(January 8, 2016 at 9:31 am)ChadWooters Wrote:(January 7, 2016 at 10:32 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Morality is specific to the human species, and easily explainable by the science of evolution.
How would a uniquely human capacity for moral judgement exclude the possibility of an objective morality? The uniquely human capacity for reason presumably references real independent facts.
Having evolved behaviours and dispositions says nothing about the moral value of execising them.What am I missing?
Chad,
I would like to ask you a few personal questions: What, specifically, are your beliefs? Do you identify with theist or deist, or somewhere in the middle? Do you identify with a formal religion, and if so, which one? If you are Christian, how literally do you interpret the bible?
Obviously you don't have to answer any of these if you don't want to, but I think a debate between world views can only be a true debate if all parties are transparent and upfront about what, exactly, their views are.
Clearly, you are a very intelligent, well educated person. You must either hold an advanced degree in philosophy, or you have researched it independently because it is an area of interest and great importance to you. You describe your metaphysical position using philosophical language and theory at length, and eloquently. You explain your perspective of knowledge as the genus, and empirical science as the species (paraphrasing). The thing is, these arguments only go so far as to say: "there is more to this world than can be discovered by empirical science alone." You always fall short of actually saying what you believe in.
By poking out at other people's world views from a dark corner you become a moving target. It's not fair to shroud yourself in ambiguity while calling out ignorance left and right. How can you say, "your world view is wrong, and mine is right," without actually taking a stance anywhere on the spectrum? Are you afraid that if you admit to being Christian you will be held accountable for bridging that gap between the ambiguity of knowledge theory and the Christian God of the bible? Maybe it's my fault for never having asked you before.
The thing that gets me "riled up," is you REFUSE to admit to yourself that you can understand how philosophical theory in the absence of science might not be considered adequate evidence for a hard nosed atheist. Instead of just saying, "I can see how this might not be enough to convince you," you take an offensive position of, "well, if philosophy isn't enough to convince you, then I guess you just aren't educated enough in philosophy like I am. Go read Plato, and then, if you are as smart as me, you'll get it." That is unjustifiable arrogance on your part. Admit limitations in your argument where they exist, but for starters, be forthright about your faith! Oh, and demonstrate your spiritual knowledge. I am still waiting for someone to do that.
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Wiser words were never spoken.
