Alright well, not a Podcast (though I may be doing a show or two on it in addition to one on the Akrasia paper I posted earlier) in the next few weeks or so. Note that I will be having the promised show with Dr. Mike Licona on the Resurrection coming up in a day or so, so I haven’t forgotten about that 🙂
In the meantime I just thought I’d post up my paper from my Philosophy of Emotions Class. As many of the fans know, in the past, when I’ve been confronted with Skeptics’ opinions about my answer to things like the Abraham Test or the OT conquests and other morality complaints based on the Bible, I have tended to be totally dismissive of overly emotional skeptics who simply commit the fallacy of appeal to emotion and fail to think critically about the issue.
That said, taking this class has caused me to somewhat rethink the value of emotions and their applicability or relevance in relation to moral matters and knowledge of moral truths. This essay outlines what I think the role of our God-given emotions are and outlines what I think the limits of their usefulness are in this respect.
Enjoy 🙂
UPDATE- PODCAST POSTED!!!
YouTube Video Link = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ewtAtkdbzY
Anchor Audio Link = https://anchor.fm/real-seeker-ministries/episodes/Emotions–Moral-Knowledge–A-Christian-Perspective-ep5erj
My Paper Immediately Below;
Recommended Sources (for further study);
a) Other Sources Related to Emotions and Morality;
b) Epistemology (Plantinga) Sources;
c) Amy Kind & Angela Mendelovici on representationalism about moods (Discusses Moods and Intentionality by two experts) = https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgPqUsI7NG0&feature=emb_logo
Real Seeker Ministries 
Note- My notion that emotional moral heuristics only speak to moral idealness vs. non-idealness and not morality vs. immorality proper is backed up not only by the Biblical evidence & Kant’s reasoning about unqualified moral absolutism but also the scientific evidence given by Szigeti in his article that shows moral heuristics breakdown and are unreliable sources of moral knowledge in “hard cases” (aka.- complex or nuanced moral dilemmas or situations where 2 or more moral principles conflict).
So I have 3 evidences or sources of warrant for my notion not just two.
Also, note that at the end when I say Skeptics have moral knowledge about the moral idealness vs. non-idealness- I should qualify that they MIGHT have moral knowledge (it’s possible they do) but it’s also possible they don’t as there emotions may not be warranted due to the presence of some “distorting effect” like their sinful characters or something- so it all depends on the specific situation and skeptic in that instance- if their emotions serving as moral heuristics fulfill the conditions for warrant, then they have moral knowledge, but it is possible that some skeptics may not fulfill all the warrant conditions in appealing to their emotions and thus they wouldn’t have moral knowledge.
LikeLike