The Philosophy Discussion Forum

Please folks, lets have THIS discussion oin an appropriate thread. What's being talked about is not about Fabianism.

PS -- The term "pragmatism" has two different meanings, ordinary speech and philosophy (James, Dewey, et. al.) We need to be careful to make clear which we mean . I have seen in the above the error of "logical capture" where switching between brought in attributes of the other meaning.

I suggest, that since this is a philosophy forum, we assume the philosophical meaning of "pragmatism" unless the person using the term clearly specifies using the other meaning.

You're going to start a thread about pragmatism and almost immediately stop participating in it?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:57 pm You're going to start a thread about pragmatism and almost immediately stop participating in it?

I was going to start one on lethargy...

-Imp

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 3:56 pm If you want to believe in a benevolent God who created a world full of suffering and unhappiness, then by all means, do.

You're missing the point again, Gary.

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

Impenitent wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 5:10 pm

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 4:57 pm You're going to start a thread about pragmatism and almost immediately stop participating in it?

I was going to start one on lethargy...

-Imp

Well, I was going to start one on procrastination, but...

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

The false religions would have a false morality grounded on a false god.

At least atheism isn't pretending to be based on a god.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 7:30 pm

Even if all religions were false, it wouldn't help Atheism ground a single moral principle. The problem's inherent to Atheism.

The false religions would have a false morality grounded on a false god.

Yes, of course. And Atheism would have no grounds for morality at all.

Looks like a wash, doesn't it?

Same grounds for atheism and religion.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 8:49 pm Same grounds for atheism and religion.

No grounds for Atheism. False grounds for false religions. True grounds for a true religion.

One thing for certain: if anybody knows what morality is, it's not going to be Atheism. Atheism has no grounds for any morality.

If god doesn't reveal morality through common experience then everybody is up the creek.

The atheists will make up a wrong morality, the false religion will make up a false morality, the people who have never heard of the one true religion won't have the true morality and nobody will know which is the one true religion anyways (if there is any).

Another fine mess.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 9:56 pm If god doesn't reveal morality through common experience then everybody is up the creek.

The atheists will make up a wrong morality, the false religion will make up a false morality, the people who have never heard of the one true religion won't have the true morality and nobody will know which is the one true religion anyways (if there is any).

Another fine mess.

Is "common experience" the only avenue? No. In the first place, there's conscience. But more importantly, it's not at all difficult to conceive that a God could reveal morality propositionally...by speaking.

Then the only question would become, in what or whom has God spoken? And that's not so hard to find out.

Is "common experience" the only avenue? No. In the first place, there's conscience. But more importantly, it's not at all difficult to conceive that a God could reveal morality propositionally...by speaking.

The overwhelming majority has never heard god speak.

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 10:11 pm

Is "common experience" the only avenue? No. In the first place, there's conscience. But more importantly, it's not at all difficult to conceive that a God could reveal morality propositionally...by speaking.

The overwhelming majority has never heard god speak.

Well, that's not so easy to say. God speaks in many ways, and his dealings with other people are not known to us. He's spoken many times and in different ways, the Bible claims, but consummately in the most moral Person who has ever lived, Jesus Christ.

Ask people if god communicates with them. It's not difficult to find that it doesn't happen.

There are claims in Islam, Hinduism, any religion.

God allegedly talks to lots of mystics and prophets. Is it true? Why the contradictory messages?

phyllo wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2026 9:56 pm
The atheists will make up a wrong morality, the false religion will make up a false morality, the people who have never heard of the one true religion won't have the true morality and nobody will know which is the one true religion anyways (if there is any).

NO -- that is an incorrect assumption. We should discuss this, BUT ELSWHERE (not about Fabianism)

I have started two threads in Ethical Theory. This would certainly fit in the religious vs non-religious one. WHY the assumption that the moral code of a "false religion" would NECESSARILY be false. WHY would it NECESSARILY be different in some important way.