RE: Science and religion
March 28, 2013 at 8:42 am
(This post was last modified: March 28, 2013 at 9:47 am by The Reality Salesman01.)
Morals are an obvious result of a thinking mind being able to reflect on its surroundings.
As long as we've had the ability to think, the choices we make have been aimed at that which is most beneficial to us (good things). In order to discern that which is beneficial from that which is not, the inevitable opposite becomes inherently necessary (bad things).
In order to recognize UP, there must be a DOWN. But up and down are relative to a medium. Correct? If there is no resting normal state, then the idea of up and down becomes abstract and an irrelevant concept.
It sounds as though we are to define what morals are relative TO in order to establish that they are relative at all. Is that what you are asking Strodel?
Are morals only relevant if they are imposed by a God? If one day when the universe collapses and all life as we know it is gone, are you asking me why it would really matter whether or not I killed my sister if there wasn't an eternal and ultimate source of morality through which all acts are given their moral value? I'm really asking you this question because I would truly like to offer my justification for an alternative. But it would not do me any good without clarifying exactly what you are proposing. So in the interest of avoiding misinterpretations and insulting presuppositions of your claim, please outline very clearly what you are challenging me to dispute. I think you are saying that morals are absolute and so therefore God exists. I reject that morals are absolute, so instead of using absolute morality,which in its own is a hypothesis, to prove God (another hypothesis). Let us address them one at a time, and possibly backwards. Tell me how absolute morality exists and if we can establish that, we will move on to your next theory pertaining to it proving a God.
I would very much like to have this conversation.
As long as we've had the ability to think, the choices we make have been aimed at that which is most beneficial to us (good things). In order to discern that which is beneficial from that which is not, the inevitable opposite becomes inherently necessary (bad things).
In order to recognize UP, there must be a DOWN. But up and down are relative to a medium. Correct? If there is no resting normal state, then the idea of up and down becomes abstract and an irrelevant concept.
It sounds as though we are to define what morals are relative TO in order to establish that they are relative at all. Is that what you are asking Strodel?
Are morals only relevant if they are imposed by a God? If one day when the universe collapses and all life as we know it is gone, are you asking me why it would really matter whether or not I killed my sister if there wasn't an eternal and ultimate source of morality through which all acts are given their moral value? I'm really asking you this question because I would truly like to offer my justification for an alternative. But it would not do me any good without clarifying exactly what you are proposing. So in the interest of avoiding misinterpretations and insulting presuppositions of your claim, please outline very clearly what you are challenging me to dispute. I think you are saying that morals are absolute and so therefore God exists. I reject that morals are absolute, so instead of using absolute morality,which in its own is a hypothesis, to prove God (another hypothesis). Let us address them one at a time, and possibly backwards. Tell me how absolute morality exists and if we can establish that, we will move on to your next theory pertaining to it proving a God.
I would very much like to have this conversation.
