The Rationally Selfish Webcast has a new name and new web site: Philosophy in Action! (The web site won’t be available until the morning of the webcast.) Here’s this week’s announcement. I hope to see you on Sunday morning! — DMH
In my live “Philosophy in Action” Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on the morality of working for a minister, giving away unhealthy food, voting for horrible politicians, celebrating holidays, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 6 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: The Morality of Working for a Minister: Is working for a minister giving religion moral sanction? As an atheist, I once worked for an ordained minster who was the owner of a gallery. I became his manager when I made it clear that I was an atheist, but that I was a good framing manager. I don’t think I gave him a moral sanction for his irrationality by working for him under those terms. What do you think?
Question 2: Giving Away Unhealthy Food: Is it immoral to give away food that you regard as unhealthy? Assuming that one believes (as I do) that candy and sweets are harmful to health (especially in quantity), is it immoral to participate in trick-or-treat by giving children candy when they come to your door? Or, is it immoral to “dispose” of an unwanted gift of, say, a rich chocolate cake by leaving it by the coffee machine at work to be quickly scarfed up by one’s co-workers (as an alternative to simply discarding it)? Is the morality of these two cases different because in one case the recipients are children while in the other case they are adults?
Question 3: Voting for Horrible Politicians: All the candidates are nearly perfectly horrid, just in different ways. Why should I even bother to vote?
Question 4: Celebrating Holidays: What is the value of celebrating holidays? How do you think holidays should or should not be celebrated? Also, what is your favorite holiday and how do you like to celebrate it?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on working for a minister, giving away unhealthy food, voting for horrible politicians, celebrating holidays, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on admitting mistakes, body modifications, evasion versus context-dropping versus rationalization, declining too-expensive outings, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: Admitting Mistakes: Should you always own up to your mistakes? Recently, I made a huge mistake at work, accidentally discarding some very important files. When inquiry was made, I denied knowing anything about it. Should I have fessed up?
Question 2: Body Modifications: What kinds of aesthetic body modifications are moral or immoral? What differentiates piercing your ears from circumcision? Is tattooing moral? Does the amount of tattoos matter? What about gages, piercing kids’ ears, scarring, dying hair, plastic surgery, and so on? Where do you draw the line – and why?
Question 3: Evasion Versus Context-Dropping Versus Rationalization: How are evasion, context-dropping, and rationalization similar and different? When thinking over a problem I notice that these terms can often be applied simultaneously. So what do they mean – and how are they similar and different?
Question 4: Declining Too-Expensive Outings: How can I politely decline outings with friends that I cannot afford? Recently, a friend proposed an outing that was far too costly for my limited budget. In such cases, how do you recommend telling the person that it’s too pricey? If the person then offers to pay my way, is it wrong to accept that? I don’t want to be an object of charity, nor pressure my friends into paying for me in any way.
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds.
Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on admitting mistakes at work, aesthetic body modifications, evasion versus rationalization versus context-dropping, how to decline too-expensive outings, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on the wisdom of friends with benefits, obligations to help others in need, supporting political compromises, lying to a dying person, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 27 November 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: The Wisdom of Friends with Benefits: Are “friends with benefits” relationships a mistake? It is moral and/or wise to pursue sexual relationships with friends, even though you’re not in a romantic relationship? What are some of the benefits and/or pitfalls? If it’s a mistake, what should a person do to avoid such entanglements?
Question 2: Obligations to Help Others in Need: Do we have an obligation to help others in need? Many people think that the need of others creates an obligation to help. Is that right or wrong? Why? When should a person help others?
Question 3: Supporting Political Compromises: When is it morally right or wrong to support political compromises? The marijuana legalization initiative for the 2012 Colorado ballot also specifies open-ended taxation that circumvents the protections of TABOR (the Taxpayer Bill of Rights). It specifies that the first $40 million raised goes to schools. Both of these taxation items are compromises added to get voters to accept the marijuana legalization. Is it ethical to support more taxation to get more freedom from drug laws? Is it okay to circulate petitions to get this on the ballot so the voters can decide? More generally, when if ever should a person support political compromises that uphold some rights but violate others?
Question 4: Lying to a Dying Person: Is it wrong to lie to a person on their deathbed? Is lying in such cases justified so that the dying person can “go in peace”? For instance, a man might tell his fellow soldier dying on the battlefield that his heroism helped win a critical victory, even if it actually made no difference. Or a nurse might tell a dying mother desperate to make peace with her long-estranged daughter that the daughter called to tell her she loves her, even if that didn’t happen. Is that wrong? If so, what’s the harm?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds. Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
Good stuff! I got a chance on Sunday to sit and listen to some of these Webcasts. Some good and helpful hints here and there and everywhere.
The thing I like most about them is the “philosophy in action” idea. After all, why go to the trouble of learning the philosophy if I am not going to use it?
I live my life in thinking and action. That is to say, in my everyday life, I have to think on my feet. I don’t have time to sit and study problems, to sit around and write papers. I have to fix problems and keep everything going to the best of my ability.
In my spare time, I try to take the time to keep the philosophy fresh in my mind so that it will be there for me and I can put it to work for me when I want it.
For me, philosophy is practical and applied. It is high ideals I am striving for, of course, as I think I should always strive to be the best I can be, but it is also just a hammer, a pair of pliers or a shovel when I need one.
It is good to hear the philosophy applied in everyday life, in everyday situations.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on the wisdom of friends with benefits, obligations to help others in need, supporting political compromises, lying to a dying person, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on the principle of sustainability, playing practical jokes on kids about Ewoks, donating sperm or eggs anonymously, revealing atheism to inquisitive strangers, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 4 December 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: The Principle of Sustainability: What’s wrong with the principle of sustainability? In the discussion of “sustainable agriculture” in your October 9th webcast ( http://bit.ly/uTnk0e ), you didn’t explain the problem with the basic principle of the “sustainability movement,” namely “that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Doesn’t that just mean respecting rights? If not, what does it mean and why is it wrong?
Question 2: Playing Practical Jokes on Kids about Ewoks: Should parents play practical jokes on their kids, such as pretending that Ewoks are real? As recounted in Wired ( http://bit.ly/su8C7D ), a father told his kids that Ewoks (from “Star Wars”) lived in the Sequoia National Forest. On their recent family vacation, they made a game of looking for these imaginary Ewoks. Afterwards, the father even photoshopped a few Ewoks into the family vacation pictures. Are these kinds of deceptions harmless or are they bad parenting? The father said: “Maybe I’m a little wrong for lying to her and falsifying the pictures, but I don’t care. She’ll never forget the time she spent in the big woods with Ewoks.”
Question 3: Donating Sperm or Eggs Anonymously: Is it moral to anonymously donate sperm or eggs, not knowing how the resulting children will be raised? Is the answer the same for donating fertilized embryos left over from an in vitro fertilization procedure, where the DNA is both yours and your spouse’s?
Question 4: Revealing Atheism to Inquisitive Strangers: Should I reveal my atheism to strangers when asked? I work at a hospital. One night a patient asked me if I’m religious. I answered yes. He then asked me if I believed that Jesus Christ died on the cross for my sins. I answered yes. Then he took my hand and prayed for me. Immediately, I felt guilty, because I lied in answering these questions. In fact, I’m an atheist. The next day, I told the patient the truth, and he thanked me for my honesty. What should I have done in answering his original questions?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds. Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on the principle of sustainability, convincing kids that Ewoks are real, donating sperm or eggs anonymously, revealing atheism to inquisitive strangers, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on an early look at the 2012 election, Mitt Romney for US President, Newt Gingrich for US President, Ron Paul for US President, Gary Johnson for US President, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on rationality in face of overwheming emotions, the value of reading literature, balancing introspection and productive work, optimism or pessimism about the future, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: Rationality in Face of Overwheming Emotions: How can a person regain his rationality in the face of overwhelming emotions? On occasion, I find my rational judgment swamped by strong emotions like anger and anxiety. In such cases, my thinking seems distorted by my emotions. While in the grip of such emotions, what can I do to re-establish my powers of rational thought? Also, how can I prevent myself from saying or doing things that I’ll later regret?
Question 2: The Value of Reading Literature: What value do you gain from reading literature? I’ve never much connected with literature, particularly not the classics. I know that you read them routinely. What value do you find in them? Or, what am I missing?
Question 3: Balancing Introspection and Productive Work: How can I achieve a better balance between introspection and productive work? Particularly I’ve made some mistake, I’ll get wrapped up in the process of introspection until I get the problem sorted out. However, that consumes time – and often my projects suffer and I miss deadlines. How can I find a better balance between these two important activities?
Question 4: Optimism or Pessimism about the Future: Should we be optimistic or pessimistic about the future of the culture? What do you think will happen to the culture in the next 20 to 50 years? Are you optimistic or pessimistic – and why? What do you think the value and certainty of such predictions based on philosophy are?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds. Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on rationality in face of overwhelming emotions, the value of reading literature, balancing introspection and productive work, optimism or pessimism about the future, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on tenacity in pursuit of goals, sex without love, the ethics of helping inept co-workers, giving back to your communities, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 8 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: Tenacity in Pursuit of Goals: How can I become more tenacious in pursuit of my goals? I find that I give up too easily on some of my goals, particularly when success is far away and much effort is required now. What can I do to make myself more tenacious?
Question 2: Sex Without Love: Is sex without love or romance irrational? Is it wrong to have sex with someone that you don’t love – or don’t love yet? (Here, assume that the person isn’t unworthy, but just that you’re not in love.) Couldn’t that be the start of romance? What if you don’t have any intentions of pursuing a romantic relationship with this person?
Question 3: The Ethics of Helping Inept Co-Workers: Is it moral to help inept co-workers? On my team at work, we have only a very few people who use their time productively. We all get paid for 8 hours of “work”, every day, but most of my team would rather talk on their phone, hide from management, and underperform at their job. We also belong to a union, which makes it harder for management to fire the ones who don’t work despite being informed about the situation. I often find myself in the position of helping these people, or going in behind them and fixing their work. I am beginning to feel taken advantage of, and am getting fed up with most of my co-workers. Is it moral to continue helping people who do not take their own work seriously?
Question 4: Giving Back to Your Communities: Is a person ever obliged to “give back to the community”? Businesses often speak about their charitable work as “giving back to the community.” I know that’s wrong, because they didn’t take anything from it in the first place. But when a person benefits from a certain group or organization, should he “give back” to it by volunteering his time or donating his money? Why or why not?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds. Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on tenacity in pursuit of goals, sex without love, the ethics of helping inept co-workers, giving back to your communities, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on SOPA and online piracy, unprovable accusations of wrongdoing, dealing with temperamental people, judging young adults fairly, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we’ll apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous and happy lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 15 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: SOPA and Online Piracy: Should SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act) be supported or opposed? SOPA was recently introduced to the US House of Representatives, then shelved temporarily, and many people are urging businesses and their representatives to oppose it. Would the bill promote prosperity and creativity by protecting copyright? Or does it justify internet censorship and cripple free access of information through online media?
Question 2: Unprovable Accusations of Wrongdoing: How should a rational person evaluate unproven accusations of serious wrongdoing about people he deals with? I recently heard some information about a business associate’s dealings with another of his associates that, if true, would make me reconsider doing business with him. However, his side of the story is that the other person is the one who acted wrongly. This is a serious matter, and it’s clear that one or both of them acted very badly, but since I was not personally involved and the only information I have is of a “he said/she said” nature, I am not sure how to decide what I should do. Am I right to consider the information I heard at all, since I can’t confirm it?
Question 3: Dealing with Temperamental People: Should people be willing to “walk on eggshells” around temperamental people? Some people – often very talented – are known to be highly temperamental. They’ll explode in anger if others disagree with them, make innocent mistakes, or just act differently than they’d prefer. Is that a moral failing, and if so, what is its source? How should people around them act? When and how much should others try to placate them?
Question 4: Judging Young Adults Fairly: Is it fair to judge by a person’s intellect or other qualities of character purely based on his age? I am 16 and am facing problems with some people who seem to think that my views aren’t clear even to me just because “I am a lazy teen with no experience in life.” Is that unjust? Should I try to show them they are wrong about me or is it not worth it? If I should try, how might I be effective?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, be sure to check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. You can also subscribe to the podcast and other RSS feeds. Don’t forget to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes in the Question Queue.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on SOPA and online piracy, mutual unprovable accusations of wrongdoing, dealing with temperamental people, judging young adults fairly, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Watch the Philosophy in Action Webcast live and join its text chat every Sunday morning at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET. Each week, I answer questions from listeners on the application of rational principles to the challenges of living a happy and virtuous life. To join us, just go to www.PhilosophyInAction.com!
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on wrongful convictions of the innocent and the guilty, the morality of the death penalty, alternatives to America, choosing a place to live, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 22 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: Wrongful Convictions of the Innocent and the Guilty: Why is punishing an innocent man worse than failing to punish a guilty man? English jurist William Blackstone said that “better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” What does this mean, and is it true? Is some higher ratio of wrongly-punished to wrongly-released acceptable?
Question 2: The Morality of the Death Penalty: Is the death penalty moral? I understand why people are opposed to the death penalty when there might be genuine doubt as to whether the accused person really committed the crime. Certainly, we’ve seen cases where DNA evidence has exonerated someone who was convicted several years ago for a crime they didn’t actually commit. But if someone confesses to first degree murder and if there’s incontrovertible physical evidence to confirm their guilt, is the death penalty then appropriate?
Question 3: Alternatives to America: What other countries besides America have a relatively healthy sense of life? Suppose America takes a bad turn politically and I need to relocate to another country. What other countries still have a relatively healthy “sense of life” and decent culture – in that they respect reason, accomplishment, and productiveness – even if their politics are left-leaning? Over the past few months, I’ve heard various people discuss Canada, New Zealand, Costa Rica, China, and India as possible places to relocate to. What do you think of the cultures of those countries?
Question 4: Choosing a Place to Live: Is it rational to value good weather over good politics when choosing a place to live? I currently live in a state with fairly good politics, with respect to taxes, gun rights, and so on. However, I have friends who live in California who say that the weather there is so good, that it’s worth it to them even if the taxes are high, the gun laws are terrible, and the overall political climate is abysmal. Is it rational to value something like good weather over good politics in choosing a place to live?
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on acquittals of the guilty versus convictions of the innocent, the morality of the death penalty, alternatives to America, choosing a place to live, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.
In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.
In my live Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday morning, I’ll answer questions on being pragmatic, feigning indifference to attract a man, explaining atheism, “ignostic” versus “atheist”, and more. Please join us for this hour of lively discussion, where we apply rational principles to the challenges of living virtuous, happy, and free lives!
What: Live Philosophy in Action Webcast
Who: Diana Hsieh (Ph.D, Philosophy) and Greg Perkins
When: Sunday, 29 January 2012 at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET
Question 1: Being Pragmatic: What’s wrong with being pragmatic? My dictionary defines being pragmatic as “dealing with things sensibly and realistically in a way that is based on practical rather than theoretical considerations.” What’s wrong with that, if anything? Is that the same as “pragmatism”?
Question 2: Feigning Indifference to Attract a Man: Should I act uninterested in a man to attract him? One common theme in romance advice is that a woman should act aloof and unattainable in order to attract a man or to get him to commit to a relationship. Is that dishonest? Is it counterproductive?
Question 3: Explaining Atheism: How can I effectively explain my atheism to religious believers? When I discuss religion with believers – mostly Christians – I find that I can’t easily explain why I don’t believe in God. Should I appeal to the principle of the “primacy of existence”? Should I explain the problems with the arguments for the existence of God? Or should I try a different approach?
Question 4: “Ignostic” Versus “Atheist”: Should rational people describe themselves as “ignostics” rather than “atheists”? By rational principles, no cognitive consideration should be given to arbitrary assertions. Since the concept of God is invariably a floating abstraction and incoherent in its definition, shouldn’t the claim that God exists be dismissed as arbitrary and invalid – rather than being answered in the negative? If so, shouldn’t rational people describe themselves as ignostics? In contrast to atheism, ignosticism is “[the] view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of God (per that definition) is meaningless.” [Wikipedia]
After that, we’ll do a round of totally impromptu “Rapid Fire Questions.”
In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.
In Sunday’s Philosophy in Action Webcast, I answered questions on being pragmatic, feigning indifference to attract a man, ignosticism versus atheism, explaining atheism, and more. The episode is now available as an audio podcast in the Webcast Archives here:
Join the next Philosophy in Action Webcast on Sunday at 8 am PT / 9 am MT / 10 am CT / 11 am ET at www.PhilosophyInAction.com/live.
In the meantime, Connect with Us via social media, e-mail, RSS feeds, and more. Check out the Webcast Archives, where you can listen to the full webcast or just selected questions from any past episode. And go to the Question Queue to submit and vote on questions for upcoming webcast episodes.