified in being afraid that if God doesn't exist she will do something that is wrong because she should make the following deduction:
Either morality (i) depends on God or (ii) it doesn't.
(i) If morality depends on God, and he doesn't exist, then there's no evil to worry about.
(ii) If morality doesn't depend on God, and he doesn't exist, then morality is unaffected.
Technically, I meant that when I say "God does not exist" it does not imply anything about morality. Whether Wednesday associates God with morality is irrelevant and the reason for this irrelevance is your (i) and (ii) tree explanation.