The Cognitivist Objection to Religious Pluralism
Vložit
- čas přidán 12. 12. 2020
- An objection to the position of Religious Pluralism about the afterlife for anyone that is a moral cognitivist and believes that good and evil really exist.
Sponsors: Joshua Furman, Joshua Opell, NBA_Ruby, Eugene SY, Antoinemp1, Antibody, Ismail Fagundes, Adrien Ecoffet, Tom Amedro, Christopher McGevna, Joao Sa, and Dennis Sexton. Thanks for your support!
Donate on Patreon: / carneades
Buy stuff with Zazzle: www.zazzle.com/carneades
Follow us on Twitter: @CarneadesCyrene / carneadescyrene
Information for this video gathered from The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, The Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy and more!
I think the second objection the most revealing. Whereas in science, something is "justified" if it is evidenced. Here something (A goes to heaven while B goes to hell) may be "justified" or not, in the total absence of evidence, but based entirely on non-empirical moral philosophy...
Hi Carneades? Who are you? Are you on facebook? I'm just so impressed by all your work I just wonder who is the man behind the name. How can i reach you to bounce off ideas?
Brilliant video
Waiiit I thought that Pluralism was that all religions are true and not just bout afterlife. I thought it would conflict with other religions (Mono vs. Poly theists, etc.) Is this correct?
I would wager Machiavelli comes into play and that doing good deeds has fuck all to do with morality and "the good place"
i would say the issue arises because the premisse is that there is an objective good and an objective bad. I am a christian, but i cannot prove that christianitie's morals (which are heavily disputed among christians aswell) are objectivly correct because i cannot proove that god exists. The conclusion: I cannot judge others for what they do if the supposed possible judgement is based on religious moral codes.
To me pluralism in the sense of saying ANY religion is a path to the Good Place, seems pretty untenable for the reasons you've described here. I think if I was trying to defend pluralism though, I would take an argument something along the lines of response 1 ... although I agree with you that still runs into some issues of where to draw the line, and whether this is even "pluralism" anymore or really just exclusivism.
Yeah. The strict distinction between pluralism and exclusivism probably belies more diversity of views that are between the two and often suffer from the concerns of both.
Gracias maestro por favor colabora con otros canales de filosofía ciencia religión misticismo ocultismo esoterismo magia
I made a similar comment in a previous video, so I support the motion.
Hmm, I don't know exactly what you are saying, but based on Google translate, I would be happy to collaborate with other channels. Let me know who you think I should work with. :)
@@CarneadesOfCyrene Would you be interested in doing a mini-podcast/chat with me?