>..so in that case can it be explained irrationally?


That is a contradiction in terms. You cannot "explain something irrationally"... to do so would be the equivalent of "not explaining it".


>Is not
>the fact that this philospher has decided to examine the issue
>and answer it with honesty and truthfulness (since i believe
>he is being honest with himself, so therefore his answers,
>unless he is lying for whatever reason, will be true) a good
>in itself?


I believe it is. I believe his honesty is wholly admirable, and the first step to us figuring out anything about the nature or origin of our notions of goodness. He's a huge, giant leap ahead of those that have not examined their own personal philosophy enough to realize that you cannot explain man's inclination toward goodness by means of pure reason.

You cannot explain to someone, purely rationally, why they "should be moral".
Because the word "should" presupposes an existing moral notion. You're appealing to morality to explain why morality should be practiced. It's begging the question. It's fallacious. It's faulty reasoning.

Without God, there can be no such thing is real goodness.

We must choose. Either we are activists, and believe in a good God, or if we don't believe, yet still claim to be activists, we are illogical hypocrites.

I challenge anyone on this board to show otherwise. Not for the purposes of being antagonistic am I saying this, but for the purpose of getting at TRUTH.

Someone, earlier in this post said something to the effect of "it's totally impossible to be objective". Yet, he assumes that what he's saying is objectively true. He's contradicting himself. Dig?

peace.