In Response to Geoff Watson’s letter
In his response to my letter, Geoff Watson made an attempt to refute my argument that moral relativism is a logically bankrupt philosophy. He accused me of muddling the issue because I attacked moral relativism while religion is what was in question. While Watson is correct in pointing out that I failed to make the distinction, he ends up refuting the very philosophy he supports. Watson said, "I believe what I want to believe, and as long as my beliefs do not cause harm to others I should not be criticized." Apparently my letter somehow managed to "cause harm" as Watson found it necessary to criticize me.
Watson goes on to attack religion by claiming that faith-based arguments cannot be proven, only debated. This is an easy assertion to make, but you cannot, a-priori, dismiss religious truth by claiming that it cannot proven. The statement is self-defeating as it is itself, faith-based.
If there is anything Watson and I agree on, it's his claim that all religions cannot be true. This is what I have been arguing all along. While it's possible that all religions are wrong, they cannot all be right.
Tommy Herrera
junior, philosophy
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.