Why Do Atheists Deny Objective Morality?

_{Barry Arrington

January 11, 2018

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

In a recent exchange in this post William J. Murray said to frequent commenter Bob O’H:

all you (and others) are doing is avoiding the point via wordplay. We all act and expect others to act as if these things are objective and universally binding, the ability to imagine alternate systems notwithstanding.

That is precisely correct, as illustrated by my exchange with goodusername in the same post. First, at comment 12 GUN professed to not even know what the word “right” means:

GUN: “What would it even mean to give a “right” answer to a morality question?”

I decided to test this:

Barry @ 13:

Suppose the following exchange:

GUN: Hey, Barry is is evil to torture an infant for personal pleasure?

Barry: Yes, GUN, it is.

Did I supply a “right” answer to a moral question?

GUN replied at 15: “Such a thing certainly shocks my sense of empathy, and so I would fight to stop such a thing, as would most others. So the answer is right in that sense.”

First GUN insisted he does not even know what “morally right” means. But when confronted with an undeniable self-evident moral truth he had to walk it back and admit he did in fact know what the right answer is. But, as WJM points out, he tried to obscure the obvious point with wordplay. So I called BS on him.

GUN’s antics are just the latest of hundreds I have seen over the years. It is amazing. They know that no sane person can live his life as if what they say were true. Yet they absolutely insist on saying it anyway. Why do they do that? Simple. Because they want to ignore the dictates of morality when it suits them. Atheist Aldous Huxley was very candid about this:

I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption . . . The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves . . . For myself . . . the philosophy of meaningless was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom; we objected to the political and economic system because it was unjust.

Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for Their Realization (1937), 272-73

Huxley wanted to reserve the option of sleeping with his neighbor’s wife. So, no objective morality.

Comments

PS: These trolls show precisely the sort of agit-prop activism and amoral behaviour they wish to ridicule us for pointing out. And the underlying animus seeps out around the corners, creating a miasma that is a warning on what is going drastically wrong with our civilisation.kairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus- Well said.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

ET, thanks, that shows the fundamental dishonesty, want of responsibility and soft nihilism as was clearly brought out here across recent weeks. Hence, the importance of showing the real balance on the merits on self-evident truth in general and moral self-evident truth in particular. Where, remember, the linchpin moral issue at stake is the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb at a rate of a million further victims per week on a baseline of 800+ millions since the early 1970's. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and when crookedness is made the standard for straightness, absurdity is driving the train over the cliff heedless of warnings. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

kairosfocus- so that you know what you are up against:
It is so much fun getting him wound up. Unfortunately, it usually ends up in me burning a sock. But I have several in the works that KF hasn’t figured out yet.
That is JSmith, aka William spearshake; aka acartia bogart, aka many other socks. see here All it cares about is getting to you. It is not interested in any type of honest and open discussion.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:59 AM
5
05
59
AM
PDT}

JSmith:
The real crucial step in clarity is knowing that your understanding of key concepts may be incorrect.
You have already demonstrated that your understanding is bogus.ET_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
05:52 AM
5
05
52
AM
PDT}

JS, the question you ask (again, despite repeated corrections) as to WHO determines what is the correct understanding of key concepts and terms etc shows the magnitude of the error at work. the answer is not a who but a WHAT. That what is the force of the merits on the case, i/l/o facts and reasoning. This of course goes to first the significance of what happens when a crooked yardstick is made a standard for what is straight, accurate, level and upright. What is really such will never match the imposed standard of crookedness; BTW, a key point of the parable you explicitly disdained, The Cave. So, we need a naturally straight and upright plumbline to demonstrate the rot and indicate the need for a fundamental fix. That is a key role for another thing you have repeatedly rebuffed, self-evident truths, general ones and ones connected to morality. Where the unfortunately real case of the kidnapped, bound, sexually violated and murdered child for someone's sick pleasure is richly instructive but brushed aside, day after day, week after week. In that context, the error of radical fallibilism has been repeatedly shown to be self-referentially incoherent. Yes, error exists is self evidently true (and so it directly implies that we can know some things beyond reasonable, responsible doubt), but it is also the case that our intellectual faculties demonstrably have sufficient credibility to establish some things to utter certainty. A simple case is 2 + 3 = 5, and another is that distinct identity has as instant corollaries LoI, LNC, LEM, which are the root of reason. The case that we are inevitably morally governed in that reasoning by duties to truth, sound logic and more, is just as undeniable, on pain of the absurdity of letting grand delusion loose and letting the soft nihilism of cynical manipulation loose on all of our reasoning and communicating. There is an old saying, that one can lead a horse to water but one cannot force the horse to drink it.I suggest that you reconsider how you have been operating. KFkairosfocus_{January 16, 2018
January
01
Jan
16
16
2018
01:38 AM
1
01
38
AM
PDT}

StephenB and OldAndrew, Your discussion / disagreements on these issues seems to have taken an unfortunate turn. That's too bad. I've been short on time so I've had to scan more than read, but from I've been able to gather I fall somewhere between you two. I sympathize with OldAndrew's comments about about the Biblical warning against empty philosophies, but unless I misread him I think he may be taking that caution beyond its intended meaning. Here's a list of various meanings for the term "philosophy":
- investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods (American Heritage Dictionary) - the study of the ultimate nature of existence, reality, knowledge and goodness, as discoverable by human reasoning (Penguin English Dictionary) - the rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics (WordNet) - the rational and critical inquiry into basic principles (Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia) - the study of the most general and abstract features of the world and categories with which we think: mind, matter, reason, proof, truth, etc. (Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy) - careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct (The Philosophy Pages)
At its most basic, I think of Philosophy as merely an attempt to apply strict logic to important and difficult questions and provide meaningful definitions for the terms used in sorting those questions out. Or perhaps even more broadly, it's just what we all do when we try to rationally work through some question or problem using our thinking ability. However, the source from which I cribbed that list above (I didn't feel like searching for a bunch of individual definitions when it has already been done) makes the following statement:
As used originally by the ancient Greeks, the term "philosophy" meant the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake.... In common usage, it sometimes carries the sense of unproductive or frivolous musings
NT references to philosophy typically fall into this kind of category. It was a warning against a kind of frivolous love of human wisdom pursued for its own sake and elevated above the wisdom of God. This was and still can be a real danger, especially if we get caught up in following particular schools of philosophical thought or become enamored with musings of particular philosophers, such that they become our touchstone for truth. We can even allow our own musings and a pride over our own wisdom to take precedence over revelation. So the warning is a sound one. But obviously that doesn't mean it's wrong to use the basic tools of philosophy to reason on issues. My focus in recent years on taking a strictly rational approach to thinking about the fundamental nature of existence and reality has drastically strengthened my belief in God's existence. Over that period I went from thinking that atheism was a rational but probably wrong position to strongly thinking that atheism is ultimately an utterly irrational position. This was not the result of latching onto any particular philosopher or school of philosophical thought, but merely by thinking things through systematically. I undoubtedly benefited from ways that certain philosophers expressed certain ideas or concepts and they gave me particular things to think about, but it was a basic philosophical approach that led me to my current position rather than any particularly philosopher's set of arguments. Of course, that doesn't mean I elevate philosophy above the Bible or try to impose particular philosophical systems upon it as an interpretive framework, and OldAndrew is right about that danger. Many of the early non-Jewish Christian writers were heavily influenced by non-Christian philosophical systems they were familiar with and those impacted the way they read the Bible, to the detriment of early Christianity, I believe. That said, I've had many conversations with atheists in real life who simply didn't care what the Bible said and dismissed it but who couldn't simply dismiss the rational (and one might rightly say philosophical) case for God's existence. So there's something to be said for having more tools in your toolbox rather than fewer. We should remember that Paul said he became what he needed to be in order to win people over. To those under law he became as under law, to those not under law as one not under law, etc. He met them where they were and reasoned with them accordingly. Anyway, I'm going to wrap this up, but I do want to point out one thing on a completely different issue. StephenB, I think you are drastically overstating the role of mid-4th century councils and church leaders in the selection of the NT canon. By the latter half of the second century there was already at least a large core (actually almost complete) set of books being used and listed as Christian scriptures. In fact there are almost complete lists dating back at least to the first half of the second century, where you might have 3 or 4 letters that there isn't universal agreement about. By the mid 3rd century Origen seems to have already given a complete list of the NT "books" and he delivered it not as some kind of novelty but as a matter-of-fact representation that suggested it was already in common use (making lists is typically not the first step in this kind of process but the last). 4th century lists merely attempted to officially formalize or codify a collection that had already been in use for a couple hundred years with only minor disputes at the fringes over a couple of letters, which had already been resolved by that point. And as for the criteria for selection for the canon, it was basically to include anything written by an apostle or one of their close associates before the close of the 1st century. Virtually all disputes at the edges of the list hinged on whether there was complete agreement over whether a couple of letters met those criteria and the dispute was decided in their favor, seemingly long before 4th century councils.HeKS_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

KF
CR, correct understanding of key concepts and of terms used to label them is a crucial step of clarity.
I don’t think that anyone disagrees with this. But who determines what the correct understanding of key concepts are? You? Me? The real crucial step in clarity is knowing that your understanding of key concepts may be incorrect. For the same reason that nobody should fear questioning any of their moral values. When was the last time you questioned your understanding of key concepts? Or of your moral values?JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
09:10 PM
9
09
10
PM
PDT}

CR, correct understanding of key concepts and of terms used to label them is a crucial step of clarity. There is a world of grounding for understanding knowledge in the weak sense as warranted, credibly true (and so too, reliable) belief. Post Gettier counter-examples and the grue/bleen issue, justification becomes deprecated. Warrant of course comes in degrees as does degree of credibility. On fair comment, all of this has been discussed for many weeks now with singular unresponsiveness on your part. I have to get some rest and go deal with RW issues from v early on the morrow. When I can, later. KF PS: Meanwhile on the morality side this may help:
Excerpted chapter summary, on Subjectivism, Relativism, and Emotivism, in Doing Ethics 3rd Edn, by Lewis Vaughn, W W Norton, 2012. [Also see here and here.] Clipping: . . . Subjective relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one approves of it. A person’s approval makes the action right. This doctrine (as well as cultural relativism) is in stark contrast to moral objectivism, the view that some moral principles are valid for everyone.. Subjective relativism, though, has some troubling implications. It implies that each person is morally infallible and that individuals can never have a genuine moral disagreement Cultural relativism is the view that an action is morally right if one’s culture approves of it. The argument for this doctrine is based on the diversity of moral judgments among cultures: because people’s judgments about right and wrong differ from culture to culture, right and wrong must be relative to culture, and there are no objective moral principles. This argument is defective, however, because the diversity of moral views does not imply that morality is relative to cultures. In addition, the alleged diversity of basic moral standards among cultures may be only apparent, not real. Societies whose moral judgments conflict may be differing not over moral principles but over nonmoral facts. Some think that tolerance is entailed by cultural relativism. But there is no necessary connection between tolerance and the doctrine. Indeed, the cultural relativist cannot consistently advocate tolerance while maintaining his relativist standpoint. To advocate tolerance is to advocate an objective moral value. But if tolerance is an objective moral value, then cultural relativism must be false, because it says that there are no objective moral values. Like subjective relativism, cultural relativism has some disturbing consequences. It implies that cultures are morally infallible, that social reformers can never be morally right, that moral disagreements between individuals in the same culture amount to arguments over whether they disagree with their culture, that other cultures cannot be legitimately criticized, and that moral progress is impossible. Emotivism is the view that moral utterances are neither true nor false but are expressions of emotions or attitudes. It leads to the conclusion that people can disagree only in attitude, not in beliefs. People cannot disagree over the moral facts, because there are no moral facts. Emotivism also implies that presenting reasons in support of a moral utterance is a matter of offering nonmoral facts that can influence someone’s attitude. It seems that any nonmoral facts will do, as long as they affect attitudes. Perhaps the most far-reaching implication of emotivism is that nothing is actually good or bad. There simply are no properties of goodness and badness. There is only the expression of favorable or unfavorable emotions or attitudes toward something.
kairosfocus_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
07:25 PM
7
07
25
PM
PDT}

JSmith has no place to talk about sincerity seeing that its scruples have been shown to be totally lacking any decency.ET_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

OA to SB
I must now stop indulging your questions, which don’t seem at all sincere.
Not uncommon for this site. As I’m sure you have noticed.JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
05:53 PM
5
05
53
PM
PDT}

SB, Don't mistake my lack of willingness to answer your questions on your terms for ignorance. I am a student of the Bible, which includes the history of its writing and compilation. My interest in the Bible, however, is not primarily academic. When you've asked about its history and authorship, I've tried to direct attention back to what matters, its inspiration, content, and superiority over the empty philosophy of men which is dust on the scales by comparison. (If I was the least bit interested in impressing you, even if I didn't know basic facts about the Bible's history I'd google them.)
Provide the relevant passage please.
Off the top of my head I can think of three which are explicit, not implicit. I know the chapter and verse and can recite them from memory. But no, I will not provide them. I didn't study the scriptures so that I could drag them through the mud as I've already done enough by participating in this debate. What points I've had to make I've made, and as is the nature of internet debates, you've shifted to a different subject. Anything to take the focus off of supposed "church fathers" who, despite the warnings of the scriptures, were actually students of Greek philosophy and led the congregation into a landscape of schisms, empty rituals, meaningless repetitive prayers, Bible burning, inquisitions, and idolatry, which sever it from its origins. And don't forget those giant hats. As if Peter would ever wear something like that. I must now stop indulging your questions, which don't seem at all sincere.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
04:57 PM
4
04
57
PM
PDT}

I don’t have to guess. The Bible says that inspiration of the scriptures was by means’s of God’s spirit.
I will help you out here. It was transmitted and preserved orally, mostly through preaching. Later on, it was written down. That was the way God chose to work through men.
If you claim to know that then it’s either by personal revelation from God or you’re confusing God’s decisions with those of men.
There is also a little thing called the historical record. Does the date 325 A.D. mean anything to you?
Your answer to the question emphasizes the role of men as that’s where your focus apparently is. Mine emphasized the role of God.
I am emphasizing the role of both, because both were involved. (A separate but related fact: Did you know that the Gospels have two authors, one Divine and one human. Or were you thinking that God dictated each Gospel word for word?)
It does say that about itself [that is is inspired], explicitly, and more than once.
Provide the relevant passage please.StephenB_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
03:51 PM
3
03
51
PM
PDT}

WJM,
However I define my morality makes that morality true for me by definition
I can’t really parse that so I don’t know if I agree with it or not. If this simply means that people generally follow what they believe to be moral… well, yeah.
and I can and should enforce my moral values as I see fit and inasmuch as I feel like it and have the power to do so. Correct?
If by “enforcing my moral values” you mean stuff like stopping a man from pummeling a child, yes, I will act according to my moral values – as do most people. Whether people “should”, I’m not sure what that means – but I hope people do.goodusername_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

The bible is, indeed, inspired, but how do you know that? It doesn’t say that about itself.
It does say that about itself, explicitly, and more than once. It's mixed in between the other verses about the emptiness of man's philosophy and foolishness of man's wisdom. If you missed the latter then that explains how you missed the former.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:39 PM
2
02
39
PM
PDT}

By what means was the inspired message transmitted?
I don't have to guess. The Bible says that inspiration of the scriptures was by means's of God's spirit.
The biblical Canon was developed over a long period of time.
If you believe that God determined which books would go into the Bible then you can't possibly claim to know when that determination was made. If you claim to know that then it's either by personal revelation from God or you're confusing God's decisions with those of men.
It is just something you ought to know if you if you want to enter into a discussion such as this.
I'm acquainted with how the Bible was compiled. Your answer to the question emphasizes the role of men as that's where your focus apparently is. Mine emphasized the role of God.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

OA
Inspiration. Take it or leave it.
The bible is, indeed, inspired, but how do you know that? It doesn't say that about itself.StephenB_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:26 PM
2
02
26
PM
PDT}

SB: So how did the truths of the Gospel survive in tact until they were put in writing?
Inspiration. Take it or leave it.
Non responsive. We already know it was inspired. By what means was the inspired message transmitted? We know it wasn't through the written record, at least in the early Church. So what else remains? If you don't know, surely you can guess. SB: I have already explained that the final decision was not made at one moment in time. It was arrived at in stages over a period of four hundred years. Do you understand what that means?
God told you that he made the decision in stages over a period of four hundred years?
No. It isn't necessary for God to speak to me directly in order for me to know a fact that is accessible to anyone who cares to know it. The biblical Canon was developed over a long period of time. That doesn't take away from the inspired nature of the bible. It is just something you ought to know if you if you want to enter into a discussion such as this. Rather than answer the question for you, I will let you do a little research on your own.
Did you get that on a stone tablet?
No. I got it through study.StephenB_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT}

GUN: So, if I'm understanding you correctly: However I define my morality makes that morality true for me by definition, and I can and should enforce my moral values as I see fit and inasmuch as I feel like it and have the power to do so. Correct?William J Murray_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Anyone who says:
Since ID appears incapable of separating itself from its founding religion,
Has very low and subjective morals, if that person has any morals at all. One thing is clear- discussing morals with such a person is a fool's errand.ET_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

VB
Do you enjoy looking like a fool?
When someone asks a stupid question, they are the only ones who look foolish. Maybe if you were capable of clearly stating your point, your question might make some sense. I assume that you are referring to this little gem (but I could be wrong)
To not exist objectively is to have no existence at all.
Is your logic that subjective morality can't exist because it does not objectively exist?JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:25 PM
1
01
25
PM
PDT}

JSmith “So, your claim now is that morality, regardless of the source, does not exist. Fair enough. At least that is something that can be discussed. KF, would like like to respond to VB’s claim?.” Do you enjoy looking like a fool? Vivid .vividbleau_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:08 PM
1
01
08
PM
PDT}

So how did the truths of the Gospel survive in tact until they were put in writing?
Inspiration. Take it or leave it.
I have already explained that the final decision was not made at one moment in time. It was arrived at in stages over a period of four hundred years. Do you understand what that means?
God told you that he made the decision in stages over a period of four hundred years? Did you get that on a stone tablet?OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

WJM @210
Is morality necessarily derived from empathy? IOW, if I develop behavioral parameters based on a set of rules that serves my own personal desires, is that by definition in your view ***not*** morality?
While I don’t believe that morality would exist without empathy, what is considered right and wrong is actually derived from our personal desires. But humans generally share many personal desires – we generally don’t want to be killed, robbed, raped, punched in the face, etc. It’s hardly coincidental that there’s such an overlap between such common desires and morality.
Also, is there any penalty or downside for ignoring my empathy?
IMO, it’s definitely psychologically damaging to our well-being to ignore or suppress such a central part of our human nature.goodusername_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT}

SB: Copy of what? There was no bible in the early church. How can you copy something that doesn’t exist?
What does the existence of the compiled Bible have to do with how the scrolls containing the individual books were copied?
There were no scrolls in the early church (from 27 a.d. to 50--70 a.d.) There were no written records at all and certainly no completed bible. So how did the truths of the Gospel survive in tact until they were put in writing? SB: Are you saying that it took God four centuries to make that decision?
No, are you? You’d have to ask God when he made that decision. I’m guessing it was much earlier.
I have already explained that the final decision was not made at one moment in time. It was arrived at in stages over a period of four hundred years. Do you understand what that means?StephenB_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

VB
JSmith the dodging and weaving on my part is a figment of your imagination and I must say your looking pretty foolish. If you actually read any of my posts you would know that I have already answered your question in 144 and 145. How can I be dodging a question that I already answered hmmm?
So, your claim now is that morality, regardless of the source, does not exist. Fair enough. At least that is something that can be discussed. KF, would like like to respond to VB's claim?.JSmith_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT}

CR
You didn’t answer my question. Why isn’t it a science book?
Because of... not being a science book? For the same reason that a science book isn't about God, Israel, and Jesus? Perhaps you could rephrase the question.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:32 PM
12
12
32
PM
PDT}

Copy of what? There was no bible in the early church. How can you copy something that doesn’t exist?
What does the existence of the compiled Bible have to do with how the scrolls containing the individual books were copied? Your question doesn't even make sense.
Are you saying that it took God four centuries to make that decision?
No, are you? You'd have to ask God when he made that decision. I'm guessing it was much earlier.OldAndrew_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

JSmith “Your dodging and weaving are duly noted. The question I asked you is the same as the one you asked me, just reversing objective and subjective. Let me refresh your memory, and that of other readers, of what led to me calling your question dishonest. JS: We all have a sense of morality, a sense of what is right and wrong. VB: What morality can you possibly be referring to? I will ask again how can this “morality” exist when it doesn’t exist? So I simply turned the question around at you. JS: How can objective morality exist when it doesn’t exist? If you can answer it, then your question wasn’t dishonest and I will apologize. If you can’t, then I stand by my original conclusion” JSmith the dodging and weaving on my part is a figment of your imagination and I must say your looking pretty foolish at the moment. If you actually read any of my posts rather than just skimming you would know that I have already answered your question in 144 and 145. How can I be dodging a question that I already answered hmmm? FWIW I dont need any apology nor am I looking for one. Vividvividbleau_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:29 PM
12
12
29
PM
PDT}

The Bible was never meant to be a science bookET_{January 15, 2018
January
01
Jan
15
15
2018
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 13 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply