RE: Non-overlapping magesteria
February 17, 2015 at 12:43 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2015 at 12:44 pm by SteelCurtain.)
(February 17, 2015 at 12:32 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Even if we suddenly agreed that moral questions cannot be informed or elucidated with science, would we really want to insert religion as the "magesteria" of morality? Why the hell not moral philosophy or humanistic ethics? Gould's default reversion to religion as the 'moral' realm only highlights his bias and distressing level of cognitive dissonance.
And how would we get to a moral philosophy or humanistic ethics outside of religion? Would it not be through observation, testing, and re-evaluating things as time marches on? Would it not be an evolving societal ethos? What would one call that process of observation, testing, and amending ideas as new information becomes available or as environmental pressures change?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
