Patriarchy Preserves Christian Families

19,117 Views | 380 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Redbrickbear
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

I believe it highly probable that the laws that govern our universe are random and came into existence with the spontaneity of the universe. I think it is more likely that there is a multiverse, and that each MAY have its own unique and different laws.
There it is. Your belief that it is "highly probable" and "more likely" has no basis in science whatsoever. In fact it is counter to what science has revealed. You are simply choosing to believe it out of.....faith.

What's the name of your religion?
Science points in that direction. We don't know the answer yet. There is nothing in science that points to a supernatural origin. You tell me which is more likely than not.


Who knows more about the science, you a computer scientist, or someone like Arno Penzias, who discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation for which he won a Nobel Prize in physics?

Arno Penzias :

"Astronomy leads us to an unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing and delicately balanced to provide exactly the conditions required to support life. In the absence of an absurdly-improbable accident, the observations of modern science seem to suggest an underlying, one might say, supernatural plan."
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

You keep on using words like "irrational" and "unreasonable," but there is no rational or reasonable in your cosmology.

Your humanism plagiarizes religion to get its rasion d'etre.

You have yet to give a rational justification for your morality that is reasonable under your cosmology. When are you going to try?
You keep using the term "your cosmology." I don't know what you mean by that. The universe is as we find it - indifferent to life.

Humanism is a basis for morality among humans. Justification for that morality is built upon a humanistic approach - an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded rational thought, reason, and science.


"Cosmology" just deals with the nature of the universe. You can substitute your "view of the nature of the universe," but that much longer to type.

Your definition needs a justification for "common humanity" being relevant.

Additionally, you have no evidence that "though, reason, and science" do any better than tossing a coin when it comes to making moral decisions, and, more importantly, in your cosmology (your view of the nature of the universe), there is no reason to accept that tossing a coin is any better or worse than thinking deeply about something before deciding what to do.
When I refer to common humanity, I'm referring to the the common plight, struggles and life circumstances we share with each other.

It's not a coin toss.Moral decisions are based upon objective criteria. That is far better than morality based upon religious clerics criteria.


I didn't say it was a coin toss. I said you have given no evidence to suggest that any particular moral code is "better" than a coin toss.

What are those "objective criteria" you may offer for moral decisions?

You have yet to provide a rational explanation, given your view that there is nothing but matter and energy, for why the matter and energy that make up humans is more valuable than the matter and energy that make up anything else, living or dead. There is no moral reason, in your world, for us to forbid slavery.

Finally, I do agree that the universe is indifferent to us. Fortunately, the Creator of the universe is not.
A moral code, based upon evidence of harmful cause and effect, is far better than a primitive cleric's idea of what is moral without regard to harm, fairness, or justice. Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others tells you slavery is wrong in my world. That's why primitive religion, i. e. Christianity doesn't forbid slavery, or even condemn it. Instead it accepts it.

If there were a creator, putting us in an indifferent universe makes him/her/it indifferent to us.


Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others only tells you that slavery is wrong if you assume that slaves have worth as individuals and deserve to be treated well. In a world driven by evolution, and this is the world you propose, if one group of people can enslave another group of people to benefit themselves, there is no rational basis for calling that immoral. This is simply survival of the fittest played out naturally. You are, once again, plagiarizing religion to ascribe value where you cannot otherwise do so.

Your opinion of the Christian view of slavery, that it accepts it and does not condemn it, is both shallow and wrong.

It does not follow that the Creator is indifferent to us if the physical universe is indifferent to us any more than it would follow that I am indifferent to my child because the bed he sleeps in is indifferent to him. That's just a stupid argument on your part, and it is embarrassing that you would make it.
Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others only tells you that slavery is wrong if you assume that slaves have worth as individuals and deserve to be treated well. That determination can be made through empirical evidence - which Christianity doesn't even consider.

In a world driven by evolution, and this is the world you propose, if one group of people can enslave another group of people to benefit themselves, there is no rational basis for calling that immoral. This is simply survival of the fittest played out naturally. You are, once again, plagiarizing religion to ascribe value where you cannot otherwise do so. Diversity of life is a product of evolution. The universe is governed by physical laws. Slavery is moral under Christianity. Christianity doesn't condemn survival of the fittest. A humanistic empirical evaluation of slavery tells you it is wrong, and survival of the fittest need not be the rule. I don't know of any religion that takes that approach, so plagerism is a misapplication.

Your opinion of the Christian view of slavery, that it accepts it and does not condemn it, is both shallow and wrong. Then show me where it is condemned.

It does not follow that the Creator is indifferent to us if the physical universe is indifferent to us any more than it would follow that I am indifferent to my child because the bed he sleeps in is indifferent to him. That's just a stupid argument on your part, and it is embarrassing that you would make it. If a creator placed you in a universe that is indifferent to your existence at his choice, it makes him indifferent at best. If you placed your child in a bed of scorpions, it would make you indifferent in the very least to your child's welfare, if not hostile. That is the analogy.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sue I do. From a humanistic view many of them are immoral. The view that tells us genocide is immoral, which would include OT genocide.


The "humanistic view" you propose is simply warmed over religious claims about people having individual worth. In the universe you propose, the humanistic view you hold to is not rational.
That "view" is based upon rational thought and objective empirical evidence. Warmed over religion doesn't consider rationality, reason or science, and does little if nothing to advance individual worth.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sue I do. From a humanistic view many of them are immoral. The view that tells us genocide is immoral, which would include OT genocide.


The "humanistic view" you propose is simply warmed over religious claims about people having individual worth. In the universe you propose, the humanistic view you hold to is not rational.
That "view" is based upon rational thought and objective empirical evidence. Warmed over religion doesn't consider rationality, reason or science, and does little if nothing to advance individual worth.


Empirical thought about morality requires a set of assumptions that objective empirical evidence does not and cannot provide, and you have not provided them.

Instead, you have started with the assumption that humans have worth, a concept that you have to borrow from religion and attempt to dress it up like it is science. Arguing that "harm" is something to be avoided has no justification in your indifferent universe of matter and energy.

The whole concept of individual worth is embodied in the entirely religious concept of Imago Dei. It is baked into Christian thought. Your claim that religion does nothing to advance individual worth displays an ignorance that is simply stunningly.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

You keep on using words like "irrational" and "unreasonable," but there is no rational or reasonable in your cosmology.

Your humanism plagiarizes religion to get its rasion d'etre.

You have yet to give a rational justification for your morality that is reasonable under your cosmology. When are you going to try?
You keep using the term "your cosmology." I don't know what you mean by that. The universe is as we find it - indifferent to life.

Humanism is a basis for morality among humans. Justification for that morality is built upon a humanistic approach - an approach to life based on reason and our common humanity, recognizing that moral values are properly founded rational thought, reason, and science.


"Cosmology" just deals with the nature of the universe. You can substitute your "view of the nature of the universe," but that much longer to type.

Your definition needs a justification for "common humanity" being relevant.

Additionally, you have no evidence that "though, reason, and science" do any better than tossing a coin when it comes to making moral decisions, and, more importantly, in your cosmology (your view of the nature of the universe), there is no reason to accept that tossing a coin is any better or worse than thinking deeply about something before deciding what to do.
When I refer to common humanity, I'm referring to the the common plight, struggles and life circumstances we share with each other.

It's not a coin toss.Moral decisions are based upon objective criteria. That is far better than morality based upon religious clerics criteria.


I didn't say it was a coin toss. I said you have given no evidence to suggest that any particular moral code is "better" than a coin toss.

What are those "objective criteria" you may offer for moral decisions?

You have yet to provide a rational explanation, given your view that there is nothing but matter and energy, for why the matter and energy that make up humans is more valuable than the matter and energy that make up anything else, living or dead. There is no moral reason, in your world, for us to forbid slavery.

Finally, I do agree that the universe is indifferent to us. Fortunately, the Creator of the universe is not.
A moral code, based upon evidence of harmful cause and effect, is far better than a primitive cleric's idea of what is moral without regard to harm, fairness, or justice. Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others tells you slavery is wrong in my world. That's why primitive religion, i. e. Christianity doesn't forbid slavery, or even condemn it. Instead it accepts it.

If there were a creator, putting us in an indifferent universe makes him/her/it indifferent to us.


Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others only tells you that slavery is wrong if you assume that slaves have worth as individuals and deserve to be treated well. In a world driven by evolution, and this is the world you propose, if one group of people can enslave another group of people to benefit themselves, there is no rational basis for calling that immoral. This is simply survival of the fittest played out naturally. You are, once again, plagiarizing religion to ascribe value where you cannot otherwise do so.

Your opinion of the Christian view of slavery, that it accepts it and does not condemn it, is both shallow and wrong.

It does not follow that the Creator is indifferent to us if the physical universe is indifferent to us any more than it would follow that I am indifferent to my child because the bed he sleeps in is indifferent to him. That's just a stupid argument on your part, and it is embarrassing that you would make it.
Objective evaluation of what is harmful to others only tells you that slavery is wrong if you assume that slaves have worth as individuals and deserve to be treated well. That determination can be made through empirical evidence - which Christianity doesn't even consider.

In a world driven by evolution, and this is the world you propose, if one group of people can enslave another group of people to benefit themselves, there is no rational basis for calling that immoral. This is simply survival of the fittest played out naturally. You are, once again, plagiarizing religion to ascribe value where you cannot otherwise do so. Diversity of life is a product of evolution. The universe is governed by physical laws. Slavery is moral under Christianity. Christianity doesn't condemn survival of the fittest. A humanistic empirical evaluation of slavery tells you it is wrong, and survival of the fittest need not be the rule. I don't know of any religion that takes that approach, so plagerism is a misapplication.

Your opinion of the Christian view of slavery, that it accepts it and does not condemn it, is both shallow and wrong. Then show me where it is condemned.

It does not follow that the Creator is indifferent to us if the physical universe is indifferent to us any more than it would follow that I am indifferent to my child because the bed he sleeps in is indifferent to him. That's just a stupid argument on your part, and it is embarrassing that you would make it. If a creator placed you in a universe that is indifferent to your existence at his choice, it makes him indifferent at best. If you placed your child in a bed of scorpions, it would make you indifferent in the very least to your child's welfare, if not hostile. That is the analogy.


A humanistic empirical evaluation of anythjng begins with the assumption, unsupported in your universe, that humans have value and should be treated with dignity. Once you get that, you can try (and very often fail) to make moral decisions based on any number of possible outcomes. However, you can't get to your starting point without bootstrapping your arguments with religious assumptions.

Inanimate objects do not have agency. In any event, we do not live on a bed of scorpions.

No, slavery is not "moral" under Christianity according to the New Testament. Proof texting of southern plantation owners and modern atheists aside, Christians are, quite clearly, not to relate to each other as slaves and masters.

Christianity most certainly does condemn survival of the fittest.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.
What is "harm" and what is the scientific reasoning that you employed to determine that harm is "wrong" and not "right"? Still waiting on you to answer this. All I've seen you do so far is assume that your premise is an axiomatic, a priori truth. You haven't established this premise scientifically, like you say you did. So, I'll keep waiting.....
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

Quote:

I believe it highly probable that the laws that govern our universe are random and came into existence with the spontaneity of the universe. I think it is more likely that there is a multiverse, and that each MAY have its own unique and different laws.
There it is. Your belief that it is "highly probable" and "more likely" has no basis in science whatsoever. In fact it is counter to what science has revealed. You are simply choosing to believe it out of.....faith.

What's the name of your religion?
Science points in that direction. We don't know the answer yet. There is nothing in science that points to a supernatural origin. You tell me which is more likely than not.




There is nothing in "science" that can test for a supernatural origin. You are using the wrong tools.
That depends. Prayer has been tested. Jesus (if you believe the story) elected not to jump off the temple wall to test the supernatural. I wonder why?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.
What does it matter if religions aren't supernatural? Your beliefs aren't supernatural either, or so you claim.
It matters because people who believe otherwise, make consequential decisions that are not based upon reality.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
ATL Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
I'm saying a humanistic approach to morality uses science as a tool or basis for establishing conclusions or benchmarks upon which humanistic moral judgements can be made. Humans are always the aribitors of morality. What they base their morality upon is what matters - the evidence of reality, or the fallacies of supersticion.

Most likely, the laws that govern this universe came into existence spontaneously with the big bang - but we don't know that, yet. Nothing we have learned about the universe requires anything supernatural for explanation.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
No, it comes from the dictionary. We observe or test with science what is harmful against the definition. Religion is irrelevant. Religion doesn't consider harm. Instestead it promotes proclamations of clerics.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

ATL Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
I'm saying a humanistic approach to morality uses science as a tool or basis for establishing conclusions or benchmarks upon which humanistic moral judgements can be made. Humans are always the aribitors of morality. What they base their morality upon is what matters - the evidence of reality, or the fallacies of supersticion.

Most likely, the laws that govern this universe came into existence spontaneously with the big bang - but we don't know that, yet. Nothing we have learned about the universe requires anything supernatural for explanation.


In your universe, what they base their morality on does not matter unless you assume what you borrowed from religion.

Have another go at it:

Assume that there is nothing in the universe but matter and energy.

With that assumption, make a competent argument for how reason and empiricism can offer a logical and rational justification for why the matter and energy of a human being should be treated as more important than the matter and energy of anything else.


TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sue I do. From a humanistic view many of them are immoral. The view that tells us genocide is immoral, which would include OT genocide.


The "humanistic view" you propose is simply warmed over religious claims about people having individual worth. In the universe you propose, the humanistic view you hold to is not rational.
That "view" is based upon rational thought and objective empirical evidence. Warmed over religion doesn't consider rationality, reason or science, and does little if nothing to advance individual worth.


Empirical thought about morality requires a set of assumptions that objective empirical evidence does not and cannot provide, and you have not provided them.

Instead, you have started with the assumption that humans have worth, a concept that you have to borrow from religion and attempt to dress it up like it is science. Arguing that "harm" is something to be avoided has no justification in your indifferent universe of matter and energy.

The whole concept of individual worth is embodied in the entirely religious concept of Imago Dei. It is baked into Christian thought. Your claim that religion does nothing to advance individual worth displays an ignorance that is simply stunningly.
You seem incapable of grasping the concept of humanism. Here is a definition for you: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

The concept of human worth is independent of religion. In fact, you could argue that religion discounts human worth. The justiification of human worth comes from a humanistic approach based upon rational thought, reason from objective empirical evidence.

Imago Dei is more accuratley stated that god is created in the image of man, and imagination of man. His nature is full of anthropomorphic characteristics. The OT and NT are testaments full of contradictions regarding human worth and value. In their totality, they do little to advance humane conduct.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
No, it comes from the dictionary. We observe or test with science what is harmful against the definition. Religion is irrelevant. Religion doesn't consider harm. Instestead it promotes proclamations of clerics.


It comes from the dictionary? So all we need is a dictionary definition? Well, in that case…

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

You keep saying that religion doesn't consider harm, but it very much does consider harm. Did you come up with that yourself or did you borrow it from someone else? Even a cursory look at the Bible would demonstrate the absurdity of your claim.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

ATL Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
I'm saying a humanistic approach to morality uses science as a tool or basis for establishing conclusions or benchmarks upon which humanistic moral judgements can be made. Humans are always the aribitors of morality. What they base their morality upon is what matters - the evidence of reality, or the fallacies of supersticion.

Most likely, the laws that govern this universe came into existence spontaneously with the big bang - but we don't know that, yet. Nothing we have learned about the universe requires anything supernatural for explanation.


In your universe, what they base their morality on does not matter unless you assume what you borrowed from religion.

Have another go at it:

Assume that there is nothing in the universe but matter and energy.

With that assumption, make a competent argument for how reason and empiricism can offer a logical and rational justification for why the matter and energy of a human being should be treated as more important than the matter and energy of anything else.



Read my explanation of humanism in the previous post. The argument you want made is found in the definition of humanism. Ultimately, humans are what make the determination about human worth. That determination is made by assigning the degree of worth or value (a human determination) by rational thought and reason, or by irrational belief in handed down primitive supernatural mysticism.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sue I do. From a humanistic view many of them are immoral. The view that tells us genocide is immoral, which would include OT genocide.


The "humanistic view" you propose is simply warmed over religious claims about people having individual worth. In the universe you propose, the humanistic view you hold to is not rational.
That "view" is based upon rational thought and objective empirical evidence. Warmed over religion doesn't consider rationality, reason or science, and does little if nothing to advance individual worth.


Empirical thought about morality requires a set of assumptions that objective empirical evidence does not and cannot provide, and you have not provided them.

Instead, you have started with the assumption that humans have worth, a concept that you have to borrow from religion and attempt to dress it up like it is science. Arguing that "harm" is something to be avoided has no justification in your indifferent universe of matter and energy.

The whole concept of individual worth is embodied in the entirely religious concept of Imago Dei. It is baked into Christian thought. Your claim that religion does nothing to advance individual worth displays an ignorance that is simply stunningly.
You seem incapable of grasping the concept of humanism. Here is a definition for you: an outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.

The concept of human worth is independent of religion. In fact, you could argue that religion discounts human worth. The justiification of human worth comes from a humanistic approach based upon rational thought, reason from objective empirical evidence.

Imago Dei is more accuratley stated that god is created in the image of man, and imagination of man. His nature is full of anthropomorphic characteristics. The OT and NT are testaments full of contradictions regarding human worth and value. In their totality, they do little to advance humane conduct.


I understand humanism quite well. I have asked you to justify it without borrowing from religion and you haven't . All you have is an assertion that humans have value, but for no reason at all. It is the starting point for your argument.

Your unfounded assertion that the Bible in its totality does little to promote humane conduct is laughable, but that is for another discussion.

I am still waiting on you to provide an argument for humanism that doesn't start with what it borrowed from religion.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

ATL Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
I'm saying a humanistic approach to morality uses science as a tool or basis for establishing conclusions or benchmarks upon which humanistic moral judgements can be made. Humans are always the aribitors of morality. What they base their morality upon is what matters - the evidence of reality, or the fallacies of supersticion.

Most likely, the laws that govern this universe came into existence spontaneously with the big bang - but we don't know that, yet. Nothing we have learned about the universe requires anything supernatural for explanation.


In your universe, what they base their morality on does not matter unless you assume what you borrowed from religion.

Have another go at it:

Assume that there is nothing in the universe but matter and energy.

With that assumption, make a competent argument for how reason and empiricism can offer a logical and rational justification for why the matter and energy of a human being should be treated as more important than the matter and energy of anything else.



Read my explanation of humanism in the previous post. The argument you want made is found in the definition of humanism. Ultimately, humans are what make the determination about human worth. That determination is made by assigning the degree of worth or value (a human determination) by rational thought and reason, or by irrational belief in handed down primitive supernatural mysticism.


Let us assume that humans make the determination about human worth (they don't, but let us assume it for the sake of discussion). You still haven't provided a justification for why humans should have worth.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
No, it comes from the dictionary. We observe or test with science what is harmful against the definition. Religion is irrelevant. Religion doesn't consider harm. Instestead it promotes proclamations of clerics.


It comes from the dictionary? So all we need is a dictionary definition? Well, in that case…

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

You keep saying that religion doesn't consider harm, but it very much does consider harm. Did you come up with that yourself or did you borrow it from someone else? Even a cursory look at the Bible would demonstrate the absurdity of your claim.
I say it is contradictory. The OT and the NT are full of contradictory conepts that run afoul of any moral senses. You certainly wouldn't want the god character of the OT/NT as a source of all moral authortiy. He is more a god of atrocity.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
No, it comes from the dictionary. We observe or test with science what is harmful against the definition. Religion is irrelevant. Religion doesn't consider harm. Instestead it promotes proclamations of clerics.


It comes from the dictionary? So all we need is a dictionary definition? Well, in that case…

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

You keep saying that religion doesn't consider harm, but it very much does consider harm. Did you come up with that yourself or did you borrow it from someone else? Even a cursory look at the Bible would demonstrate the absurdity of your claim.
I say it is contradictory. The OT and the NT are full of contradictory conepts that run afoul of any moral senses. You certainly wouldn't want the god character of the OT/NT as a source of all moral authortiy. He is more a god of atrocity.


You may not want the God of the Bible to be the source of all moral authority, but the God of the Bible is the source of all moral authority. And, while you may not want it to be that way, you are very fortunate that it is that way.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.

There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.
What does it matter if religions aren't supernatural? Your beliefs aren't supernatural either, or so you claim.
It matters because people who believe otherwise, make consequential decisions that are not based upon reality.
You make consequential decisions based on an idea of human worth that exists only in your mind. Again, what's the difference?
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think you have caricatured the Bible in your own mind to the point that you have no idea what it really is. What about the Bible makes you think about atrocity? Probably some backwards law Israel came up with? Please...
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.
What does it matter if religions aren't supernatural? Your beliefs aren't supernatural either, or so you claim.
It matters because people who believe otherwise, make consequential decisions that are not based upon reality.
You make consequential decisions based on an idea of human worth that exists only in your mind. Again, what's the difference?
An idea of human worth, what is right or wrong, good or bad, founded upon rational thought, reason and empirical evidence. On the other hand, you make those same decisions founded upon primitive Iron Age cleric's cultural ideas and mystic beliefs, maybe modified to suit your own sensibilities.

TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Porteroso said:

I think you have caricatured the Bible in your own mind to the point that you have no idea what it really is. What about the Bible makes you think about atrocity? Probably some backwards law Israel came up with? Please...
The written text. It's the inhumanity and atrocities supposedly comitted against others, while believing it is upon supernatural instructions.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.

There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Quantum theory is what makes it plausible, which makes god irrelevant. There is nothing about quantum theory that requires a supernatural element. He is only speculating about what he doesn't understand or know. There is no evidence that requires a supernatural being, and what we don't know about some aspects is simply that, we just don't know as of yet. He simply is attaching the supernatural to the unknown without any evidence. God of the gaps.

Not that many. More likely it is the otherway around. There are anonymous polls of the National Academy of Sciences that reflect their beliefs. What I believe is based upon empircal evidence - not the word of mystics.
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they Morning morning are not supernatural.


They are not "immoral tenets" according to your view of the universe. They are simply ways that society naturally organized itself. You have no rational basis to call them immoral.
Sure I do. Based upon what empirically causes harm.


You have no rational, empirical justification in your view of the universe for a definition of harm. You've plagiarized your starting point from religion.
No, it comes from the dictionary. We observe or test with science what is harmful against the definition. Religion is irrelevant. Religion doesn't consider harm. Instestead it promotes proclamations of clerics.


It comes from the dictionary? So all we need is a dictionary definition? Well, in that case…

God: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

You keep saying that religion doesn't consider harm, but it very much does consider harm. Did you come up with that yourself or did you borrow it from someone else? Even a cursory look at the Bible would demonstrate the absurdity of your claim.
I say it is contradictory. The OT and the NT are full of contradictory conepts that run afoul of any moral senses. You certainly wouldn't want the god character of the OT/NT as a source of all moral authortiy. He is more a god of atrocity.


You may not want the God of the Bible to be the source of all moral authority, but the God of the Bible is the source of all moral authority. And, while you may not want it to be that way, you are very fortunate that it is that way.
There is no objective evidence for the existence of the god of the Bible. Instead it requires your belief without proof - faith. There is an abundance of evidence that the Bible and its moral authority was written by primitive religious clerics who are ignorant by today's standards. You tell me what is more likely than not. In fact, there really is no distinction in the basic premise from one religion to the next - they all are founded upon unfounded mystical ideas.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.

There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Quantum theory is what makes it plausible, which makes god irrelevant. There is nothing about quantum theory that requires a supernatural element. He is only speculating about what he doesn't understand or know. There is no evidence that requires a supernatural being, and what we don't know about some aspects is simply that, we just don't know as of yet. He simply is attaching the supernatural to the unknown without any evidence. God of the gaps.

Not that many. More likely it is the otherway around. There are anonymous polls of the National Academy of Sciences that reflect their beliefs. What I believe is based upon empircal evidence - not the word of mystics.


No, it isn't. You believe that humans have value. There is nothing in empirical evidence to show this is true.
BusyTarpDuster2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.

There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Quantum theory is what makes it plausible, which makes god irrelevant. There is nothing about quantum theory that requires a supernatural element. He is only speculating about what he doesn't understand or know. There is no evidence that requires a supernatural being, and what we don't know about some aspects is simply that, we just don't know as of yet. He simply is attaching the supernatural to the unknown without any evidence. God of the gaps.

Not that many. More likely it is the otherway around. There are anonymous polls of the National Academy of Sciences that reflect their beliefs. What I believe is based upon empircal evidence - not the word of mystics.
Quantum mechanics is the result of, not the progenitor of the physical laws of the universe. You don't even understand the science. You are putting the cart in front of the horse.

We've been through this before. You don't want to learn, you just want to keep repeating defeated arguments over and over again (just like a religious mantra). The only way scientific theorists can explain the origin of our universe, complete with all its physical laws, is to use mathematics that have an infinitie number of solutions, therefore they have to teleologically constrain their equations to fit our universe. I've already shown this in previous threads. What this shows is that there is a higher order outside of our reality that governed this. This is what Arno Penzias called a "supernatural plan".

It's interesting how the flaw in your thinking here is just like the flaw in your thinking about the origins of morality - you base your argument on quantum mechanics, but fail to explain the science that gave rise to the laws which govern quantum mechanics....just like how you start with and base your moral arguments on "harm", but you fail to explain the science by which you determined "harm" to be morally "right". You are starting with base assumptions, and only starting FROM those assumptions you begin your scientific inquiry - and so you claim that scientific reasoning is all you need, while missing the fact that your base assumptions are merely accepted axiomatically and a priori, without any scientific basis. In other words, on faith. So welcome to your own religion
Porteroso
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Porteroso said:

I think you have caricatured the Bible in your own mind to the point that you have no idea what it really is. What about the Bible makes you think about atrocity? Probably some backwards law Israel came up with? Please...
The written text. It's the inhumanity and atrocities supposedly comitted against others, while believing it is upon supernatural instructions.

You realize people wrote it right? Why couldn't a few of them have made up instructions from God, and God still be real?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Sam Lowry said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

This song is as repetitive as a roomful of monks chanting the rosary, and as far as I can tell it's just as much based on faith. If you can prove me wrong, the invitation still stands.

Your position seems to be that society is the ultimate arbiter of good and evil, but sometimes society gets it wrong. How do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Again, reason and intuition are different things. Logical reasoning must follow from a premise. Do you hold that human life is somehow so "sacred" that its value transcends calculations of benefit and harm? If so, why? I've explained why I think humanist philosophers have failed to show a rational basis for their premises. Which ones do you think succeeded, and how?
One is the product of evolutionary psychology, and applying objective and rational reason, and the other is the product of a primitive evolutionary need to place faith in the supernatural for answers.

Ignorance due to misplaced beliefs and /or understanding is an explanation. Society, secular or religious is not free from error.

Benefit and harm are components in determining transcendent value of human life. As is reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings. I agree some have bee flawed, but not more so than religious theologies. Tell me why biblical morality is any better or different than Islamic morality? Why doe Christians pick and choose what they want as is biblically moral, and throw out or ignore what is inconvenient? For instance, do you believe it is moral and just to stone someone for biblical transgressions, or pay a few shekels for violating a father's virgin daughter and then take possession of her to boot?
What makes you think religion isn't a product of evolutionary psychology? What else would it be?

Old Testament laws promoted survival in that time and place. Is it really so shocking that religions evolve, at least within certain parameters?
They both are. I was drawing a distinction and could have made a better explanation.

Never said it was shocking. And, given the ignorance of primitive people, it is not surprising that they would invent solutions and answers for the unknown and frightening. That doesn't excuse them for embracing immoral tenets, and certainly today we wouldn't want to embrace the immorality of the OT. The fact that religons, including Abrahamic, natrually evolve is clear evidence they are not supernatural.
What does it matter if religions aren't supernatural? Your beliefs aren't supernatural either, or so you claim.
It matters because people who believe otherwise, make consequential decisions that are not based upon reality.
You make consequential decisions based on an idea of human worth that exists only in your mind. Again, what's the difference?
An idea of human worth, what is right or wrong, good or bad, founded upon rational thought, reason and empirical evidence.
You haven't demonstrated this.
ATL Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TexasScientist said:

ATL Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

Quote:

What is the evolutionary value of not killing off the weak and infirm of a species?

At least we're getting to the crux that matter is beholden to an underlying set of laws of undefinable origin. Is it so far fetched that a similar structure exists for humans? Some of us aren't afraid of science because we believe it helps us understand God better.
That's where your basis for determining what is moral comes into play.

That structure does exist. We live in a universe governed by that structure. I'll agree that science helps us better understand the laws governing us.
Except you're saying evolution and science are your objective drivers of morality. What is the evolutionary and scientific reasoning for not killing off the weak and infirmed?

So who/what gave the laws? Matter isn't self aware so it has been guided since its inception.
I'm saying a humanistic approach to morality uses science as a tool or basis for establishing conclusions or benchmarks upon which humanistic moral judgements can be made. Humans are always the aribitors of morality. What they base their morality upon is what matters - the evidence of reality, or the fallacies of supersticion.

Most likely, the laws that govern this universe came into existence spontaneously with the big bang - but we don't know that, yet. Nothing we have learned about the universe requires anything supernatural for explanation.
Again, what is the scientific conclusion to not kill off the weak and infirmed? Science has no ethos.

And you say there is nothing supernatural except you claiming inanimate matter self directed itself, yet somehow doesn't or can't. What if the laws existed before matter came into existence? Wouldn't that infer the universe was preordained?
TexasScientist
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

TexasScientist said:

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

TexasScientist said:

His and his partner's is an intersting story. He and his colleague accidentally discovered evidence for the CMB while cleaning their radio telescope dish to get rid of background static. He admits most scientists are not believers in a supernatural power, and recognizes there is no recognizable imprint from a creator. He wants to believe in something, just like so many other people for may personal reasons, to attribute observed order.
He is a Nobel Prize winning physicist who sharply disagrees with your claim that the science points to it being "more likely" that the laws of the universe arose randomly and spontaneously. You assert these qualifiers but you have no scientific basis for it. You are constantly making these kinds of statements only out of faith, which is the irony of ironies in all your posts.

There are many scientists who secretly believe in the supernatural, but fear the repercussions on their career if they reveal it publicly. Regardless, science isn't determined by consensus. The fact that there are many eminent scientists who have made similar statements as Penzias (I've posted them all before) shows that its not a scientific question, rather it is an inference from the data. You can claim that Penzias makes such an inference because he "just wants to believe something" but he can say the exact same thing about you, that you're trying to NOT believe something and that leads to the inference that you're making. You make the inference you make, because that is what you WANT to believe. There is absolutely nothing scientific about it. Say hello to your own religion.
Quantum theory is what makes it plausible, which makes god irrelevant. There is nothing about quantum theory that requires a supernatural element. He is only speculating about what he doesn't understand or know. There is no evidence that requires a supernatural being, and what we don't know about some aspects is simply that, we just don't know as of yet. He simply is attaching the supernatural to the unknown without any evidence. God of the gaps.

Not that many. More likely it is the otherway around. There are anonymous polls of the National Academy of Sciences that reflect their beliefs. What I believe is based upon empircal evidence - not the word of mystics.


No, it isn't. You believe that humans have value. There is nothing in empirical evidence to show this is true.
:You're trying to argue with something I haven't said. Emprical evidence is a tool assist rational reason about moral values. People make the determination about morality. How they make that determination is what matters.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.