Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

more about Science and Religion

Options
12346

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I find theology as useless as science in determining moral convictions.

    So what DO you think IS useful for determining moral convictions? Convictions which I assume you think are more important that science?


  • Options
    #153
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    So what DO you think IS useful for determining moral convictions? Convictions which I assume you think are more important that science?

    Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.


  • Options
    #154
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.


    But you do believe ther are physical laws to tthe universe? that science is about finding these laws out?


  • Options
    #155
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    But you do believe ther are physical laws to tthe universe? that science is about finding these laws out?

    In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.


  • Options
    #156
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.

    so there is no universal set of "right" principles to be determined but there are physical laws to nature?

    Given principles have no underlying laws and nature does:
    Which system is therefore "better" at finding underlying laws?

    The system of moral principles or the sytem of finding patterns in nature?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    Moral Philosophy helps us to understand what our moral principles are, but I don't believe there is a universal set of "right" principles to be determined.

    Ill have to take you up on the relativist premise.

    Do you believe it is always wrong for an adult in (their thrities say and of sound mind) to have sexual relations with a six year old child who has no signs of being sexually mature?

    Do you believe this is

    1. A principle that should always be followed
    2. Something which is not universal and could be "right" under some circumstances?


  • Options
    #158
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    In the sense that there is a pattern to nature that can be qualified and quantified by relationships called physical laws, yes.

    How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
    there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

    You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?


  • Options
    #159
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
    there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

    You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?

    Moral laws are human constructs. They are objective only in the same sense that a car or a bridge, or set theory is objective.
    Ill have to take you up on the relativist premise.

    It's not moral relativism. It's moral nihilism.
    Do you believe it is always wrong for an adult in (their thrities say and of sound mind) to have sexual relations with a six year old child who has no signs of being sexually mature?

    Do you believe this is

    1. A principle that should always be followed
    2. Something which is not universal and could be "right" under some circumstances?

    Neither 1 nor 2. I believe it is something that I would never define as "right" under any circumstance, and I would oppose the behavior in any culture. But I would not justify my opposition by enshrining it as a principle of the universe.


  • Options
    #160
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    How is it you can believe in absolute laws to nature and the universe but
    there are not absolute laws to human moraity?

    You don't seem to have a problem with the concept of absolute objective laws so why do you think they are impossible in one domain and essential in the other?

    Do you believe that there is an objective standard, independent to any subjective opinion or assessment by a humans, as to whether a piece of art is beautiful?

    If you don't then not having an objective notion of morality should not be difficult to understand.


  • Options
    #161
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Do you believe that there is an objective standard, independent to any subjective opinion or assessment by a humans, as to whether a piece of art is beautiful?

    If all art is beautiful then - yes.

    If you begin by defining "art" as a subjective construct yu have stitched up the question in advance!
    If you don't then not having an objective notion of morality should not be difficult to understand.

    I dont mis understand the concept I am just trying to figure how it fits with other objective standards.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    If all art is beautiful then - yes.

    If you begin by defining "art" as a subjective construct yu have stitched up the question in advance!

    That is what I'm asking you. Is all art objectively beautiful. If I look at a piece of art and find it disgusting am I "wrong" based on the objective standard of is art and what is beauty?

    Or do these concepts have no meaning other than in the context of opinion. Is something art because it is art or because people say it is? Is something beautiful because it is beautiful or because people say it is?
    ISAW wrote: »
    I dont mis understand the concept I am just trying to figure how it fits with other objective standards.

    Why assume it is an objective standard in the first place?

    Who ever said morality was objective, other than religion who had nothing to back this claim up with other than a misunderstanding of the evolution of human instinct for particular behavior (ie an appeal to us all knowing something is "wrong")?


  • Options
    #163
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is what I'm asking you. Is all art objectively beautiful.

    Not if you define "beauty" as subjective!

    If you define "beauty" objectively then the property of beauty associated with art is onjective and that element of the art is objective.

    If I look at a piece of art and find it disgusting am I "wrong" based on the objective standard of is art and what is beauty?

    If the objective standard is that it is beautifull then yes you are wrong. If you are going to say no onjective standard exists for beauty in the first place then you are stitching up the argument into a circular one by definition.
    Or do these concepts have no meaning other than in the context of opinion. Is something art because it is art or because people say it is? Is something beautiful because it is beautiful or because people say it is?

    If you say they are subjective then yes.
    Why assume it is an objective standard in the first place?

    i didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?
    Who ever said morality was objective,
    Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.
    other than religion

    oops sorry:
    Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.
    who had nothing to back this claim up with other than a misunderstanding of the evolution of human instinct for particular behavior (ie an appeal to us all knowing something is "wrong")?

    http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/x2243x34h7627364/

    http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf


    And we a re back to - how about science saying about things that they can't measure? How about wormholes and parallel universes? Or biologists' - instinct for particular behavior?


  • Options
    #164
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Not if you define "beauty" as subjective!

    I'm not defining anything, I'm asking you.
    ISAW wrote: »
    i didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?

    I would imagine the same way someone can assume beauty is subjective.

    Do you define beauty as subjective or objective?

    It if it is subjective you should have little trouble understanding how someone can consider morality subjective as well, and why this doesn't undermine the notion of morality any more than it undermines the notion of beauty.
    ISAW wrote: »
    oops sorry:
    Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke, Francis Hutcheson, Jean Jacques Burlamaqui, and Emmerich de Vattel.

    Didn't they come before an understanding of evolutionary instincts?

    The question I'm asking is why do you assume morality is objective, especially given what we know about evolution?
    ISAW wrote: »
    And we a re back to - how about science saying about things that they can't measure? How about wormholes and parallel universes? Or biologists' - instinct for particular behavior?

    We aren't back to that. We are discussing the justification for the notion that morality is objective. This does not seem to be the case, the arguments for an objective morality seem outdated in the context of evolutionary biology (such as the notion that we all know some things are wrong, how can this be without objective morality. Quite easily actually since we are all hardwired to believe these things by evolution)

    So there should be no trouble with Morbet not viewing morality as objective since that notion is rather out of date.


  • Options
    #165
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    I didnt! I asked Morbert how he can assume knowledge is objective but morality is socially constructed?

    I don't remember being asked this, but anyway: I can assume it the same way I can assume anything.

    If God exists then it makes sense to define moral principles as part of God's will, and therefore true and universal statements. But I don't believe in God, so I don't believe moral laws can be defined as universal principles that are true. I also, for the same reason, don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy.


  • Options
    #166
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    I also, for the same reason, don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy.

    On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.


  • Options
    #167
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.

    Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?


  • Options
    #168
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?

    Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?


  • Options
    #169
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?

    It wouldn't contribute.


  • Options
    #170
    lmaopml
    Registered Users Posts: 3,080 ✭✭✭lmaopml


    Morbert wrote: »
    It wouldn't contribute.

    Yep!


  • Options
    #171
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Yep!

    Ok, but is this in any way related to my exchange with ISAW or Fanny?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Atheism can inspire people to take action. But if God exists, then how does subjective morals contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to Christians moral principles?

    You missed the "I don't believe in God" bit I assume :)


  • Options
    #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    On the 10.10.2010 there was a global call to prayer amongst Christians. The organisers hoped that they could galvanise 100 million Christians to pray for justice in the nations, specifically to help end poverty. Even if you believe there is no God, I don't see how you can say that Christian theology contributes nothing to moral philosophy. Millions prayed that day, and hopefully millions were inspired to do something because they believe that God has certain qualities that underpin what is right and what is wrong.

    But without God existing theology doesn't explain this.

    In fact it probably gives the wrong answer (which is worse than no answer at all) since it would probably say something like that these people had God's grace in them and that is what inspired them, which if God doesn't exist wasn't true.


  • Options
    #174
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    Faith can inspire people to take action. But if God doesn't exist, then how does theology contribute to our understanding of what moral principles are, and where they come from? How would it contribute to atheists' moral principles?

    If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time. So if we are to look for "understand of what moral principles are" then what we are actually doing is no more than understanding what we want them to be. In this regard, your morality is not better than one built on Christian theology. Indeed, it should be pointed out that some of the foundations of your morality - with all it's European sensibilities - might well be grounded in Christian theology.

    Furthermore, in admitting that faith inspires people to take action against some injustice you have undermined your assertion that theology can't contribute to moral philosophy. If 100 million people are inspired to fight against poverty (I realise that is a very round figure) then what is that if not part of a moral philosophy?


  • Options
    #175
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    But without God existing theology doesn't explain this.

    In fact it probably gives the wrong answer (which is worse than no answer at all) since it would probably say something like that these people had God's grace in them and that is what inspired them, which if God doesn't exist wasn't true.

    All that is neither here nor there. I'm not here to argue with atheists about the existence of God. I am here to challenge the notion that theology can't contribute to morality.

    It seems obvious to me that Christianity, morality and theology are inseparable - they all feed into each other. That Mobert or yourself think it all built on error, mendacious intent, delusion or whatever is quite a separate issue.


  • Options
    #176
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time.
    We have that anyway.

    You pick your religion based on whether it makes sense to you. That is the same as if evolution gave the sense of our morality instead of God.

    If there is worth exploring moral philosophy with God then there is worth exploring moral philosophy without God. The only thing that changes is the source of our morality.


  • Options
    #177
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Wicknight wrote: »
    We have that anyway.

    You pick your religion based on whether it makes sense to you. That is the same as if evolution gave the sense of our morality instead of God.

    If there is worth exploring moral philosophy with God then there is worth exploring moral philosophy without God. The only thing that changes is the source of our morality.

    Again, that is neither here nor there. If you want to explore moral philosophy without God then knock yourself out. No doubt we will agree on much. However, I was replying to a specific point made by Mobert. The fact that you agree that morality exists with God rather undoes Mobert's statement.


  • Options
    #178
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    Again, that is neither here nor there.

    Ok? If it is here nor there why did you bring it up?
    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    The fact that you agree that morality exists with God rather undoes Mobert's statement.

    It does?

    Anyway, I'm replying to the specific point made by Mobert, that without God theology offers nothing for moral philosophy since theology is based on a false assumption and a false source for morality, thus explanations for why we are moral, why somethings are moral and others aren't, will be false if based on theology.


  • Options
    #179
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    Fanny Cradock wrote: »
    If there is no God then there are no absolute moral principles. Instead, what we have is a collective and personal sense of morality that shifts over time. So if we are to look for "understand of what moral principles are" then what we are actually doing is no more than understanding what we want them to be. In this regard, your morality is not better than one built on Christian theology.

    I have not said my morality is better than Christian morality (in that regard at least). I said I don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy. I also explicitly said this is due to not believing in God. An atheist can't turn to a divine will to decide whether or not something is morally right or wrong.
    Indeed, it should be pointed out that some of the foundations of your morality - with all it's European sensibilities - might well be grounded in Christian theology.

    I have heard this claimed many times, but have never seen a convincing thesis. My morality falls in line with (contemporary) Christian morality in many ways, but it also diverges in many ways. I believe in the oppression of suffering. I believe in fairness, and the virtue of sacrifice to help others. But I also believe sex outside of marriage, or between people of the same sex, is fine.

    I also disagree with C.S. Lewis's book 1 in "Mere Christianity" (Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe), so I can't say my morality is grounded in Christian theology.
    Furthermore, in admitting that faith inspires people to take action against some injustice you have undermined your assertion that theology can't contribute to moral philosophy. If 100 million people are inspired to fight against poverty (I realise that is a very round figure) then what is that if not part of a moral philosophy?

    I believe that, if everyone was an atheist, then we would be less charitable in many instances. Faith is a great motivator. But Moral Philosophy is the study of moral principles. And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.


  • Options
    #180
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    I have not said my morality is better than Christian morality. I said I don't believe theology can contribute to moral philosophy. I also explicitly said this is due to not believing in God. An atheist can't turn to a divine will to decide whether or not something is morally right or wrong.

    Just because you personally don't believe does not mean that argument objectively applies for the universe and that therefore theology can contribute to moral philosophy because you dont believe in God.


    But I also believe sex outside of marriage, or between people of the same sex, is fine.

    Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.
    I also disagree with C.S. Lewis's book 1 in "Mere Christianity" (Right and Wrong as a Clue to the Meaning of the Universe), so I can't say my morality is grounded in Christian theology.

    One can say atheistic Marxism is grounded in Christian theology.
    I believe that, if everyone was an atheist, then we would be less charitable in many instances.

    Indeed atheistic societies contributed little or nothing to civilization but wholesale death and the murder regimes they instigated didn't last for long.


    And as much as I commend anyone who took action against poverty, I don't accept their reasoning or their understanding of why they took action.

    so byt and large you argument is

    Atheists are pretty crap people when it comes to charity
    Religious people are good people but they are being good for reasons I don't agree with.

    And in spite of the whole of history you still would prefer if it was the atheists who had done more and the believers done all the bad stuff? And while you admit their belief or lack of it was a primary influence on their contribution to society you don't thing that this is in any way significant?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    ISAW wrote: »
    Just because you personally don't believe does not mean that argument objectively applies for the universe and that therefore theology can contribute to moral philosophy because you dont believe in God.

    I did not say theology can contribute to moral philosophy because I don't believe in God.
    Just because you believe society is better without commitment to single partners and sex with whomsoever one wants as an alternative to this does not prove that the elements (of say the churches teachings) you do agree with are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.

    I did not say society is better without commitment to single partners. I did not say elements are invalidated as coming from god or some other objective morality.
    One can say atheistic Marxism is grounded in Christian theology.

    How?
    Indeed atheistic societies contributed little or nothing to civilization but wholesale death and the murder regimes they instigated didn't last for long.

    This is a horribly naive interpretation of history. On par with J C's posts on Evolution. Any further assertions similar to this will be summarily ignored.
    so by and large you argument is

    Atheists are pretty crap people when it comes to charity
    Religious people are good people but they are being good for reasons I don't agree with.

    And in spite of the whole of history you still would prefer if it was the atheists who had done more and the believers done all the bad stuff? And while you admit their belief or lack of it was a primary influence on their contribution to society you don't thing that this is in any way significant?

    I did not say this.

    ISAW, I am going to have to unfortunately ignore posts like these in the future. After reading the discourse between you and wicknight, I have no interest in entering a discussion where I have to constantly correct your interpretation of what I am saying. From now on, I will only respond to segments of your post that are actually relevant to what I am saying.


Advertisement