Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Amarok]

You misunderstood my intention. I’m saying that moral realism is a properly basic belief. It only loses its warrant if there is a valid objection or defeater. A properly functioning conscience operating in an environment amenable to its use prompts us with what appear to be real moral imperatives. It is no different than a properly functioning memory allows someone to recall past events. It’s not perfect; people forget. Or they’re too tired to think. And sometimes people disagree. But it is silly to conclude based on its limitations that there are no facts about the past. Everyone assumes their memories are true until shown otherwise. It is the same with moral imperatives.

I don't accept that reformed epistemology is a valid epistemology, it's nothing but half-baked objections to classical foundationalism with no positive program of its own (aside from sneaking God in through the rear entrance).  So you can take your idea that moral realism, as an intuition, is without need of any warrant or rational defense and shove it.  Where do we go now with our disagreement?  The court of reformed epistemologists?  You really have no clue.  You just like using the framework like a parking garage for ideas that you want to keep safe from scrutiny.   Well bollocks.  It's just an overt admission that you can't defend your moral realism against even modest skepticism.  For someone who routinely whines about naturalists declaring things as brute facts, you seem remarkably inclined to resort to similar objections when the spirit moves you.  Like it or not, there is plenty of rational debate as to whether moral realism is an adequate description of reality and 'defeaters' abound.  That you think an incomplete epistemological framework is the ticket to providing security for your idea that "feelings" are evidence only underscores how irrational your original complaint was.  Belief that our memory is infallible is shown to be irrational in study after study.  And God, too, isn't immune to rational skepticism.  That I don't believe in your God or your moral realism doesn't show that my brain is simply not working correctly.  That you've come from border disputes in epistemology to what is little more than ad hominem is a fascinating journey, but not an admirable one.  I don't accept your conclusion both because your epistemological ideas are bollocks and because we have sound reason to doubt the reality of moral facts.  These objections come from ontology, naturalism, physicalism, and the multiplicity of moral intuitions.   If you're done begging off on objections with the complaint that they're "mere assertions" then I suggest you get to work, either completing the failed program of reformed epistemology or defeating the defeaters.

Indeed it a failed project it's been how many years since the warrant series. And how many times has planti had to revise his key  work now. In fact he is still doing it. And repeating the same mistakes over and over . Guess planties magic voodoo psychic 6th sense that allows him to know Christianity true isn't running on all cylinders . Hell even his attack on foundationalism is in doubt now . He's now on what the 7th version of evolutionary argument against naturalism because keep not listening to biologists and making up silly scenarios to suppose ID. And sticking with the sinking ship that is intelligent design. And trying to parasite religion on to other beliefs.

[Fake Messiah]

You know it's remarkable how much Neo-Scholastic sounds like Hitler, or I guess it's not so remarkable considering they're both Christians.

For instance this is what Neo-Scholastic wrote:
"I’m saying that moral realism is a properly basic belief. It only loses its warrant if there is a valid objection or defeater. A properly functioning conscience operating in an environment amenable to its use prompts us with what appear to be real moral imperatives. It is no different than a properly functioning memory allows someone to recall past events. It’s not perfect; people forget. Or they’re too tired to think. And sometimes people disagree. But it is silly to conclude based on its limitations that there are no facts about the past. Everyone assumes their memories are true until shown otherwise. It is the same with moral imperatives."

And this is what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf":
"faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude" and "various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort."

They both talk how when ever you try to make a substitute for God/ religion as source of morality you delude yourself and fail. This is because message of Christianity is that being good is not natural. Being good requires you to overcome your own self-interest. That humans are naturally deceitful, innately evil, and inherently bad. That only trough listening to Jesus' stories you can overcome your "natural evil persona".

[Ben Davis]

"Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!"

I'm surprised no on has thus far given the correct answer of -7.

Numerology win!

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't accept that reformed epistemology is a valid epistemology, it's nothing but half-baked objections to classical foundationalism with no positive program of its own (aside from sneaking God in through the rear entrance).

I never thought you would accept it a valid since to you no epistemology is valid – including classical foundationalism. Whenever it is convenient, you argue that the incorrigible experiences, such as personal identity, are illusions and self-evident principles, like the Principle of Non-Contradiction, are fictional. Your version of science is a cartoon. Your version of math has no essential connection to physical reality. The type of naturalism you espouse simply cannot survive the objections you raise to avoid theistic implications. In the end all you have left are shadows and fog.

As for me, I never said that our cognitive tools are perfect, our intuitions unassailable, or our perceptions immune to error. I see no valid reason for doubting that despite these limitations, people can still have actual intellectual interaction with an external reality beyond themselves.

[Silver]

people can still have actual intellectual interaction with an external reality delusion beyond themselves.

Fixed that for you.

[Angrboda]

I don't accept that reformed epistemology is a valid epistemology, it's nothing but half-baked objections to classical foundationalism with no positive program of its own (aside from sneaking God in through the rear entrance).

I never thought you would accept it a valid since to you no epistemology is valid – including classical foundationalism.

You come to me with an incomplete epistemology that is little more than a stalking horse for religious ideas and you get all pissy when I object. You're no more capable of completing the reformed epistemology project than is Plantinga, otherwise you'd be arguing the issue instead of this massive bullshit rant. The fact of the matter is that you can't defend your concept of moral intuition as a properly basic belief.

Whenever it is convenient, you argue that the incorrigible experiences, such as personal identity, are illusions and self-evident principles, like the Principle of Non-Contradiction, are fictional. Your version of science is a cartoon. Your version of math has no essential connection to physical reality. The type of naturalism you espouse simply cannot survive the objections you raise to avoid theistic implications. In the end all you have left are shadows and fog.

This is nothing but distortion and ad hominem. It's nothing but a dishonest rant.

As for me, I never said that our cognitive tools are perfect, our intuitions unassailable, or our perceptions immune to error. I see no valid reason for doubting that despite these limitations, people can still have actual intellectual interaction with an external reality beyond themselves.

(emphasis mine)
Bullshit, that's exactly what you did. You posit a moral realism, bereft of mechanism, dismiss any objection to it with a trumped up epistemological framework and beg off on defending your "moral intuition" by saying that the objections to it are mere assertion. It's nothing but a stupid con. And when I don't fall for it, we get this stupid rant. Well fuck you and the horse you rode in on. You started by making what on the surface was a clear evidentialist claim that feelings are evidence of moral facts, and when challenged upon it, you duck inside a speculative epistemological shield, effectively shifting the burden of proof with a one size fits all argument from ignorance. You're so thoroughly dishonest you make me sick.

[Whateverist]

I never thought you would accept it a valid since to you no epistemology is valid – including classical foundationalism.

You come to me with an incomplete epistemology that is little more than a stalking horse for religious ideas and you get all pissy when I object.  You're no more capable of completing the reformed epistemology project than is Plantinga, otherwise you'd be arguing the issue instead of this massive bullshit rant.  The fact of the matter is that you can't defend your concept of moral intuition as a properly basic belief.

Yup.

As for me, I never said that our cognitive tools are perfect, our intuitions unassailable, or our perceptions immune to error. I see no valid reason for doubting that despite these limitations, people can still have actual intellectual interaction with an external reality beyond themselves.

(emphasis mine)
Bullshit, that's exactly what you did.  You posit a moral realism, bereft of mechanism, dismiss any objection to it with a trumped up epistemological framework and beg off on defending your "moral intuition" by saying that the objections to it are mere assertion.  It's nothing but a stupid con.  And when I don't fall for it, we get this stupid rant.  Well fuck you and the horse you rode in on.  You started by making what on the surface was a clear evidentialist claim that feelings are evidence of moral facts, and when challenged upon it, you duck inside a speculative epistemological shield, effectively shifting the burden of proof with a one size fits all argument from ignorance.  You're so thoroughly dishonest you make me sick.

Neo - if you just admitted you have very little grounds for certainty you wouldn't paint yourself into these corners.  Anyone who can't own a little agnosticism is always going to come off as dishonest.  So, did you convince yourself at least or did you alienate yourself too?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Whateverist, I know you believe I have an obsession for certainty and it seems that nothing I say can sway you from that belief. Be that as it may, what I said initially is that our conscience is evidence for moral facts. That is a very modest claim. I did not say it was proof. That is a common conflation that atheist/skeptics tend to make. Certainty in the form of 'proof' is for mathematical theorems and abstract symbolic logic. For everything else, we draw conclusions from what is evident. That is what evidence means. If I see fresh dirt over a grave, that is evidence that someone just died and was buried. It's not proof. My inference is a justified belief based on what is evident to me from current perceptions and memories similar situations.

And yet, you and Jor are saying that people cannot use memories or perceptions to form reasonable conclusions...unless of course those conclusions match how you already think the world works. When it comes to qualifiable phenomena you won't trust them, but when it comes to quantifiable phenomena you do. Why? If they are unreliable and cannot be trusted in the former then they cannot be trusted for the later because the later results come from the former. Despite their imperfections, perceptions and memory are the inescapable primary building blocks of empiricism. And nothing prevents there from being other paths to knowing besides through perception and memory. I say conscience is another such path, only with respect to moral facts.

Now it is often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It seems to me quite extraordinary to claim that the holocaust wasn't necessarily evil or that murder isn't necessarily wrong. It seems much more likely that these events and actions are as they appear to be - in fact evil and wrong.

[Amarok]

You know it's remarkable how much Neo-Scholastic sounds like Hitler, or I guess it's not so remarkable considering they're both Christians.

For instance this is what Neo-Scholastic wrote:
"I’m saying that moral realism is a properly basic belief. It only loses its warrant if there is a valid objection or defeater. A properly functioning conscience operating in an environment amenable to its use prompts us with what appear to be real moral imperatives. It is no different than a properly functioning memory allows someone to recall past events. It’s not perfect; people forget. Or they’re too tired to think. And sometimes people disagree. But it is silly to conclude based on its limitations that there are no facts about the past. Everyone assumes their memories are true until shown otherwise. It is the same with moral imperatives."

And this is what Hitler wrote in "Mein Kampf":
"faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude" and "various substitutes that have been offered have not shown any results that might warrant us in thinking that they might usefully replace the existing denominations. But if religious teaching and religious faith were once accepted by the broad masses as active forces in their lives, then the absolute authority of the doctrines of faith would be the foundation of all practical effort."

They both talk how when ever you try to make a substitute for God/ religion as source of morality you delude yourself and fail. This is because message of Christianity is that being good is not natural. Being good requires you to overcome your own self-interest. That humans are naturally deceitful, innately evil, and inherently bad. That only trough listening to Jesus' stories you can overcome your "natural evil persona".

Oh it funnier then that if we take Reformed at it's word the Nazi's were totally "warranted" in killing the Jews because of group think and triggers

[Amarok]

Says the person who grants the deafters of his own position then denies them . Thinks math exists in a magic other demension . Who's science includes talking animals ,spantanious generating bread and  disney style ressurections while shoving theological implication where are none . All the while embracing goat mans  made to order get out of jail free for theism.