TexasScientist said:
Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.
Sure, there needs to be more work in this area. It's not my area of expertise, but I believe there is research being conducted on these topics. We have more to learn. But rational thought would lead a rational person to the conclusion that what causes harm to the individual and to the well being of others should be a basis for establishing moral principles.Sam Lowry said:It may be possible? That's your evidence?TexasScientist said:Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.Sam Lowry said:Prove that the best interest and well-being of others should be our basis in determining right and wrong. Where is the scientific literature on that? The peer-reviewed research? What experiments have been done, and how were they documented?TexasScientist said:Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?Sam Lowry said:Proof?TexasScientist said:Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.Oldbear83 said:Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.TexasScientist said:Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.D. C. Bear said:
Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.
It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.TexasScientist said:
This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.Hitler had the same hope.TexasScientist said:
I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.I quoted him for you on the previous page.TexasScientist said:
Hard to say for sure about Hitler's hopes on religion, but he certainly didn't have the same hope regarding rescue from fascism. Maybe he got it half right.
See my previous post.Coke Bear said:TexasScientist said:
Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.
Science of the gaps?
The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
Why should there be moral principles?TexasScientist said:Sure, there needs to be more work in this area. It's not my area of expertise, but I believe there is research being conducted on these topics. We have more to learn. But rational thought would lead a rational person to the conclusion that what causes harm to the individual and to the well being of others should be a basis for establishing moral principles.Sam Lowry said:It may be possible? That's your evidence?TexasScientist said:Actually, it may be possible through genetics and evolutionary, neuroscience, psychology and biology. Some speculate that as hominids evolved and grew in number, the need to cooperate in increasingly larger groups for survival was required between individuals and collectively, and this need may be an intrinsic genetic expression. There certainly is no scientific evidence that says it should not be the basis.Sam Lowry said:Prove that the best interest and well-being of others should be our basis in determining right and wrong. Where is the scientific literature on that? The peer-reviewed research? What experiments have been done, and how were they documented?TexasScientist said:Prove what? Prove it is the only tool? We have no other objective means for evaluating reality. How about you give me another objective means to evaluate what is the interest of wellbeing?Sam Lowry said:Proof?TexasScientist said:Of course it can be used for bad as well as good. But is the only tool we have that can be used to evaluate what is in the best interest and well being of others, which should be our basis in determining right and wrong.Oldbear83 said:Science is a tool, and as such has been used for bad as well as good.TexasScientist said:Science is a tool that can be used to determine what is harmful and what is in the best interest and well being of others. This is a much preferred and more humane approach than adopting an arbitrary pronouncement from someone claiming divine revelation.D. C. Bear said:
Science can't determine whether it is good or evil to "harm the well being of others," or even if good or evil exist. Again, it is ill suited to determining morality.
It's only "humane" when good men use it, and do so with humble recognition of the limits of human wisdom.And the scientistic alternative yields many more. When you accuse the Catholic Church of enabling Hitler, ironically, you're condemning the Church for failing to rescue society from the consequences of your own philosophy.TexasScientist said:
This is the only objective way to assess good from bad or evil. The religious alternative yields everyday examples of religiously driven people performing atrocities in the name of good.Hitler had the same hope.TexasScientist said:
I am condemning the Church for failing to live up to the standards of my philosophy. I don't expect the Church to rescue society. I expect society to rescue humanity from Nazi fascism, which it ultimately did. Hopefully, rescue from religion is on the horizon.I quoted him for you on the previous page.TexasScientist said:
Hard to say for sure about Hitler's hopes on religion, but he certainly didn't have the same hope regarding rescue from fascism. Maybe he got it half right.
Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
Exactly. Thanks.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.Sam Lowry said:Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
So what was all this about science being the only way to "determine objectively what is good and bad?"
What scientific test or machine can prove that statement?TexasScientist said:
Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.
TexasScientist said:Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.Sam Lowry said:Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
So what was all this about science being the only way to "determine objectively what is good and bad?"
Seems like you're flip-flopping.TexasScientist said:Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.Sam Lowry said:Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
So what was all this about science being the only way to "determine objectively what is good and bad?"
Not at all.Sam Lowry said:Seems like you're flip-flopping.TexasScientist said:Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.Sam Lowry said:Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
So what was all this about science being the only way to "determine objectively what is good and bad?"
Sam Lowry said:Seems like you're flip-flopping.TexasScientist said:Science is the only way for us to objectively determine good and bad. Pretty simple and succinct.Sam Lowry said:Bingo! Hallelujah, even.TexasScientist said:Science is a human tool, only humans can assign value to the results of that tool, as far as we know.curtpenn said:The point being that science is able to give us data, but assigning value to outcomes is beyond the scope of science, per se. You state yourself that "Humanism" is ... philosophical".TexasScientist said:Superstition? No. There is no room for superstition about reality in science based reason and logic. Dogma? No. Science is all about questioning. Humanism is based upon rationalism and empiricism. In other words, based upon reason, and knowledge gained from experimental science.curtpenn said:The acceptance of Humanism is just another form of accepting dogma or superstition.TexasScientist said:Humanism is a philosophical and ethical stance that emphasizes the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers critical thinking and evidence (rationalism and empiricism) over acceptance of dogma or superstition. - Wikipediacurtpenn said:We are most likely talking past each other. Pretty sure every poster here understands the scientific method, but you keep asserting science as a basis for value judgments. Once you do that, you've left the realm of science and stepped into the realm of philosophy.TexasScientist said:Science is an evidence based tool with which testable conclusions about reality can be determined. You and I place our faith in those conclusions everyday. There is no objective evidence for placing faith in religion. Indeed, most religious followers will rely upon science when it comes to matters of health and survival, as opposed to exclusively relying upon a religious solution. We intrinsically or innately know one is more reliable over the other.curtpenn said:
So much irony here from TXScientist demonstrating at least as much faith in "science" as those whom he derides put in religion.
So what was all this about science being the only way to "determine objectively what is good and bad?"
Well that's sort of my point. God did make the universe and you can't prove it.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Can God change gravity? Say like Jesus walking water or throwing yourself off a building?JXL said:Waco1947 said:
Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the
Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?
You are dealing with the One who created the universe.
He raised the dead.
Gravity?
Gravity is child's play.
So God DID make the universe? Wouldn't that take some supernatural ability and all-powerful-ness?Waco1947 said:Well that's sort of my point. God did make the universe and you can't prove it.D. C. Bear said:Waco1947 said:Can God change gravity? Say like Jesus walking water or throwing yourself off a building?JXL said:Waco1947 said:
Yes I will keep repeating the same thing over and over. All the years of them is their older years of no longer be your man and the 21st do you all her years and no longer sees the men and women in the 21st-century. I'm not sure why the text decide if he's arguing with you about the all clear so I would like to hear Texas ENT say something about a new the
Everything after the first sentence of this post appears to be random gibberish ...?
You are dealing with the One who created the universe.
He raised the dead.
Gravity?
Gravity is child's play.
