RE: Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!
May 11, 2017 at 6:16 am
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2017 at 6:21 am by Fake Messiah.)
You know it's remarkable how much Neo-Scholastic sounds like Hitler, or I guess it's not so remarkable considering they're both Christians.
For instance this is what Neo-Scholastic wrote:
"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."
And this is what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf":
"faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude" and "various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort."
They both talk how when ever you try to make a substitute for God/ religion as source of morality you delude yourself and fail. This is because message of Christianity is that being good is not natural. Being good requires you to overcome your own self-interest. That humans are naturally deceitful, innately evil, and inherently bad. That only trough listening to Jesus' stories you can overcome your "natural evil persona".
For instance this is what Neo-Scholastic wrote:
"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."
And this is what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf":
"faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude" and "various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort."
They both talk how when ever you try to make a substitute for God/ religion as source of morality you delude yourself and fail. This is because message of Christianity is that being good is not natural. Being good requires you to overcome your own self-interest. That humans are naturally deceitful, innately evil, and inherently bad. That only trough listening to Jesus' stories you can overcome your "natural evil persona".
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
