(July 18, 2015 at 5:41 pm)The Barefoot Bum Wrote:(July 18, 2015 at 5:09 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Both of us feel that moral claims -whatever we choose to call them- can have a truth value assigned, yes?
I don't know about Nestor, but I do not agree with that statement. As mentioned above, in the scientific sense, saying that a statement has a truth value is to say that it is potentially falsifiable by observation, experience, or experiment. After more than a decade of study, I have not seen any way to falsify moral truth claims by observation, even in principle.
Again, as noted above, I do not claim that science is the only way of assigning truth values, but I would like to know what it means to assign a truth value to a scientifically unfalsifiable statement, and how we can consistently determine (i.e. know) that truth value.
I think that it depends on what you take moral claims to be, which is going off on a different topic. I posted my opinion on this in another thread a while back:
http://atheistforums.org/thread-34018-po...#pid966697
Since that is an old (and overlong) thread, if you are interested, you can start a new thread about this, which is a topic that seems to come up over and over and over...
My guess is, there will never be much agreement on this topic.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.