|
Challenge - Scientific reason for being moral.
|
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari   Quote:He says I need a scientific reason for being moral and for living by the secular humanism philosophy. You need a better class of friends. 
Entropist
I'm bored. Entertain me.  Religious Views: None, nothing, nada, naught, nil, zero, zip, zilch. (September 21, 2010 at 12:08 am)Scott Richens Wrote: He says I need a scientific reason for being moral and for living by the secular humanism philosophy. Actually, you don't need to justify jack shit.
“Society is not a disease, it is a disaster. What a stupid miracle that one can live in it.” ~ E.M. Cioran
 (September 22, 2010 at 8:57 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Radames- I also completely agree. You don't need the Bible to live a good or moral life.That's why it written that God's laws are written on your heart. ARGH! Religion is so arrogant it's unbelievable. (not you tack, just religion in general). Taking credit for absolutely everything. Claiming it knows everything, claiming religion is part of everything, claiming god is part of everything, claiming god is with them then in the same breath claiming to those who don't believe, that god is beyond human understanding.   RE: Challenge - Scientific reason for being moral.
September 23, 2010 at 5:48 am
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2010 at 5:51 am by radames.)
(September 23, 2010 at 4:24 am)Skipper Wrote:(September 22, 2010 at 8:57 pm)tackattack Wrote: @Radames- I also completely agree. You don't need the Bible to live a good or moral life.That's why it written that God's laws are written on your heart. A bit like the hiv/aids virus eh? Always there steadily crumbling away at your defenses until you are as helpless as a newborn babe; taking credit for all the viruses and bugs that destroy your body.  RE: Challenge - Scientific reason for being moral.
September 23, 2010 at 7:25 am
(This post was last modified: September 23, 2010 at 7:40 am by Captain Scarlet.)
The only people who work on ethics and morality who believe its the product of the divine are those whpo are religious to start with, ie they have something to prove. Therir reasoning is fragile and circular, and resorts to god is good by gods nature, which means absolutely nothing and is a fallacy of ambiguity. Ethicists who do not subscribe to theism, do not invoke god and have developed many theories on the development of morality and ethics (eg contractarianism is one such example ). Some new age M-theorsits also believe they have a germ of an idea where morality comes from; if its true we are all connected in some hyper-dimensioanl reality then harming others is nfact harming ourselves. Who knows what the answer is. They all beat the god hypothesis hands down on 2 counts:
1) occams razor - it can't be shown that these hypotehsis are any less right than an invocation of a god, but can be shown to to be simpler 2) these alternative hyposthesis have causal mechanisms which are testable or potentially testable as the maove from hypothesis to theory. God is never testable.
"I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence"...Doug McLeod.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
