RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
July 25, 2014 at 12:59 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2014 at 1:00 am by Whateverist.)
(July 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(July 24, 2014 at 6:52 pm)whateverist Wrote: Well it is in the sense that it is a plausible NATURAL account. Still speculative but at least no woo.
I think it's dangerous to start taking made-up ideas, of any kind, and taking them as reality if they are not provable or disprovable.
Hey, it's a theory. If it makes you nervous, don't theorize. I don't find that I blur the line between speculation and reality so badly as to have to give it up myself.
(July 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm)bennyboy Wrote: It doesn't take much for science to become "Science," and for the authority of Scientists to usurp the good methodology of actual scientists. I think scientists have a reponsibility to stick to actual evidence, and to develop ideas that can be confirmed or disproven using scientific methodology. Saying, "I can make a story about how cavemen needed religion, therefore religion is an evolved trait" is not substantially different from "I can make a story that God visited cavemen, therefore God guided human development."
The problem is that while you can dig up bones, and maybe even DNA, you can't dig up subjective experiences like "beauty" or "morality."
No one is saying you can. I would be happy if my only problems were things this obvious. No one is calculating the path of a space craft based on theories of beauty or morality. I'm filing it under fun speculation. If you accept that morality is in the same boat as beauty, we're pretty much in agreement for whatever reason you come up with.
