EA -- Thanks for sharing the link. Is it just me or is that revised entry, in its section on contemporary philosophy, massively partisan? It seems to read more like an entry in a "Dictionary of Contemporary Apologetics" than an attempt to summarize arguments both for and against theistic metaethics.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author that there has been a resurgence of interest in theistic metaethics, but the author doesn't seem to recognize that that point applies to both its proponents and its critics (such as Q. Smith, Wes Morriston, Stephen J. Sullivan, and, most importantly, Erik Wielenberg). Why aren't they mentioned in the article?
2 comments:
EA -- Thanks for sharing the link. Is it just me or is that revised entry, in its section on contemporary philosophy, massively partisan? It seems to read more like an entry in a "Dictionary of Contemporary Apologetics" than an attempt to summarize arguments both for and against theistic metaethics.
I agree wholeheartedly with the author that there has been a resurgence of interest in theistic metaethics, but the author doesn't seem to recognize that that point applies to both its proponents and its critics (such as Q. Smith, Wes Morriston, Stephen J. Sullivan, and, most importantly, Erik Wielenberg). Why aren't they mentioned in the article?
Hi Jeff,
I had a similar reaction. I would like to have seen a brief explication of the key claims and criticisms of recent work on DCT he mentions.
Post a Comment