Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Angrboda]

Your appeal to emotion with the "wouldn't understand [it] anyway" remark is noted and ignored.  You're simply begging off on providing an explanation because you, yourself, are incapable of providing an explanation...

You misunderstood my intention. I’m saying that moral realism is a properly basic belief. It only loses its warrant if there is a valid objection or defeater. A properly functioning conscience operating in an environment amenable to its use prompts us with what appear to be real moral imperatives. It is no different than a properly functioning memory allows someone to recall past events. It’s not perfect; people forget. Or they’re too tired to think. And sometimes people disagree. But it is silly to conclude based on its limitations that there are no facts about the past. Everyone assumes their memories are true until shown otherwise. It is the same with moral imperatives.

I don't accept that reformed epistemology is a valid epistemology, it's nothing but half-baked objections to classical foundationalism with no positive program of its own (aside from sneaking God in through the rear entrance). So you can take your idea that moral realism, as an intuition, is without need of any warrant or rational defense and shove it. Where do we go now with our disagreement? The court of reformed epistemologists? You really have no clue. You just like using the framework like a parking garage for ideas that you want to keep safe from scrutiny. Well bollocks. It's just an overt admission that you can't defend your moral realism against even modest skepticism. For someone who routinely whines about naturalists declaring things as brute facts, you seem remarkably inclined to resort to similar objections when the spirit moves you. Like it or not, there is plenty of rational debate as to whether moral realism is an adequate description of reality and 'defeaters' abound. That you think an incomplete epistemological framework is the ticket to providing security for your idea that "feelings" are evidence only underscores how irrational your original complaint was. Belief that our memory is infallible is shown to be irrational in study after study. And God, too, isn't immune to rational skepticism. That I don't believe in your God or your moral realism doesn't show that my brain is simply not working correctly. That you've come from border disputes in epistemology to what is little more than ad hominem is a fascinating journey, but not an admirable one. I don't accept your conclusion both because your epistemological ideas are bollocks and because we have sound reason to doubt the reality of moral facts. These objections come from ontology, naturalism, physicalism, and the multiplicity of moral intuitions. If you're done begging off on objections with the complaint that they're "mere assertions" then I suggest you get to work, either completing the failed program of reformed epistemology or defeating the defeaters.