RE: One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.
November 7, 2017 at 6:31 pm
OK well at least I know what you are getting at now.
Personally I think that this is overthinking it. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective and it's very easy to take it out of scope. These are common place terms, not strict scientific definitions. But as with anything philosophical, disagreement always seems to come when people apply a different scope for the definitions that they use. My yardstick is whether a definition is useful. I am not particularly interested in arguing semantics and fleshing out at what point a concept is no longer useful.
The scope we're arguing here is waaay beyond the kind of debate about subjective vs objective morality that religionists think about. They seem to have some sort of idea of some ethereal force that exists as part of some cosmic battle of good vs evil. They can't ever measure evil or even have a clear concept of what it could possibly be. Like a soul, a god or free will, it's a vague undefinable concept that they can believe in because it can't be tested. Yet while advocating an objective morality, theists can only ever pass judgement on the morality of an action based on their own neural conditioning. It's that which i object to, not to the extent of which objective facts rely on neural processing.
Personally I think that this is overthinking it. The discussion is about whether morality is objective or subjective and it's very easy to take it out of scope. These are common place terms, not strict scientific definitions. But as with anything philosophical, disagreement always seems to come when people apply a different scope for the definitions that they use. My yardstick is whether a definition is useful. I am not particularly interested in arguing semantics and fleshing out at what point a concept is no longer useful.
The scope we're arguing here is waaay beyond the kind of debate about subjective vs objective morality that religionists think about. They seem to have some sort of idea of some ethereal force that exists as part of some cosmic battle of good vs evil. They can't ever measure evil or even have a clear concept of what it could possibly be. Like a soul, a god or free will, it's a vague undefinable concept that they can believe in because it can't be tested. Yet while advocating an objective morality, theists can only ever pass judgement on the morality of an action based on their own neural conditioning. It's that which i object to, not to the extent of which objective facts rely on neural processing.
