Reply #98: Well let's see. [View All]

I am pretty sure I WOULD "get away with" discussing the motivation for an action in both law courts and philosophical discussions. Moral philosophy is heavily concerned with motivation, and the legal term mens rea exists for this very purpose.

You are positing religious motivation as a positive force. How can we discuss this claim without addressing whether it is either necessary or superior to non-religious motivation?

I am far from in a twit about this claim. I think it's perfectly wonderful that she does these things and have no problem with personal claims of religious motivation for specific acts good or bad. But to determine whether religious motivation has a net positive utilitarian effect we must first ascertain that it actually HAS an effect (comparing religious and non-religious groups' behavior perhaps) and then determine whether it's positive in the aggregate.

What you seem to be arguing against is a claim I have never seen made - that nobody can ever do anything good for religious reasons. That claim is laughable and instantly refutable by simply pointing at, fot example, a church-sponsored homeless shelter or even the Duomo in Florence. This probably explains why I've never seen an atheist here or elsewhere make it. What several HAVE asked or suggested, me included, is that religious motivation is neither necessary nor superior to secular motivation, and that on the whole the influence of religion may very well be negative. The Duomo stands and is awesome in the true meaning of the word. The WTC towers don't and used to be. How do we score those together?

Oh, Gordon Gekko is fictional. Bill Gates isn't.