Biblical Morality

[fr0d0]

I think there would be quite a few scientists who would take umbrage at your assertion that they know diddly squat.

Scientists as scientists know diddly squat about religion - was what I was saying. I would be surprised to hear that scientists were in fact theologians.

I'm sure you do but, from where I'm sitting, only from a certain POV; it requires persons with a more objective POV and less of an agenda to look at the bigger picture ... some scientists (like Dawkins) are exceptionally good at demonstrating exactly what religious beliefs are IMO.

That's right. I'm sure scientists are overjoyed when people with a wider POV, i.e. religious people, make authoritative statements about science.

Dawkins is stunningly ignorant about religion, and prides himself in telling people exactly what it's all about.

It's probably worth pointing out that it wasn't AT you (did I say you're being "frakking" something? No I didn't) and also that I didn't actually swear (and yes I know exactly what I said that's why I am fairly confident that I didn't swear).

Actually, although we can never be so, it was more like the sort of thing I would say to a friend you know, they say something which stretches your incredulity and you say, "What? You're insane!" it's little more than ribbing, and exclamatory remark, that's all. Come on, please tell me you're not so prudish as to not do similar things with your friends?

My hand was forced Kyu.

It was made very clear to me that responding to people in the manner that I'm used to, as we may normally converse with our peers, was VERY unacceptable on this forum.

No hard feelings at all.

truth implies certainty and science can NEVER be certain.

Secondly science is the only philosophy that actually works ... nothing else has EVER explained anything in the real world (maths is an exception but maths still requires testing in the real world).

If nothing can ever be held to be absolute than nothing can ever be utterly true IOW we can only approach certainty but can never reach it.

Truth varies.

Two contradictory statements there.

I would say you're confused about what truth is. You seem to be saying that 'truth' is only knowable through science, even though science based on facts is movable.

I think it revealing that you refer to science as philosophy. This is the problem.. science has nothing to do with philosophy.

Many anti-theists slate religion for having unmovable truths. Yet here you are complaining that religious truth is variable.

Those things which Christians feel can be claimed as truth are written in the bible.

Reality, facts, the understanding of the physical universe are in the realm of science. Theological truth and scientific fact never address the same issue.

OK, then can you explain the conflicting genealogies of Jesus Christ? Can you also enlighten me concerning the manner in which Judas Iscariot died?

There are many theories about the genealogy. Legal vs biological; male vs female; Jewish saviour vs saviour of mankind. Take your pick.

Judas hung himself and his bowels fell out of his body being ripped open by the cord. The Chief Priests then bought a field in his name. Two accounts saying the same thing.

P.S. Again my apologies for editing your post, I got confused by my modding powers ... I've recovered it all but not in exactly the same format.

You edited my post? Which one?

[Kyuuketsuki]

Scientists as scientists know diddly squat about religion - was what I was saying. I would be surprised to hear that scientists were in fact theologians.

That has to rank as one of the most spectacularly stupid things I've ever heard anyone say ... not only does the Catholic Church do an awful lot of science (their speciality is cosmology but I doubt it stops there) but have you never heard of Professor Sir John Polkinghorne?

Dawkins is stunningly ignorant about religion, and prides himself in telling people exactly what it's all about.

Apparently you missed the fact that he wrote a book called, "The God Delusion" hmmm? Like it love it, agree or disagree, hate it or whatever there can be no denying he knows an awful lot about religion.

It was made very clear to me that responding to people in the manner that I'm used to, as we may normally converse with our peers, was VERY unacceptable on this forum.

I know nothing of this.

No hard feelings at all.

No feelings one way or the other.

I would say you're confused about what truth is. You seem to be saying that 'truth' is only knowable through science, even though science based on facts is movable.

Nope, I'm saying truth has nothing to do with science and, math excepted, it varies.

I think it revealing that you refer to science as philosophy. This is the problem.. science has nothing to do with philosophy.

Wrong philosophy means "to seek knowledge" and, to date, the only methodology that has ever explained anything in any verifiable form is science... science is actually the only real philosophy.

Many anti-theists slate religion for having unmovable truths. Yet here you are complaining that religious truth is variable.

Such as?

Those things which Christians feel can be claimed as truth are written in the bible.

Meaningless truths sure.

Reality, facts, the understanding of the physical universe are in the realm of science. Theological truth and scientific fact never address the same issue.

Actually both science and religion attempt to answer the same questions ... the difference is that religion is nearly always wrong.

There are many theories about the genealogy. Legal vs biological; male vs female; Jewish saviour vs saviour of mankind. Take your pick.

Answer the question!

Judas hung himself and his bowels fell out of his body being ripped open by the cord. The Chief Priests then bought a field in his name. Two accounts saying the same thing.

Explain the difference!

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

Once again: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

I don't understand your question. Let me say what I think you're asking:
Q. How can our unprovable idea that God exists have any bearing on God's actual existence or not.
A. It cannot. If God exists, it is outside of our sphere of proof.

You don't understand my question? I explained that mathematics doesn't need evidence because it is not something that exists in outside reality but a brilliant tool to help us understand reality. You said: "faith is exactly that". Now I am asking: How is faith a tool to help us understand reality, and: HOW does it help us understand reality according to you? What's difficult about that question?

You say God is outside our sphere of proof. Now you also said in the opening thread that it's ridiculous for God to require any evidence at all.

And what I'm wondering is how on earth God should be treated a special case? Why shouldn't he require evidence like any other claim of the existence of something?

He may be unprovable. But why shouldn't his existence need evidence before it should be believed?

So what's the point? The point is this enables a huge opportunity for any individual to experience life the best we possibly can. I think that's no small thing.

How does it? And if 'faith' does have a positive effect like this at all, through the placebo effect for instance; that doesn't have any bearing on existence of God does it?

If believing in God makes you happy. That in no way makes God more likely to exist. Just as if believing in Satan makes you UNhappy - that in no way makes Satan more likely to exist.

How you 'feel' because of your supernatural beliefs in no way has any bearing on the truth of them, or lack thereof. It's not evidence.

No one is tied to the idea. Everyone has complete liberty under this system to do whatever they like, without condemnation at all from those who do.

But belief in God doesn't give you any more freedom than not believing in God. However; some things in some religions may be considered unacceptable to those who are part of it; and this arguably limits to freedom I think.

If you do purely religious things simply because you think you should for religious reasons; when it's all in fact nonsense for instance - and you wouldn't do it if you didn't believe in God, if you were atheis - then I think that's an example where belief in God would limit your freedom.

E.G if you prayed everyday because you believed in God. If you were atheist you wouldn't spend your time praying to a non-existent supernatural being.

However how exactly do those who believe in God have any more freedom? They don't. We are all born atheists.

Don't just tell me that it does.

Have I EVER said "because it does"?

I don't do that. I require rational explanation for everything.

You said that faith has bearing on the existence of God, you said the following: "His existence in reality is beyond what is empirically provable to us. Only faith can have any bearing, since there's no other way to know. Everything is it's own case. This is how this works. You don't accept it or believe it, so what's the problem?"

You say that faith has bearing but you won't give any reasons. You just say that it does have bearing; what are you reasons exactly?

If you require 'a rational explanation for everything' then please give one on this.

So I repeat: HOW can faith have any bearing on the existence of God?

Because as I quoted above. You DID say that it does ( @ post #47 of this thread). But then when I asked HOW does it: You said you didn't understand the question and you rephrased it.

You say: faith has bearing on the existence of God.

I say: HOW does it have bearing?

What is it about that question that you do not understand?

Well it doesn't need to be proved that it isn't untill you've given any evidence that it IS internally consistent.

A through example of scholarly explanations of every chapter in the bible is on Bible Gateway. There lies proof of the complete internal consistancy. On the other hand, the evidence for the opposition is the ignorant (I choose the word carefully) skeptics bible.

The bible is not a 'magic book' that you can interpret how you want to make sense and this gives evidence towards the existence of God.

And you have said that yes indeed: Its ridiculous to require evidence of God.

So if there is no evidence of God. Then there's no reason to believe he exists now is there?

The bible is not evidence of God. E.G the bible is just a book that claims things and gives no evidence of God.

I could write right here: God exists.

That is not evidence for the existence of God of course.

Now if I said a bit more about how great he is and what he can do and more about how he exists. If there's no evidence why believe?

Personal feeling has no bearing on the existence of God. Only evidence has a bearing on the real existence of something in objective real reality.

If it's an existence claim, and existence idea, an hypothesis of the existence of something. You need evidence.

The existence of something needs evidence. It is totally irrational to cherry pick a certain thing or things that totally lack evidence that you want to believe in: over other things that totally lack evidence that you don't want to or feel the need to believe in so much.

If there's no evidence of God. What other rational reason IS there for believing?

If faith is a rational way of living and understanding the world in your eyes...this can have no bearing on God - although you say it can; - because if it does then you are saying that counts as evidence. And you say God doesn't require evidence and it's ridiculous to suggest that it does. So there's a contradiction there.

How can faith have a bearing when faith=LACK of evidence?

What other bearing other than evidence is there on the existence of something in objective reality?

You say that God is 'true for you'. But then you say that he is true but some just don't see it. So there aren't you suggesting that he isn't just 'true for you' but true in reality? It's just 'some don't see it'. In which case: Where is the evidence?

If you believe that God exists, then you can't believe he only exists for some people and not for others. That seems impossible to me. This was your idea that God can and can't exist at the same time. You explain it to me!

Explain it to you? You're just being silly now because surely you know I don't believe in God at all? Never mind about believing in a God that is true for others but not for some.

No; you said that God was true for you. So all I was saying that he can't be 'true for you' because he's either true for everyone or no one. He either exists or he doesn't. Either something is true or false when we're talking about objective reality. Either God exists or he doesn't.

You then said he is true for you but he is true for others too; they just don't see it.

So why say he is true for you? I thought you meant that he could be true for you but not for others! Why say "true for me" if you do indeed believe and just mean that he's true for you and everyone else! You might as well say he's just true. And that he exists.

If you are supposed to have some ability to see God that we can't. Then you can't merely assert to us that belief in God shouldn't require evidence like every other belief. You have to give evidence. If you can't and just say that we can't 'see it'. Then you can't expect us to accept the idea that the existence of God should be treated as a special case and not treated the same as the existence of anything else. Or that 'faith' somehow has any bearing without showing how on earth it possibily does.

I never said I can physically 'see' anything. That would be inconsistent, even ridiculous given my repeated assertions.

I never said that you claimed you could physically see something did I?

I just said 'see'. Because when I was perplexed about you saying that God was true for you. You said that God is true for everyone else also; some just don't 'see it'.

So how do you or others who believe in God 'see it'. Whatever this 'seeing' is?

I can assert to you that belief in God requires no evidence, because that is the definition of religious belief.

This is the whole point. Christianity isn't a science, it's a religion. The rules of science don't apply. The consistent message of the bible is of faith in what we cannot see.

If you can't see it how on earth do you know that the bible isn't just complete nonsense?

I mean if there's no evidence whatsoever and you can't detect it in any possible way. You might as well believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I mean if you are not after evidence for an existence claim are you merely believing in something because it emotionally 'feels right' or 'helps you in some way'. Despite the fact that has no bearing whatsoever on the truth of the existence of God? Because if ANYTHING had any bearing whatsoever on the existence of God that would make it by definition evidence.

And if you say that God can't require evidence. Then nothing can have any bearing on the existence of God. So there's no reason to think he exists. The FSM is equally likely.

Is this about emotion or the existence of a supernatural being here? Because emotion has no bearing on the existence of God; nor does 'inspiration' or 'self-improvement'. If it did it would be considered evidence and afterall: you don't think evidence has any bearing. To require evidence for the existence of God would be 'ridiculous' you say.

Faith is to believe what we cannot see; and the reward of faith is to see what we believe.

Which is pretty damn circular actually I think:

Start believing blindly and then when you see things that you can interpret as backing up that blind belief; that's the reward! And that presumably strengthens your belief!

Faith is believing in what we cannot see it says. E.G: Blind belief. BLIND belief; ignorant belief. And the reward is 'seeing' things that backs up this blindness apparently.

But how can you trust the blindness in the first place? If you can find things to back it up; so what? Why would you want to back up ignorant, blind belief? Faith? Belief without evidence?

How exactly does 'belief without evidence' have bearing on the existence of God? If we can't 'see it' as you so claim; don't expect us to simply trust you on that and treat the existence of God as a special case. The existence of God should require evidence like any other existence claim.

You can't trust me on it, that's the whole point. You have to have faith yourself to get it. It's completely an individual choice.

No it's not individual choice. Belief is not a matter of policy. You can't 'choose belief'.

Faking belief on the other hand could easily be chosen.

I could easily pretend to believe in God. But if I tried to believe in God's existence - no matter how hard - I couldn't do it.

I could pray, got to churches etc etc. Read the bible over and over.

And if none of this convinces me (and it wouldn't) I couldn't simply 'choose' to believe.

If I think "God exists, god exists, god exists" over and over in my head. It doesn't remotely make me believe it!

Belief is not a matter of policy.

Personally; if I heard God's voice and/or felt really inspired and/or felt some /presence or 'saw God'. I would think I was hallucinating, hearing voices, etc.....

So would I

Oh good. So we have something in common there then?

My point was. What exactly do you 'see' that others 'don't'. When God is true for you but it is for others who don't believe too. They just don't 'see it' according to you.

OR merely misinterpretting the beauty of the natural world and reality as it really is; as something Godly - and for example: seeing a designer where there isn't one.

The pathetic 'argument from beauty' and the destroyed 'argument from design', etc.

The fashion is to rubbish reasonable wisdom and replace it with nothing, because it isn't described in a scientific way.

I at least, am not one of those atheists who is against any personal wisdom in the bible. What I am against is the idea of a supernatural being, a God, or indeed miracles or anything supernatural. I think that is all rubbish.

Also the fact that there is also a lot of horror in the bible. And it's pretty ridiculous when it is brushed aside and cherry-picked by some, particularly moderates.

[fr0d0]

Scientists as scientists know diddly squat about religion - was what I was saying. I would be surprised to hear that scientists were in fact theologians.

That has to rank as one of the most spectacularly stupid things I've ever heard anyone say ... not only does the Catholic Church do an awful lot of science (their speciality is cosmology but I doubt it stops there) but have you never heard of Professor Sir John Polkinghorne?

Look, it's simple - in science college you don't learn about theology, science or religion, you learn about science. Scientists are not also theologians BY TRAINING. OF COURSE you can be a scientist AND a theologian.

Dawkins is stunningly ignorant about religion, and prides himself in telling people exactly what it's all about.

Apparently you missed the fact that he wrote a book called, "The God Delusion" hmmm? Like it love it, agree or disagree, hate it or whatever there can be no denying he knows an awful lot about religion.

He STILL KNOWS SWEET F ALL ABOUT RELIGION. I've read the book. I know. The whole thing is about how, as a scientist, he has no clue what it's about at all. He doesn't get it.

It was made very clear to me that responding to people in the manner that I'm used to, as we may normally converse with our peers, was VERY unacceptable on this forum.

I know nothing of this.

Well you've been commenting on the threads. Apparently you haven't been reading them as well???

No hard feelings at all.

No feelings one way or the other.

Nice. Thanks.

I would say you're confused about what truth is. You seem to be saying that 'truth' is only knowable through science, even though science based on facts is movable.

Nope, I'm saying truth has nothing to do with science and, math excepted, it varies.

I'm just repeating what you said Kyu. Perhaps you should just argue with yourself in private.

Note the two phrases I highlighted.

I think it revealing that you refer to science as philosophy. This is the problem.. science has nothing to do with philosophy.

Wrong philosophy means "to seek knowledge" and, to date, the only methodology that has ever explained anything in any verifiable form is science... science is actually the only real philosophy.

n., pl. -phies.
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

I don't see anything there that agrees with you. Do you?

Many anti-theists slate religion for having unmovable truths. Yet here you are complaining that religious truth is variable.

Such as?

Which unmovable truths?

There is a God. He made everything. The ten commandments. The beatitudes. The list is endless.

Those things which Christians feel can be claimed as truth are written in the bible.

Meaningless sure

Back that up.

Reality, facts, the understanding of the physical universe are in the realm of science. Theological truth and scientific fact never address the same issue.

Actually both science and religion attempt to answer the same questions ... the difference is that religion is nearly always wrong.

Christianity NEVER asks those questions. Idiot fundies may do, and dumb scientists with no understanding of what the real question is may do, but Christianity never does. Give me evidence of one question about the physical universe that Christianity answers please. That should be an easy one

There are many theories about the genealogy. Legal vs biological; male vs female; Jewish saviour vs saviour of mankind. Take your pick.

Answer the question!

I did! 3 times!

Judas hung himself and his bowels fell out of his body being ripped open by the cord. The Chief Priests then bought a field in his name. Two accounts saying the same thing.

Explain the difference!

The two accounts were written in a different style, but both speak about the same thing. It's not a very contentious issue.

[Kyuuketsuki]

That has to rank as one of the most spectacularly stupid things I've ever heard anyone say ... not only does the Catholic Church do an awful lot of science (their speciality is cosmology but I doubt it stops there) but have you never heard of Professor Sir John Polkinghorne?

Look, it's simple - in science college you don't learn about theology, science or religion, you learn about science. Scientists are not also theologians BY TRAINING. OF COURSE you can be a scientist AND a theologian.

Yet curiously you said the opposite ("I would be surprised to hear that scientists were in fact theologians") ... am I to take it that you concede you were wrong on that point?

So, in science you don't learn about theology so you can't have a valid opinion eh? So, as a biologist (by degree), I cannot have any opinion on computing (an area I've worked in for 20 plus years)? Or perhaps as a journalist you can't comment on, say terrorism (after all what does it specifically have to do with journalism?)? Is that the kind of reasoning you're espousing here?

Apparently you missed the fact that he wrote a book called, "The God Delusion" hmmm? Like it love it, agree or disagree, hate it or whatever there can be no denying he knows an awful lot about religion.

He STILL KNOWS SWEET F ALL ABOUT RELIGION. I've read the book. I know. The whole thing is about how, as a scientist, he has no clue what it's about at all. He doesn't get it.

The fact that his book sold as many copies as it did, that he runs the a number of specifically anti-religious organisations, is involved in anti-religious programming, can easily hold his own against any religious debater ALL OF WHICH would require an in depth knowledge of religion means he doesn't get it?

I know nothing of this.

Well you've been commenting on the threads. Apparently you haven't been reading them as well???

Not, at time of (then) writing, on those ones it would seem.

No feelings one way or the other.

Nice. Thanks.

[SHRUG] I'm just being honest!

Nope, I'm saying truth has nothing to do with science and, math excepted, it varies.

I'm just repeating what you said Kyu. Perhaps you should just argue with yourself in private.

No, you're not REPEATING what I am saying, you're commenting on your own interpretation of what I said ... I believe those interpretations are wrong. If you think otherwise I suggest you post up what I said (literally what I said please) and we'll take it from there.

Note the two phrases I highlighted.

The two statements don't conflict ... the word "truth" does imply certainty, nothing about that says that truth IS certainty and I maintain that truth is actually a variable commodity for (amongst others) reasons already explained.

I think it revealing that you refer to science as philosophy. This is the problem.. science has nothing to do with philosophy.

Wrong philosophy means "to seek knowledge" and, to date, the only methodology that has ever explained anything in any verifiable form is science... science is actually the only real philosophy.

n., pl. -phies.
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

I don't see anything there that agrees with you. Do you?

Obviously I need to explain this a little more.

I pretty much despise standard "philosophy" and am contemptuous of most philosophical style arguments. Why? Because philosophy, alone, can prove nothing (ZERO, NADA, ZIP), Yes philosophy is a useful tool that feeds into the real world but alone it is nothing.

Philosophy seems to have (as is often the case within the English language) a correct meaning and a number of common usage meanings but, thanks to Isaac Asimov (who was one of those dratted scientists as you probably know) and his "New Guide to Science", it appears that it derives from the ancient Greeks. The late, great Isaac Asimov, in his wonderful "New Guide To Science" devotes some space to philosophy where he referred to the Greek investigations of the universe, that they called (and I quote) 'their new manner of studying the universe philosophia meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know"'(page 8). So a true philosopher is a seeker after knowledge and these seekers are not, I believe, those that like to blow philosophical sunshine up each other's arses but scientists and other real world investigators who attempt to provide real knowledge that is of real use to the human race. Science qualifications even reflect this ... whilst it is not absolutely necessary a typical scientist will have a doctorate and a doctorate is what? A PhD, a Doctor of Philosophy.

I would argue that it is because current day philosophers seem to provide little or no direct value to the real world that much of the philosophy bandied about today is little more than academic psychobabble. I'm not saying that philosophy has no value but it is clear to me that the true philosophers of this world are scientists like Richard Dawkins.

Such as?

Which unmovable truths?

There is a God. He made everything. The ten commandments. The beatitudes. The list is endless.

Gods vary (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, Quetzalcoatl), the 10 Commandments vary (Catholics I believe have a different set of commandments to Anglican religions, the gods & prophets of religions vary (Joseph Smith for the Mormons, Jesus Christ is a mere prophet in Islam) but the point I am making is simple ... all religions have certain "truths" and they all vary in fine or in gross. It is easy to see that truth is a variable commodity.

Meaningless sure

Back that up.

See above and points made in previous posts

Actually both science and religion attempt to answer the same questions ... the difference is that religion is nearly always wrong.

Christianity NEVER asks those questions. Idiot fundies may do, and dumb scientists with no understanding of what the real question is may do, but Christianity never does. Give me evidence of one question about the physical universe that Christianity answers please. That should be an easy one

Cosmology (creation, stellar & planetary motion, the nature of stellar bodies), geology (creation, weather systems, the nature of the Earth), biology (evolution), mathematics (Pi) ... is that enough to be going on with?

Answer the question!

I did! 3 times!

No you didn't. You DID NOT explain why the genealogies differed and therefore explicitly disprove your claim that the bible is internally consistent. Please do so.

Explain the difference!

The two accounts were written in a different style, but both speak about the same thing. It's not a very contentious issue.

I grow tired of your disingenuousness.

Matthew 27:3 –5 (English-KJV)
Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood. And they said, What is that to us? see thou to that. And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:16-18 (English-KJV)
Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

Read those ... it is crystal clear that the two passages outline two different manners of death.

In the first he hangs himself, in the second he falls headlong, burst open and spills his insides out ... how the hell does he do that if he has hung himself?

Kyu

[Tiberius]

I think it revealing that you refer to science as philosophy. This is the problem.. science has nothing to do with philosophy.

Wrong philosophy means "to seek knowledge" and, to date, the only methodology that has ever explained anything in any verifiable form is science... science is actually the only real philosophy.

n., pl. -phies.
Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.
A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

I don't see anything there that agrees with you. Do you?

Yes:

1) Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline. - Science is the pursuit of wisdom by an intellectual means.
2) The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs. - Philosophy of Science does this quite well.
3) The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology. - The word "science" is used in the meaning!!!
4) A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising. - Science is all about beliefs and ideas relating to specific fields and activities...

So 4 out of the 8 mentioned do apply to science. The rest apply to philosophy in general, which is logical thinking, ethics, etc.

[Eilonnwy]

I grow tired of your disingenuousness.

I grew tired a while ago which was why I didn't pursue the argument. It's clear that now matter how many contradictions you show him he's going to assert the weak and stupid argument that either "It's relavant to the time" or it's a "different interpretation, view of the same thing". He's obviously going to defend any bliblical passage no matter how heinous with weak overused excuses.

[bozo]

Rather than start a new post, I chose to use this one. I'm not talking about biblical morality specifically....but about nuns!
I was watching again the film " Motorcycle Diaries " this weekend, which is about the tour of South America Che Guevara made and which had a profound effect on hislife. It made him become the revolutionary icon he is.
In it, he stops of at a leper colony, where the " rules " are laid down by a gang of nuns.
The mother superior rules that you don't get to eat if you don't attend mass.
Morality?????