New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

1. I don't believe the arguments are strong for God being any form of a delusion.

No theologian has rebutted the problem of evil. Would you point that out?

2. I'd need statistics.

How about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do no believe in a personal God?

5. I would teach that other people teach different things, but ultimately that there is a strong case for the Judeo-Christian God, and I probably would bring any child I had to church to experience it for themselves.

You didn't answer the question.

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more and what you say there is very indicative of why you have the theological position you do.

I disagree with you that science somehow trumps all other forms of academia. Fields have their uses, and fields have their limitations. I think all pursuit of knowledge is noble.

As for the theological position I have, it's more a philosophical viewpoint in respect to how I view knowledge and academics. I don't feel the need to put the sciences up on a pedestal above everything else. Rather I consider science as a useful field of inquiry amongst many.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Right. But science is answering the questions that led people to make up the god myth. Where did life come from? Where did the earth come from? The sun? The solar system? The galaxy? The universe?

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Your God used to be a very prominent figure, as were most gods back in the old days?

I still regard God as a prominent figure.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

It's funny as human knowledge advances, god/s have been slowly vanishing from the physical world. Once they were up in the mountains, then we found nothing there. Suddenly they scurried away up into the clouds, that took us a long time to work out, but suddenly that was disproved. Then gods took off into the stars, but for all our telescopes and probes, not one trace of a god was found.

I am a monotheist so I will be considering the existence of a singular God. Continuing on, what are you basing this on?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So now gods live in their extraphysical world, conveniently out of the reach of our instruments. Yet, we continue to edge close to an explanation for the origin of our universe. What if we crack that one, Jakkass? Where will gods scurry off to then?

It makes sense that if God created the universe, God couldn't be a part of that creation. It doesn't make logical sense to me. It also doesn't make logical sense to me that the Creator could create the Creator, or that the Creation could create the Creator.

As for God scurrying off, you would need to make a clearer case.

Are we edging close to an explanation for the origin of our universe? I'm not as confident on that as you are clearly.

Goduznt Xzst

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition? Besides I was of the impression that science uses philosophy to ask questions.

reminds me of this

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

No theologian has rebutted the problem of evil. Would you point that out?

You obviously haven't read any theodicies at all. I'd advise you to get a good textbook on the Philosophy of Religion, Brian Davies is good. Philosophy of Religion - A guide and anthology is a good start, it's quite expensive though, his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion keeps it concise but you'll miss out on part of the debate without consulting a more comprehensive book.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How about 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences do no believe in a personal God?

The figures seem to be conflicting with eachother here. Francis Collins cites 40% as believing in God in his The Language of God. Anyhow, as I've said, scientists aren't the only academics and it's highly disingenuous to put that across. On further elaboration I've seen more and more Christians studying sciences at the university I attend. A few of them are completing phD's, so I am remarking on whether or not such figures give an entirely accurate view of science.

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You didn't answer the question.

I would accept that there is a possibility that I am mistaken, but based on the indications for God's existence, it would be unlikely. That's what I would explain concerning my opinion. I would make clear that other people believe different things, as I said in the other points.

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

You could find some fortitude and go in for a Sunday service when it is open

Tongue in cheek...
J: "You don't have the Guts to go to Mass!"
K: "Yes I do! Yes I do! Look I'm proving you wrong... Oh wow this is great, all hail Jesus!"
J: "Mwahaha, my peer pressure plan worked"...
Didn't work when people tried that for alcohol, won't work for this now.

But seriously...
I've been to many services over the years... Though in the last few they've tended to be limited to funerals, weddings, months minds, that sort of thing. Doesn't take much fortitude... Staying awake at some of the longer dryer services is a bit of a challenge... But I do imagine that such a hip forward looking church wouldn't be so dry... Singing, dancing, rejoycing in the pews... Frankly I'll base my views on the information they put out... I've no objection to them building a church... My main objection is the getting kids to recruit other kids... I still don't think you'd be happy with that either if roles were reversed here and they were scientologists or that silly Atheist Camp that came up before.

The point of sending a spy is that they can get in and see whats happening behind the glitz... The change sorting machines rattling away in the back room of the temple... The affairs which noone talks about... Like a soap opera... Fly on the wall type stuff...

Have you ever been to a non-christian religious event, service, celebration or ritual? Not suggesting that you should... Or that you wouldn't be confident enough in your Faith to withstand the... A screw it. It's just idle curiosity now. Feel free to ignore.

I also would want my child to believe in the truth about our existence.

That's what every one wants Jakkass.

Newsflash, scientists aren't the only academics.

Only ones that count! Mwahahaha

Also in fairness the appeal to majority isn't right when people point out that most people believe in at least some sort of god. And it's not right when it's used the other way round either.

Rational arguments are preferable ... One rational point beats all/many irrational ones... Then the other problem is of course your starting position and assumptions...

What do you do if the person you are talking to is not just starting from different assumptions but also seems to be making irrational arguments with in the bounds of those assumptions... I think I'm starting to free wheel now... Waffling Text after this point deleted... Sleep... Need sleep...

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you that science somehow trumps all other forms of academia. Fields have their uses, and fields have their limitations. I think all pursuit of knowledge is noble.

As for the theological position I have, it's more a philosophical viewpoint in respect to how I view knowledge and academics. I don't feel the need to put the sciences up on a pedestal above everything else. Rather I consider science as a useful field of inquiry amongst many.



I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.



I still regard God as a prominent figure.



I am a monotheist so I will be considering the existence of a singular God. Continuing on, what are you basing this on?



It makes sense that if God created the universe, God couldn't be a part of that creation. It doesn't make logical sense to me. It also doesn't make logical sense to me that the Creator could create the Creator, or that the Creation could create the Creator.

As for God scurrying off, you would need to make a clearer case.

Are we edging close to an explanation for the origin of our universe? I'm not as confident on that as you are clearly.

In summary, you expect me to keep pitching to your stubborn POV. As far as I am concerned, all of the god/s that humanity has ever created are all equally moronic and invalid. Deal with it.

Secondly, we know more about the universes origin than we did last year, five years ago, fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, etc, etc. Only a complete ignoramous would fail to see this.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

In summary, you expect me to keep pitching to your stubborn POV. As far as I am concerned, all of the god/s that humanity has ever created are all equally moronic and invalid. Deal with it.

Can't you see the irony in your post? I don't think it is stubborn to open someones mind up to the possibility that I don't make the same assumptions that you do. I don't automatically assume that God is made up, nor do I feel it is helpful to do so if we are going to be getting into a proper discussion. How does that make me stubborn exactly?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Secondly, we know more about the universes origin than we did last year, five years ago, fifty years ago, one hundred years ago, etc, etc. Only a complete ignoramous would fail to see this.

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case. Throwing in ad hominems reflects badly on you rather than me.

Dades

Careful now, FD.

Dave!

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

Sure that's barely even a science -- I should know, having studied it also

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Why bother teaching someone a fulfilling path to live in life? Well I would want that for anyone I cared for. I also would want my child to believe in the truth about our existence.

No I said why bother telling them how convincing it is when you're also telling them they'll be punished for eternity if they don't accept it. Seems redundant to me

Flamed Diving

Jakkass wrote: »

Can't you see the irony in your post? I don't think it is stubborn to open someones mind up to the possibility that I don't make the same assumptions that you do. I don't automatically assume that God is made up, nor do I feel it is helpful to do so if we are going to be getting into a proper discussion. How does that make me stubborn exactly?

No, I was just giving all god/s an equal weighting, which is only fair. You could at least meet me halfway.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case. Throwing in ad hominems reflects badly on you rather than me.

No, I said "continue to edge close to an explanation". This is very obviously the case, compare what we know now to a century ago, we are obviously closer now. Each year, we edge closer and closer. Whether we will reach it another thing, which is why I said "What if we crack that one".

The term ignorant seems to be really misunderstood on boards.ie

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is great for answering scientific questions, just like philosophy is great for answering philosophical questions. Each field has it's own area of expertise. I don't find a need to put science on a pedestal above every other field of academia. That's where I differ.

Philosophy doesn't answer questions. People put forward their opinions and some other people agree. That doesn't mean they're right. To give a correct answer one needs to be able to test the answer for validity and that's where science comes in.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

You obviously haven't read any theodicies at all. I'd advise you to get a good textbook on the Philosophy of Religion, Brian Davies is good. Philosophy of Religion - A guide and anthology is a good start, it's quite expensive though, his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion keeps it concise but you'll miss out on part of the debate without consulting a more comprehensive book.

Care to sum up in a few bullet points?
The gist of it like... Otherwise all these arguments might as well be yeah well you haven't read xyz... Back and forth... Which isn't really a discussion of opinion... Wait no. Don't. It's miles off topic.

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

Much of philosopy is, to be horribly blunt, absolute ****. I'm sure you've come across some real gems yourself... Much of it is great though... Sadly we often need to sift through a lot of dross...
Science Snob: Computer Science... What like computational physics or chemistry? HarHarHarSnort... Release the Dogs...

The work men have stopped angel grinding out side the window so I can take a nap before I go mad.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite aware that we know more, what isn't so evident is that we are "edging close" to finding an explanation for the universe. I don't believe this is the case.

So you acknowledge that we're increasing our knowledge but not that we're getting closer to explaining the universe

How does one get closer to an explanation other than by increasing one's knowledge?

Goduznt Xzst

Jakkass wrote: »

Goduznt Xznt: I might be studying philosophy, but I am also studying computer science :pac:

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

Húrin

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

There are, even Christian ones - the Amish Mennonites for instance. I imagine that many fundamentalist Muslim groups oppose it too. Jakkass isn't obliged to agree with them though.

TwoShedsJackson

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

It really isn't.

philologos

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I was just giving all god/s an equal weighting, which is only fair. You could at least meet me halfway.

I can meet you half way and admit there is a possibility that I am wrong. I don't believe I am, and I don't feel it is likely that I am wrong, but there is a possibility because of the absence of absolute proof.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, I said "continue to edge close to an explanation". This is very obviously the case, compare what we know now to a century ago, we are obviously closer now. Each year, we edge closer and closer. Whether we will reach it another thing, which is why I said "What if we crack that one".

Then I can only apologise to you. I mistook your post. Of course we are edging closer, but I don't feel this edging closer as being in any way a threat to my beliefs. Infact, I'm about as intrigued as the rest of you in relation to scientific advancement.

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

... it's a pity there's no Religious camps that claim computer science goes against their faithfully held beliefs, otherwise you might also of been able to learn perspective.

God bless their souls if there are any . Just because certain religious groups will disagree with me doesn't mean that it is in any way a blight on my own practice.

kiffer: I'd agree with you, albeit in subtler terms. However, there are some real gems in human understanding in there too.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'd have to presume that Judeo-Christianity was made up, which is a leap.

You've leaped over all the other thousands of Gods that have been claimed to exist. What's one more?

Húrin

Tim Robbins wrote: »

That makes no sense.

I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I think he's talking about Pascal's wager

Not consciously. My point assumes that he who is repulsed by God believes in God in the first place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Me too. Is it even morality if you're only doing it to avoid consequences for yourself? I'd call that self-preservation.

I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

Flamed Diving

Húrin wrote: »

My point assumes that he who is repulsed by God believes in God in the first place.

If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?

CerebralCortex

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Philosophy doesn't answer questions. People put forward their opinions and some other people agree. That doesn't mean they're right. To give a correct answer one needs to be able to test the answer for validity and that's where science comes in.

Thats what I was trying to get at.

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

God bless their souls if there are any .

A first glance I thought you were questioning the existence of souls there

kiffer: I'd agree with you, albeit in subtler terms. However, there are some real gems in human understanding in there too.

I've tried subtle on the internet... I found it tends to go over peoples heads or be missunderstood... Blunt is sometimes the way forward unless you are entering into somewhat more of a personal communication situation.

Generally: Subtle in person, blunt online.

They're drilling now... Why are they drilling...

Húrin

Flamed Diving wrote: »

http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

Hint: 2/3 is a majority.

So you are an atheist because most scientists are? Is this the much-talked about "thinking for yourself"?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

No, but they are the only ones who can ever hope to acheive something close to objective consensus on questions raised, because of that god-bustin' little matter called evidence.

All other fields of academia are flakey, subjective and circular arenas. Interesting and useful, but can never hope to fully answer the questions they vainly attempt to.

That's a blatantly unfair dismissal of the majority of academic disciplines. Do you think that history is "flakey, subjective and circular" simply because it isn't science?

All of them are just useful. Science is nothing more than useful - it has no pretensions to objective ultimate truth. It is a consensus subjectivity, always changing. Some other fields, such as art theory do not even bother with consensus.

None of which makes appealing to the authority of "intellectuals" a worthwhile exercise.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition?

I think that most fields of study contribute to bettering the conditions in which we live.

Given this, is it not surprising that fewer natural scientists believe in god/s than other academics? Is this a mere coincidence?

In my experience more scientists believe in God than people in humanities departments (though I have no stats).

My opinion is that scientists and other academics are like all other people influenced by the dominant culture of their society. Thus in a predominantly non-religious society, most of them will be non-religious. The opposite is true also.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I couldn't disagree more and what you say there is very indicative of why you have the theological position you do.

Well, why do you disagree? What is the scientific consensus on what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose?

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Your God used to be a very prominent figure, as were most gods back in the old days? It's funny as human knowledge advances, god/s have been slowly vanishing from the physical world. Once they were up in the mountains, then we found nothing there. Suddenly they scurried away up into the clouds, that took us a long time to work out, but suddenly that was disproved. Then gods took off into the stars, but for all our telescopes and probes, not one trace of a god was found. So now gods live in their extraphysical world, conveniently out of the reach of our instruments. Yet, we continue to edge close to an explanation for the origin of our universe. What if we crack that one, Jakkass? Where will gods scurry off to then?

The Christian God has always claimed to inhabit some metaphysical space, right from the Old Testament. He never claimed to be situated in a mountain or cloud.

Flamed Diving

Húrin wrote: »

So you are an atheist...

I'm not an atheist.

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm not an atheist.

And that's what what you said either

CerebralCortex

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?

This is the trouble debating with Jakkass, Hùrin(although apparently not a christian) and others, I get the feeling they think the christian god is a suitable explanation for the reason for our existence and then we get bogged down or brought down to that level where there is no chance of any resolution because as atheists we neither know nor care about the details. What makes me atheists is not disdain for the Christian god but that the idea of a personal god is just ridiculous.

kiffer

Flamed Diving wrote: »

If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?

Yeah. And if you aren't repulsed by the idea you don't really believe it...

Flamed Diving

Sam Vimes wrote: »

And that's what what you said either

?

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

....Well, why do you disagree? What is the scientific consensus on what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose?....

Seriously as an intelligent person you're going to tell me that none of those are understandable through science i.e. that they are not natural?

Sam Vimes

Flamed Diving wrote: »

?

You asked if Jakkass would point out to a child that the majority of academics don't believe in God.

Jakkass asked for statistics

you provided them

Húrin jumped to the conclusion that you're an atheist because most scientists are.

Which is not what you said

edit: sorry it wasn't you who said the first thing it was Tim Robbins. nvm :P

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Seriously as an intelligent person you're going to tell me that none of those are understandable through science i.e. that they are not natural?

The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality. The constant insistence that science is appropriate to answer all questions about everything even questions which aren't largely scientific is the problem I have with your understanding.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality.

No they can't because their claims are untestable. If you can't show that your answer is correct it's not an answer. The suggestion that morality came from the tooth fairy is exactly as valid as the suggestion that it came from the Judeo-Christian God. An interesting hypothesis but nothing more

philologos

Science in and of itself, cannot offer us a guideline by which to live by. It can tells us perhaps how we gained our morality if I will entertain that idea for a second, but it certainly cannot give us a model of behaviour. That is down to ideology and philosophy.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality.

For example?

Jakkass wrote: »

The constant insistence that science is appropriate to answer all questions about everything even questions which aren't largely scientific is the problem I have with your understanding.

Define something in nature that is not scienctific or amenable to science? Besides what else have we got? Super-science? Ultra ultra science? What?

kiffer

Húrin wrote: »

I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.

Personally I'm not repulsed by the Idea of a God. I'm repulsed by the morals and nature that many attribute to it. I'm repulsed by the Idea of Hell and Wrathfull God, but I quite like the Idea of Loving Compassionate God... Sadly the Biblical God is both of these, Somehow... But I believe in neither.

I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

I would suggest that human morality comes from the alturistic instinct evident in many animals, and reason informed by compassion... Does that count as self preservation?

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.

That's absurd.

What if the creator is an ego-centric sadist?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Science in and of itself, cannot offer us a guideline by which to live by. It can tells us perhaps how we gained our morality if I will entertain that idea for a second, but it certainly cannot give us a model of behaviour. That is down to ideology and philosophy.

It actually can give us a model of behaviour but what you're actually saying here is that in cases where there is no right answer, science cannot provide the answer. In that case ideology and philosophy can't either, although certain branches of philosophy like to think they can (I'm looking at you religion)

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

...I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

Pop quiz! Which one of those has more weight in evidence?

philologos

CerebralCortex wrote: »

For example?

Moral philosophy offers us a much better picture of our role, and it also offers a means of theorising about how to effectively deal with moral conflicts when we live in a pluralism. It offers ideas, and it offers a means of observing the results when these are put into practice. There is no means through the sciences that we can actually draw up a moral code, or deal with problems between different groups.

We might be able to explain their origins using science, and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Define something in nature that is not scienctific or amenable to science? Besides what else have we got? Super-science? Ultra ultra science? What?

We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

Edit:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It actually can give us a model of behaviour but what you're actually saying here is that in cases where there is no right answer, science cannot provide the answer. In that case ideology and philosophy can't either, although certain branches of philosophy like to think they can (I'm looking at you religion)

We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.

Sam Vimes

Húrin wrote: »

I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

Morality did originally come from a sense of self preservation but those reasons no longer apply because we don't live in small isolated family groups anymore. But while theists assert that morality came from some deeper metaphysical source, the motivation to do good is still self preservation because they want to avoid punishment.

So with the knowledge that I will never be punished for doing wrong unless I am caught by other human beings, I am behaving more morally than a theist because I am not doing anything out of self-preservation where a theist always has it at the back of his mind that doing wrong will result in divine punishment

Dades

CerebralCortex wrote:

Pop quiz! Which one of those has more weight in evidence?

The one that feels right?

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

All you've said there is that CS Lewis made an unprovable assertion by saying that there is an absolute moral standard, which was the point I was making. He answered answered anything, just put forward an untestable hypothesis that will always remain as such

philologos

I'm saying that it is one option among many that will need to be considered when we are invesitigating how exactly morality exists. Some people claim it doesn't exist at all.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.

No we wouldn't have to concede anything of the sort. You're talking about which ideology and philosophy are "best" and that will always be a matter of opinion. What you're skirting around here is that you think your philosphy is "best" because yours has absolute truth but I'm sorry to tell you mate that you'll have to join the queue with all the other people who claim to have the absolute truth

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm saying that it is one option among many that will need to be considered when we are invesitigating how exactly morality exists. Some people claim it doesn't exist at all.

Yes absolutely we should consider it but there is a difference between considering it and proclaiming it to be the truth. In order to proclaim an assertion to be the truth you have to test it and the assertion that there is absolute morality and especially that it came from the Judeo-Christian God cannot be tested.

In fact if anything it has been disproven because if there was absolute morality there would be no differences in moral positions whatsoever and that's clearly not the case

kiffer

Jakkass wrote: »

We might be able to explain their origins using science, and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.

The old science should stick with 'How' and religion/philosophy should stick to 'Why'?

We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

... Wait wasn't it your position in the BC&P thread that Gods morality is absolute as he is all knowing?

Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

Edit:

We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.

This is hard to do when you already assert that you have the right answer before we have even discussed whether or not there is one at all.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Yes absolutely we should consider it but there is a difference between considering it and proclaiming it to be the truth. In order to proclaim an assertion to be the truth you have to test it and the assertion that there is absolute morality and especially that it came from the Judeo-Christian God cannot be tested.

In fact if anything it has been disproven because if there was absolute morality there would be no differences in moral positions whatsoever and that's clearly not the case

I'm sure you could have preempted this response, but you do realise that there is a difference between knowing something is true, and believing something is true, don't you?

Let's carry on. As for it being disproven, I don't think your assumption is correct. Given that humanity has free will it is quite conceivable that humanity could fall away from any absolute moral standard.

There is right and wrong in respect to physics, but it is quite conceivable that people can be mistaken about physics.

CerebralCortex

Jakkass wrote: »

Moral philosophy offers us a much better picture of our role, and it also offers a means of theorising about how to effectively deal with moral conflicts when we live in a pluralism.

What are you talking about?

Jakkass wrote: »

It offers ideas, and it offers a means of observing the results when these are put into practice.

Sounds suspiciously like science. Or else I have no clue what I'm talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

There is no means through the sciences that we can actually draw up a moral code, or deal with problems between different groups.

I'll answer this with your words:

Jakkass wrote: »

We might be able to explain their origins using science,

Jakkass wrote: »

and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.

Yes it's unfortunate that your blocked by superstition.

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

You mean you need to because you're a christian. Unfortunate that. Natural selection so far is the only theory that at least to me explains why we behave the way we do.

Jakkass wrote: »

Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will.

It already has. You really need to read The Selfish Gene.

Jakkass wrote: »

At the very best it will only deal with origin.

What?

CerebralCortex

Dades wrote: »

The one that feels right?

:pac: No. Science silly.