Home » What’s New on the Secular Web? » What’s New Archive

What’s New Archive

What's New Archive2013July

What's New on the Secular Web?


See Also:
| The News Wire | Best of the Library | Featured Books | Kiosk Editor's Choice |

July 29, 2013

New in the Kiosk: The Fundamentalist and the Creator, or God is an Atheist (2013) by Attila Romenian

Could God, in effect, embrace some or many of the tenets of atheism? This entertaining short story seems to suggest that possibility.

July 24, 2013

Added Objective Ethics Without Religion (2013) by Richard Schoenig to the Without God, What Grounds Right and Wrong?, Without God, How Do We Determine What's Right and Wrong?, and Why Should Atheists Be Moral? pages under Morality and Atheism, as well as the Moral Arguments page under Arguments for the Existence of a God, in the Modern Documents section of the Secular Web Library.

Is atheism compatible with objective moral facts? In this paper Richard Schoenig defends a justifiable objective moral code based on seven principles comprising two general prescriptions. Schoenig goes on to argue that this basic ethical rationalism—and by extension, objective morality—does not depend on the existence of any supernatural being and is justified by the fact that all moral agents would have a greater chance of achieving more of their plans of life if they lived in a society that followed ethical rationalism rather than one that followed any other moral code. Consequently, the moral argument for theism from ethical objectivity is shown to be unsound, for it depends on the false premise that the only way to account for ethical objectivity is to posit the existence of a supernatural being who grounds it.

July 2, 2013

New in the Kiosk: The Moral Argument for God's Existence (2013) by James R. Henderson

Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli advocate a version of the moral argument for god's existence that relies on the proposition that objective morality can have no objective basis for the physicalist. They argue that the physicalist must claim morality (if it exists) is based on matter and motion that is blind to all human striving. I argue that this mischaracterizes the options of the physicalist and that objective morality can be sustained by the physicalist. If this is the case, their argument fails.

See "What's New?" for past months and years.