RE: If beauty doesn't require God, why should morality? (Bite me Dr. Craig.)
July 24, 2014 at 8:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 24, 2014 at 8:22 pm by bennyboy.)
(July 24, 2014 at 6:52 pm)whateverist Wrote: Well it is in the sense that it is a plausible NATURAL account. Still speculative but at least no woo.
I think it's dangerous to start taking made-up ideas, of any kind, and taking them as reality if they are not provable or disprovable. It doesn't take much for science to become "Science," and for the authority of Scientists to usurp the good methodology of actual scientists. I think scientists have a reponsibility to stick to actual evidence, and to develop ideas that can be confirmed or disproven using scientific methodology. Saying, "I can make a story about how cavemen needed religion, therefore religion is an evolved trait" is not substantially different from "I can make a story that God visited cavemen, therefore God guided human development."
The problem is that while you can dig up bones, and maybe even DNA, you can't dig up subjective experiences like "beauty" or "morality."
