RE: Non-overlapping magesteria
February 18, 2015 at 9:30 am
(This post was last modified: February 18, 2015 at 9:52 am by The Reality Salesman01.)
(February 18, 2015 at 1:55 am)Parkers Tan Wrote: Wait, who are "these people" you're referring to, and are you including me amongst them? You seem to be assuming I'm a theist ... you could not be further from the truth of the matter.
Nah, I wasn't speaking to anyone specifically. I'll admit, I had been skimming through the thread while inebriated and there was just something in the nature of that all too familiar line that struck a chord.
I was talking about people who are convinced that morals could not exist without some divine entity commanding them to be. They assert that whatever this "goodness" is that we are able to recognize, we cannot point to why it is good rather than bad, and that there must be some source of goodness that is not merely something that is good, but the entirety of goodness in and of itself...
...I hear things like this, and that's when I wonder why they've excluded all other physical descriptive experiences. I wonder why they do not contemplate the purest form of the smell of shit when they recognize they've just inhaled a fart? It seems to be the other side of the coin and yet it is intuitively a stupid question. The same can be said about "Moral Absolutes". That's all I was saying...
I saw someone mention The Moral Landscape, and I think there are some really good points made in that book. If we aim to mold our actions around a sense of good that is defined by maximizing the state of well being in conscious creatures, then there are certainly better and worse ways of doing that. And if we think of our decisions in those sorts of terms, it becomes apparently absurd to suggest that religion has ever offered any absolute moral compass that has aided in anything but complicating the path to an ideal moral society.
A simple rule of thumb, don't be a dick. I think think that rule combined with a smidgen of empathy and a huge dose of humility are the ingredients to a much better world. Peace!
(February 18, 2015 at 4:53 am)robvalue Wrote: But sure, people can decide what is true "for them". But I guess I should have been clearer, I'm talking about things that are true to everyone. Like, for example, a particular God exists or he does not, he doesn't exist for one person and not for another. They may claim it does, but that doesn't make it true.
If there is a single point that applies to 90% of the threads ever started on this forum, my bet is that this would be the one. Unfortunately, I think this is the one that gives the religious the most trouble.
I think their difficulty comes from their certainty pertaining to their own personal experiences and emotions. They are certain that they feel something about God(s), they are certain they experience it. My being unable to confirm this truth of theirs is irrelevant to their confidence and from their perspective, they are right. I will concede that they feel these things and that God is real for them. God is real for them in the same way that they may consider a particular painting to be a masterpiece. But their own experience is where that truth stops. Making claims about the existence of "x" is something quite different than describing art or other subjective experiences.
One cannot claim that there is no conflict between religion and science and then go on to make empirical claims that they then assert to be immune to scientific inquiry. Either "x" exists and it has real physical and material properties that can be tested, quantified, and predicted or it does not. And if it in fact does NOT, then to continue to persist the contrary is to demonstrate a continued misunderstanding of the truth.
