TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

What does objective, evidence-based morality say about honor killing?

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

You believe "religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures" but cannot prove this in any empirical way. It may be true that morals/values are made manifest as the result of humanity's creation/origin in the image of their Creator (Imago Dei).

"Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance."
This is just an assertion/opinion. I think culture derives its morality from our inherent knowledge of right and wrong as a consequence of general revelation and being infused with nature of our Creator, however dimly perceived. Of course, this is just an assertion/opinion, but it does not masquerade as objective truth.

In any event, in a materialist universe where everything that is is just the accidental byproduct of time and chance and all species are headed to oblivion, you have no claim upon any basis for morality. All you have is your own highly subjective imagining.

---

Quote:

---

You believe "religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures" but cannot prove this in any empirical way. It may be true that morals/values are made manifest as the result of humanity's creation/origin in the image of their Creator (Imago Dei).

---

Where else could religious claims to moral values come from other than culture? How else can you explain the differences, especially when three currently predominant religions, and their disparate sects, claim revelation and have origins from belief in the same god. Anthropology tells us values are cultural in nature (imago hominis).

Quote:

---

"Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance."

This is just an assertion/opinion. I think culture derives its morality from our inherent knowledge of right and wrong as a consequence of general revelation and being infused with nature of our Creator, however dimly perceived. Of course, this is just an assertion/opinion, but it does not masquerade as objective truth.

---

Any inherent knowledge of right and wrong is a function of evolutionary psychology. A big part of human behavior and beliefs comes from psychological adaptations that evolved to solve human ancestral problems from survival needs to cooperate, organize, and flourish in ever larger groups or tribes.

Quote:

---

In any event, in a materialist universe where everything that is is just the accidental byproduct of time and chance and all species are headed to oblivion, you have no claim upon any basis for morality. All you have is your own highly subjective imagining.

---

First, the universe is not accidental. Rather, it is the inevitable byproduct of the operation of natural physical laws, especially those at the quantum level. Species are headed in the direction that evolutionary and environmental forces take them. If by oblivion, you mean a state of unconsciousness, that is a function of certain biological processes. Those processes begin at conception, and end when those processes cease. There is no consciousness before or after those processes completely begin and cease. This is only relevant to morality in the sense that morality is a conscious product. Subjectivity comes into play when you take objectivity out of the equation of formulating morals. Religious views are highly subjective. My view grounds morality in rational, empirical consideration of reality or the natural world. Societies/cultures can and should use a scientific approach to determine right and wrong and to provide answers to moral questions and human values.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

What does objective, evidence-based morality say about honor killing?

---

Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being.

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

What does objective, evidence-based morality say about honor killing?

---

Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being.

---

Undoubtedly, proponents of honor killing will agree with you. Yes, death occurs, and yes, it is harmful to well-being of the one being killed.

TexasScientist said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

You believe "religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures" but cannot prove this in any empirical way. It may be true that morals/values are made manifest as the result of humanity's creation/origin in the image of their Creator (Imago Dei).

"Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance."
This is just an assertion/opinion. I think culture derives its morality from our inherent knowledge of right and wrong as a consequence of general revelation and being infused with nature of our Creator, however dimly perceived. Of course, this is just an assertion/opinion, but it does not masquerade as objective truth.

In any event, in a materialist universe where everything that is is just the accidental byproduct of time and chance and all species are headed to oblivion, you have no claim upon any basis for morality. All you have is your own highly subjective imagining.

---

Quote:

---

You believe "religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures" but cannot prove this in any empirical way. It may be true that morals/values are made manifest as the result of humanity's creation/origin in the image of their Creator (Imago Dei).

---

Where else could religious claims to moral values come from other than culture? How else can you explain the differences, especially when three currently predominant religions, and their disparate sects, claim revelation and have origins from belief in the same god. Anthropology tells us values are cultural in nature (imago hominis).

Quote:

---

"Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance."

This is just an assertion/opinion. I think culture derives its morality from our inherent knowledge of right and wrong as a consequence of general revelation and being infused with nature of our Creator, however dimly perceived. Of course, this is just an assertion/opinion, but it does not masquerade as objective truth.

---

Any inherent knowledge of right and wrong is a function of evolutionary psychology. A big part of human behavior and beliefs comes from psychological adaptations that evolved to solve human ancestral problems from survival needs to cooperate, organize, and flourish in ever larger groups or tribes.

Quote:

---

In any event, in a materialist universe where everything that is is just the accidental byproduct of time and chance and all species are headed to oblivion, you have no claim upon any basis for morality. All you have is your own highly subjective imagining.

---

First, the universe is not accidental. Rather, it is the inevitable byproduct of the operation of natural physical laws, especially those at the quantum level. Species are headed in the direction that evolutionary and environmental forces take them. If by oblivion, you mean a state of unconsciousness, that is a function of certain biological processes. Those processes begin at conception, and end when those processes cease. There is no consciousness before or after those processes completely begin and cease. This is only relevant to morality in the sense that morality is a conscious product. Subjectivity comes into play when you take objectivity out of the equation of formulating morals. Religious views are highly subjective. My view grounds morality in rational, empirical consideration of reality or the natural world. Societies/cultures can and should use a scientific approach to determine right and wrong and to provide answers to moral questions and human values.

---

"Where else could religious claims to moral values come from other than culture? How else can you explain the differences, especially when three currently predominant religions, and their disparate sects, claim revelation and have origins from belief in the same god. Anthropology tells us values are cultural in nature (imago hominis)."

Asked and answered: Imago Dei. Differences can be easily accounted for by the nature of general revelation and differences in time and place. I think it's more remarkable that there are so many similarities as note a la "The Golden Bough" and the works of Joseph Campbell. FWIW, I never claimed culture had no influence on values.

"Any inherent knowledge of right and wrong is a function of evolutionary psychology." = pure assertion/opinion.

"First, the universe is not accidental. Rather, it is the inevitable byproduct of the operation of natural physical laws, especially those at the quantum level."

A type of category error. Natural physical laws may explain how matter and energy behave and interact, but cannot tell us where space, time, matter, etc came from.

By "oblivion" I mean cease to exist in any material way. I borrowed the phrase from a Baylor prof in the early '70s who was known for challenging his students with the statement, "all species are headed to oblivion". Caused a minor stir at the time, btw.

I understand what you are attempting to ground your view in. This isn't that hard. Nevertheless, you cannot get past the issue that your "ground" itself is ungrounded and is only your preference/belief/matter of faith.

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

JXL said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Ultimate authority rests with people, and people ultimately decide what is moral based upon cultural norms."

So the mob drives morality?

I disagree.

Just from what I have read, moral thought starts with individuals who disagree with the crowd and think through the moral issues, then state concepts which lead in new directions. Historically, such individuals have been philosophers and religious leaders. Socrates and MLK Jr are examples of such individuals who stood against the common practice of their time.

Cultural norms are often at odds with moral values, which causes problems in its own right.

---

Moral values do change, thus the "moral arc".

---

But it's not an arc, if you pay attention to history. Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

For example, Jon of Arc was a female leader who could have opened a new era in social consciousness, but instead she was an outlier because the establishment killed her. For another, Slavery was opposed by Christians early in their history, but Rome corrupted social practices so that it was more than a thousand years before people actively worked to end Slavery,

What we see in history is individuals who start moral debates, which are opposed by the mob and so some movements falter and fail for a time. There simply is no "moral arc" in actual practice.

---

Quote:

---

Human behavior changes according to location, culture, and leaders of the day.

---

As do morals. What's moral in one culture is immoral in another culture.

When and how was slavery opposed in early Christian history? Mary disagrees.

51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;
he has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.
52 He has brought down rulers from their thrones
but has lifted up the humble.
53 He has filled the hungry with good things
but has sent the rich away empty.



What he is saying is that, innate human desire is for moral justice, fairness, and equity, and given time, morality trends in that direction.

---

There are multiple references in Scripture, including Paul's command to Philemon to treat Onesimus as "a brother beloved," a status obviously incompatible with being a slave, and the special condemnation given to slave traders in 1 Timothy.

With regard to the early Church, this might interest you:


In the second and third centuries after Christ, tens of thousands of slaves were freed by people who converted the Christ, and then understood the inherent wrongness of the slave condition. Melania is said to have freed 8,000 slaves, Ovidus 5,000, Chromatius 1400, and Hermes 1200.[10] One popular Christian book of the early church said that Christians should not attend heathen gatherings "unless to purchase a slave and save a soul" (by teaching the slave of Christ and then freeing him or her).[11]

Church law in the early fifth century allowed for liberation (called manumission) of slaves during church services.[12] This happened because many Christian converts at that time were people of considerable wealth. Converted out of a decadent, totally self-centered society, many Christians sold their goods and lands and used the proceeds to help the poor, support hospitals, take in orphans, free prisoners, and liberate slaves. Liberation was frequent, and freedmen soon became a prominent feature of society.[13]

Augustine led many clergy under his authority at Hippo to free their slaves "as an act of piety." [14] He boldly wrote a letter urging the emperor to set up a new law against slave traders and was very much concerned about the sale of children. Christian emperors of his time for 25 years had permitted sale of children, not because they approved of it, but as a way of preventing infanticide when parents were unable to care for a child (The Saints, Pauline Books, 1998 p. 72). In his famous book, "The City of God," the development of slavery is seen as a product of sin and contrary to God's divine plan".[15]

Freeing slaves in those days took great conviction and courage, since the Roman emperors issued edicts unfavorable to it, and keeping on the good side of the emperor was essential to survival. Not until Justinian (527-565 A.D.) did Christians find an emperor who was sympathetic to what they had been doing [16]

The practice of freeing slaves began quite early, for Clement of Alexandria, who was probably a contemporary of the Apostle Paul, said in his Epistle to the Corinthians no. 55, "Some Christians surrendered their own freedom to liberate others or even money to provide food for others." He talks as if it is common knowledge of which he is reminding them. He also says it was a church custom in his time to redeem prisoners of war from servitude. He wrote that Christians should not have too many domestic slaves. He said men did this because they disliked working with their own hands and serving themselves.[17]

Ignatius, in his epistle to Herodustus, urges believers to "despise not servants, for we possess the same nature in common with them." [18] Basil (330-379) wrote of slaves and masters as all being fellow slaves of our Creator and spoke of "our mutual equality of rank." [19] Lactantius in the fourth century wrote that in God's eyes there were no slaves.[20]

In the fourth century, Chrysostom wrote that Christ annulled slavery and admonished Christian to buy slaves, teach them a marketable skill, and set them free. The freeing of slaves by Christians was so common in his time that some people complained Christianity had been introduced just for that purpose.[21] In the fifth century, Patrick, Celtic Christian missionary to Ireland, actually condemned slavery.[22]

https://www.conservapedia.com/Slavery_in_the_early_church

---

No where, including 1Timothy, is slavery condemned in the Bible, the supposed inspired word direct from God himself. What Christians have done and advocated regarding slavery down through the years has been all over the place. All the way down to preaching slavery from the pulpit in the South.

---

A first-century mind would have no difficulty seeing the condemnation of slavery. Certainly the antebellum South read it the way they wanted to, but it's hardly a coincidence that the anti-slavery movements in both England and America were directly founded on the Bible.

---

Then why didn't they condemn it, in the writings of the Bible?

---

It's a very common mistake, from the time of Christ onward, to think that Christ came to overthrow the social order. He did not. The early Christians sought to change hearts, not society.

That's why the condemnations of slavery which I've already pointed out are focused on individuals, not society.

---

Social order? Yeah he came to overturn it
Luke 4 18 "The Spirit of the Lord is on me.
He has anointed me
to announce the good news to poor people.
He has sent me to announce freedom for prisoners.
He has sent me so that the blind will see again.
He wants me to set free those who are treated badly.
19 And he has sent me to announce the year when he will set his people free." (Isaiah 61:1,2)

Good Sam, Samaritan woman at well, Syro-Phoenician woman. Social order is upside down in Jesus.

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Sam, Samaritan woman at well, Syro-Phoenician woman. Social order is upside down in Jesus.

---

Only compared to Humanism, and certain radical sects in the UMC.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

What does objective, evidence-based morality say about honor killi

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Sam, Samaritan woman at well, Syro-Phoenician woman. Social order is upside down in Jesus.

---

Only compared to Humanism, and certain radical sects in the UMC.

---

You would deny Jesus' words?

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Sam, Samaritan woman at well, Syro-Phoenician woman. Social order is upside down in Jesus.

---

Only compared to Humanism, and certain radical sects in the UMC.

---

You would deny Jesus' words?

---

Ask yourself. Jesus plainly said his kingdom is not of this world.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

Article 102 Islamic Penal Code of Iran

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

Article 102 Islamic Penal Code of Iran

---

And that's a statute coming from culture, not the Quran.

Do try to keep up.

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still not clear what you think your morality is based on. You claim that it's supported by objective evidence, but the same could be said for Christian morality. You haven't demonstrated that your underlying assumptions are any less arbitrary than anyone else's.

---

My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence. Christians could do the same, as could Muslims. To some extent Christians already do that in the sense that, and to the extent that, accepted minimal secular morals and values are codified into law in this country. In contrast, much of Islam's minimal morals are taken from the Quran as law.

Morals are rooted in the cultural norms determined by people. Those norms can either be influenced and determined by religious arbitrary beliefs, or as I would suggest, by taking a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into account the well being of others. Either way, morals and values are the product of our brains, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Those values and morals are based upon a perception about the well being of conscious beings, and relate to a range of potential happiness and suffering. Regardless of source, morals and values can be reduced down to concerns about, and changes in our conscious experience. You can base them upon religion and your perception of how your status and conscious experience in an afterlife will be affected, or you can base them upon objective evidence as to the status of your conscious experience in the present life, in terms of well being, flourishing, and suffering. One set of values is based upon a perceived set of facts through belief in divine revelation, and the other upon scientifically and objectively determined factual truths about reality. These determinations are made and realized in our brain.

Experientially and factually, we can determine which relative states of our existence are the most desirable or ideal in terms of our well being, and in terms of suffering and flourishing. We can organize our cultural moral values around these objectively determined factual truths, in the sense that there are right and wrong answers to questions of our well being, flourishing, or suffering. A culture's set of values can be understood through scientific factual findings about the conscious experience of conscious beings. Objectively determined facts about these findings can be reduced values/morals, values/morals which correspond and relate to differences in the individual and collective well being of other sentient beings. Any cultural norms applied to others that fall outside of these objectively determined facts would be an infringement and impairment to the wellbeing of others, and therefore wrong.

---

I want to thank you for causing me to think about things more deeply than I have in quite a few years. I think you mentioned you were raised in the church. I was raised a believer by believers; Southern Baptist from birth of the sort that went to church twice on Sundays and again on Wednesday night. Started going to Baylor football games as kid on Royal Ambassador Day back in the '60s. Ended up getting 2 degrees from Baylor in the '70s. Actually started as a Voice major thinking I might be called to the music ministry and spent a couple of summers in college doing interim music and youth work. However, I came to understand that my keyboard skills would never be sufficient to earn a degree, so changed to Business after my freshman year. Stayed in the A Cappella Choir the rest of my undergrad days, though. Still love great choral music.

Had the great pleasure of hearing Francis Schaeffer speak at Chapel. Followed him afterwards to an informal gathering at the Student Union Building where he spoke at some length. Following that, I became quite interested in theology of the Reformed variety. Started taking theology more seriously, but it morphed into something of an intellectual exercise over the next 10-15 years. By my mid-30's I had started a family, started a business, and lost loved ones; particularly painful was the untimely loss of my much loved mother-in-law. We watched her slip away over a couple of years beset by Alzheimer's and multiple strokes. It was the most painful experience of my life at that point. I was extremely angry with God. How could such a loving and Godly woman suffer so? I really started to question my faith and continued in a self-imposed separation from God for a few years. But, time moves on and we can't sustain our hurt and anger indefinitely. Started back into Theology and Apologetics. The more I studied, the more I came to understand that faith and belief are not, at their hearts, intellectual exercises. We cannot "prove" our beliefs in the same way we can prove an equation. All along I had attempted to reason my way to God, but I came to see that that's not ever going to get me all the way to belief. I believe CS Lewis made some comment to the effect that faith can move one to the shore, but it can't get you into the ocean (i.e., belief). I have found that to be true for me. By my late '40s, tired of the move to Contemporary-styled worship and longing for a better way forward, I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church where I could at least do the sort of music I did in college. The Canterbury Trail opened my eyes and mind to a different way of thinking about faith. Won't go into the details, but I am so happy to have been able to recover the Catholic aspects of faith, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the centuries of thought and teaching that were not part of my Baptist upbringing. The biggest change has been that I no longer feel compelled to reason my way to God, but choose instead to embrace the mystery. I don't need to know the answer to every possible objection to the faith or every theological question, either. I am content to depend on God's Grace and provision. However things work in His economy, it isn't up to me to make it work - just humbly accept and be grateful.

I don't know how you got to where you are in your beliefs. My bedrock belief is that most people are people of faith of some sort. This may be manifest in the form of some conventional religious practice or tradition, or it may take the form of a secular-appearing system that attempts to create a form of morality without the need of a Creator. In my view, there either is a God (or gods), or there is not. If there is not, then there is no rational basis for morality beyond what each individual desires in the moment. If there is a Creator, there is purpose and meaning. If no Creator, then no purpose or meaning. However, most people (and perhaps, you?) cannot accept the reality of meaninglessness and utter lack of purpose in a random universe that is totally indifferent. Consequently, they struggle to find ways to justify meaning and impart purpose. I think this is where you are. You cannot tolerate the abyss of nothingness, so you construct an alternate by faith. My prayer for you this Advent season is that you find your way to a faith that fulfills and ultimate redeems you.

"Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the
works of darkness, and put upon us the armor of light, now
in the time of this mortal life in which thy Son Jesus Christ
came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when
he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the
quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through
him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost,
one God, now and for ever. Amen. Book of Common Prayer

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

Article 102 Islamic Penal Code of Iran

---

And that's a statute coming from culture, not the Quran.

Do try to keep up.

---

LOL, the denial is strong in this one.

First, it's right there in the title.

Second, Islamic countries do not separate church and state. You know that the head is the ayatollah.

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still not clear what you think your morality is based on. You claim that it's supported by objective evidence, but the same could be said for Christian morality. You haven't demonstrated that your underlying assumptions are any less arbitrary than anyone else's.

---

My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence. Christians could do the same, as could Muslims. To some extent Christians already do that in the sense that, and to the extent that, accepted minimal secular morals and values are codified into law in this country. In contrast, much of Islam's minimal morals are taken from the Quran as law.

Morals are rooted in the cultural norms determined by people. Those norms can either be influenced and determined by religious arbitrary beliefs, or as I would suggest, by taking a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into account the well being of others. Either way, morals and values are the product of our brains, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Those values and morals are based upon a perception about the well being of conscious beings, and relate to a range of potential happiness and suffering. Regardless of source, morals and values can be reduced down to concerns about, and changes in our conscious experience. You can base them upon religion and your perception of how your status and conscious experience in an afterlife will be affected, or you can base them upon objective evidence as to the status of your conscious experience in the present life, in terms of well being, flourishing, and suffering. One set of values is based upon a perceived set of facts through belief in divine revelation, and the other upon scientifically and objectively determined factual truths about reality. These determinations are made and realized in our brain.

Experientially and factually, we can determine which relative states of our existence are the most desirable or ideal in terms of our well being, and in terms of suffering and flourishing. We can organize our cultural moral values around these objectively determined factual truths, in the sense that there are right and wrong answers to questions of our well being, flourishing, or suffering. A culture's set of values can be understood through scientific factual findings about the conscious experience of conscious beings. Objectively determined facts about these findings can be reduced values/morals, values/morals which correspond and relate to differences in the individual and collective well being of other sentient beings. Any cultural norms applied to others that fall outside of these objectively determined facts would be an infringement and impairment to the wellbeing of others, and therefore wrong.

---

I want to thank you for causing me to think about things more deeply than I have in quite a few years. I think you mentioned you were raised in the church. I was raised a believer by believers; Southern Baptist from birth of the sort that went to church twice on Sundays and again on Wednesday night. Started going to Baylor football games as kid on Royal Ambassador Day back in the '60s. Ended up getting 2 degrees from Baylor in the '70s. Actually started as a Voice major thinking I might be called to the music ministry and spent a couple of summers in college doing interim music and youth work. However, I came to understand that my keyboard skills would never be sufficient to earn a degree, so changed to Business after my freshman year. Stayed in the A Cappella Choir the rest of my undergrad days, though. Still love great choral music.

Had the great pleasure of hearing Francis Schaeffer speak at Chapel. Followed him afterwards to an informal gathering at the Student Union Building where he spoke at some length. Following that, I became quite interested in theology of the Reformed variety. Started taking theology more seriously, but it morphed into something of an intellectual exercise over the next 10-15 years. By my mid-30's I had started a family, started a business, and lost loved ones; particularly painful was the untimely loss of my much loved mother-in-law. We watched her slip away over a couple of years beset by Alzheimer's and multiple strokes. It was the most painful experience of my life at that point. I was extremely angry with God. How could such a loving and Godly woman suffer so? I really started to question my faith and continued in a self-imposed separation from God for a few years. But, time moves on and we can't sustain our hurt and anger indefinitely. Started back into Theology and Apologetics. The more I studied, the more I came to understand that faith and belief are not, at their hearts, intellectual exercises. We cannot "prove" our beliefs in the same way we can prove an equation. All along I had attempted to reason my way to God, but I came to see that that's not ever going to get me all the way to belief. I believe CS Lewis made some comment to the effect that faith can move one to the shore, but it can't get you into the ocean (i.e., belief). I have found that to be true for me. By my late '40s, tired of the move to Contemporary-styled worship and longing for a better way forward, I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church where I could at least do the sort of music I did in college. The Canterbury Trail opened my eyes and mind to a different way of thinking about faith. Won't go into the details, but I am so happy to have been able to recover the Catholic aspects of faith, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the centuries of thought and teaching that were not part of my Baptist upbringing. The biggest change has been that I no longer feel compelled to reason my way to God, but choose instead to embrace the mystery. I don't need to know the answer to every possible objection to the faith or every theological question, either. I am content to depend on God's Grace and provision. However things work in His economy, it isn't up to me to make it work - just humbly accept and be grateful.

I don't know how you got to where you are in your beliefs. My bedrock belief is that most people are people of faith of some sort. This may be manifest in the form of some conventional religious practice or tradition, or it may take the form of a secular-appearing system that attempts to create a form of morality without the need of a Creator. In my view, there either is a God (or gods), or there is not. If there is not, then there is no rational basis for morality beyond what each individual desires in the moment. If there is a Creator, there is purpose and meaning. If no Creator, then no purpose or meaning. However, most people (and perhaps, you?) cannot accept the reality of meaninglessness and utter lack of purpose in a random universe that is totally indifferent. Consequently, they struggle to find ways to justify meaning and impart purpose. I think this is where you are. You cannot tolerate the abyss of nothingness, so you construct an alternate by faith. My prayer for you this Advent season is that you find your way to a faith that fulfills and ultimate redeems you.

"Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the
works of darkness, and put upon us the armor of light, now
in the time of this mortal life in which thy Son Jesus Christ
came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when
he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the
quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through
him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost,
one God, now and for ever. Amen. Book of Common Prayer

---

Thank you for your story. Mine shares many parallels before the big turn. In witnessing to people who wanted a rational path to god I had the same feeling you did about the necessity, and sufficiency, of faith.

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

Article 102 Islamic Penal Code of Iran

---

And that's a statute coming from culture, not the Quran.

Do try to keep up.

---

LOL, the denial is strong in this one.

First, it's right there in the title.

Second, Islamic countries do not separate church and state. You know that the head is the ayatollah.

---

** sigh **

Already addressed. I'm sure you would agree that Scientology, despite using 'science' in its name, does not represent Science in any real way. So too someone putting a religious name on something does not make it part of that faith.

I already reminded you that stoning as a punishment does not appear anywhere in the Quran. That shuts you out from pretending stoning someone is part of the Islamic faith.

The problem with Middle East countries applying Islam to their politics is just like climate extremists who shriek false warnings of impending doom, then claim they are only citing Science.

And aside from that, stoning and similar violence is anathema to most religions by doctrine, especially Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism.

The denial in this case, sir, is your own.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "Death is objective evidence of harm to one's well being."

Really? What being lives forever?

And is long age and suffering from disease and failing health objectively better than dying younger but having accomplished meaningful success and in no pain?

What do you use to define "well being"?

---

No one lives forever. Not even the religious.

Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question.

Well-being - a state of being comfortable, healthy, or happy is one definition.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

The Jews have it written into their law. Their god commanded it, and unfortunately there was a time it was practiced. Apparently, either their god's morals changed or their moral path departed from their god's morals. What they do today doesn't excuse the past. Stoning is just one example. There have been whole wars waged in the name of religion, and religious Christian purges in the name of Christianity - much of which was justified at the time from religious leaders interpretation of religious writings or beliefs. Regardless, it falls under the purview of religion. We just happen to live in a time where Christian and Jewish leaders cherry pick the law, and choose to be more civil. That could change in the future with a different, more fundamental and literal interpretation of "scripture." Islam, at present is in many areas very literal and fundamental, and consequently violent and brutal.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

TS: "My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence."

We all know that. Your problem is that human morality is intensely subjective, which extends to what a person considers valid evidence.

For many months now, you and quash on one side, and Sam and Curt on the other, have sharp division on the limits of empirical data and/or revealed truth through scripture. While a healthy skepticism can be good for such discussions, here it invariably corrodes into rejection of valid premises out of bias.

The difference I see, is that almost all religious people accept the value of scientific data in assessing facts, but secularists like yourself ignore the moral value of religion, especially faith.

---

I ignore the moral value of religion, because religious claims to moral values are borrowed from the prevailing cultures (including their religions) in which a religion is founded, and then interpreted by religious leaders as ordained authority. Religion absorbs morality from culture and re-writes it for its own purposes, under the color of divine guidance. This phenomenon is endemic to and across all religions. In this context, religious based morality is highly subjective, and very different from a morality that is based upon objective evidence.

---

I admit I have only cursorily followed this thread so maybe this has already been discussed, but what is an example of religious-based morality that is very different from objective evidence-based morality?

---

Honor killing.

---

That seems far more a matter of regional culture than religion. There is not, for example, a verse in the Quran which specifically directs a man to kill his wife or daughter as an 'honor killing'. There are, however, examples of honor killing in various Middle East and West Asian cultures which are not based on religion.

---

It has everything to do with religion.
Stoning.

---

Really? When's the last time you saw Christians, Buddhists, or Jews stoning anyone?

---

Islam is a religion.

---

But it does not speak for all.

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

I wasn't talking about the Quran ordering stoning. My answer was to the question regarding religion, and I answered stoning. Honor killing was an answer to giving an example of religious-based morality as opposed to evidence based morality. At present, in many places there is little distinction of Islam and the ruling authority. Further, it doesn't have to be specifically ordered In the Quran to be a part of their current religion. Islamic religious authority frequently conflates Islamic cultural practice with Islam. Islamic theocracy is not uncommon.

Scientology is a religion. It has nothing to do with science. I don't know of any scientist that pushes Scientology. It would be very interesting to find one. You can't deny stoning is part of Jewish law though.

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

quash said:

---

So? TS didn't claim that it did. Islam doesn't address whether Dr.Pepper or RC Cola is the appropriate drink with a Moon Pie.

---

Yes he did. By implication. You can find people who call themselves 'scientists' but push garbage, like Scientology or many of the climate extremists. That does not make them mainstream or a good example of how Scientists think.

Have you read the Quran, for example? I have, and nowhere in it is there a law to stone people to death. That's a cultural abomination, not an intrinsic characteristic of religion . TS is using the behavior of a regional mob as if it represents all of Islam, or even common religious thought.

That's intellectually dishonest and bigoted.

---

Article 102 Islamic Penal Code of Iran

---

And that's a statute coming from culture, not the Quran.

Do try to keep up.

---

LOL, the denial is strong in this one.

First, it's right there in the title.

Second, Islamic countries do not separate church and state. You know that the head is the ayatollah.

---

** sigh **

Already addressed. I'm sure you would agree that Scientology, despite using 'science' in its name, does not represent Science in any real way. So too someone putting a religious name on something does not make it part of that faith.

I already reminded you that stoning as a punishment does not appear anywhere in the Quran. That shuts you out from pretending stoning someone is part of the Islamic faith.

The problem with Middle East countries applying Islam to their politics is just like climate extremists who shriek false warnings of impending doom, then claim they are only citing Science.

And aside from that, stoning and similar violence is anathema to most religions by doctrine, especially Christianity, Buddhism, and Judaism.

The denial in this case, sir, is your own.

---

No one said stoning was in the Quran, but it is in the OT. Jews and Christians ignore it at present because it doesn't fit their religious cultural narrative at the moment. Just like honor killing, and beheading etc. fits the religious cultural narrative for many Muslims at the moment.

Jewish stoning is not in vogue at the moment like it used to be. It is doctrinally ignored by Christians. Doctrine is the flavor of religion du jour.

quash said:

---

curtpenn said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Quote:

---

It's still not clear what you think your morality is based on. You claim that it's supported by objective evidence, but the same could be said for Christian morality. You haven't demonstrated that your underlying assumptions are any less arbitrary than anyone else's.

---

My claim is morality and values should be based upon objective evidence. Christians could do the same, as could Muslims. To some extent Christians already do that in the sense that, and to the extent that, accepted minimal secular morals and values are codified into law in this country. In contrast, much of Islam's minimal morals are taken from the Quran as law.

Morals are rooted in the cultural norms determined by people. Those norms can either be influenced and determined by religious arbitrary beliefs, or as I would suggest, by taking a humanistic science of morality approach, taking into account the well being of others. Either way, morals and values are the product of our brains, and culture reinforces and influences what goes into our brain. Those values and morals are based upon a perception about the well being of conscious beings, and relate to a range of potential happiness and suffering. Regardless of source, morals and values can be reduced down to concerns about, and changes in our conscious experience. You can base them upon religion and your perception of how your status and conscious experience in an afterlife will be affected, or you can base them upon objective evidence as to the status of your conscious experience in the present life, in terms of well being, flourishing, and suffering. One set of values is based upon a perceived set of facts through belief in divine revelation, and the other upon scientifically and objectively determined factual truths about reality. These determinations are made and realized in our brain.

Experientially and factually, we can determine which relative states of our existence are the most desirable or ideal in terms of our well being, and in terms of suffering and flourishing. We can organize our cultural moral values around these objectively determined factual truths, in the sense that there are right and wrong answers to questions of our well being, flourishing, or suffering. A culture's set of values can be understood through scientific factual findings about the conscious experience of conscious beings. Objectively determined facts about these findings can be reduced values/morals, values/morals which correspond and relate to differences in the individual and collective well being of other sentient beings. Any cultural norms applied to others that fall outside of these objectively determined facts would be an infringement and impairment to the wellbeing of others, and therefore wrong.

---

I want to thank you for causing me to think about things more deeply than I have in quite a few years. I think you mentioned you were raised in the church. I was raised a believer by believers; Southern Baptist from birth of the sort that went to church twice on Sundays and again on Wednesday night. Started going to Baylor football games as kid on Royal Ambassador Day back in the '60s. Ended up getting 2 degrees from Baylor in the '70s. Actually started as a Voice major thinking I might be called to the music ministry and spent a couple of summers in college doing interim music and youth work. However, I came to understand that my keyboard skills would never be sufficient to earn a degree, so changed to Business after my freshman year. Stayed in the A Cappella Choir the rest of my undergrad days, though. Still love great choral music.

Had the great pleasure of hearing Francis Schaeffer speak at Chapel. Followed him afterwards to an informal gathering at the Student Union Building where he spoke at some length. Following that, I became quite interested in theology of the Reformed variety. Started taking theology more seriously, but it morphed into something of an intellectual exercise over the next 10-15 years. By my mid-30's I had started a family, started a business, and lost loved ones; particularly painful was the untimely loss of my much loved mother-in-law. We watched her slip away over a couple of years beset by Alzheimer's and multiple strokes. It was the most painful experience of my life at that point. I was extremely angry with God. How could such a loving and Godly woman suffer so? I really started to question my faith and continued in a self-imposed separation from God for a few years. But, time moves on and we can't sustain our hurt and anger indefinitely. Started back into Theology and Apologetics. The more I studied, the more I came to understand that faith and belief are not, at their hearts, intellectual exercises. We cannot "prove" our beliefs in the same way we can prove an equation. All along I had attempted to reason my way to God, but I came to see that that's not ever going to get me all the way to belief. I believe CS Lewis made some comment to the effect that faith can move one to the shore, but it can't get you into the ocean (i.e., belief). I have found that to be true for me. By my late '40s, tired of the move to Contemporary-styled worship and longing for a better way forward, I was confirmed in the Episcopal Church where I could at least do the sort of music I did in college. The Canterbury Trail opened my eyes and mind to a different way of thinking about faith. Won't go into the details, but I am so happy to have been able to recover the Catholic aspects of faith, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the centuries of thought and teaching that were not part of my Baptist upbringing. The biggest change has been that I no longer feel compelled to reason my way to God, but choose instead to embrace the mystery. I don't need to know the answer to every possible objection to the faith or every theological question, either. I am content to depend on God's Grace and provision. However things work in His economy, it isn't up to me to make it work - just humbly accept and be grateful.

I don't know how you got to where you are in your beliefs. My bedrock belief is that most people are people of faith of some sort. This may be manifest in the form of some conventional religious practice or tradition, or it may take the form of a secular-appearing system that attempts to create a form of morality without the need of a Creator. In my view, there either is a God (or gods), or there is not. If there is not, then there is no rational basis for morality beyond what each individual desires in the moment. If there is a Creator, there is purpose and meaning. If no Creator, then no purpose or meaning. However, most people (and perhaps, you?) cannot accept the reality of meaninglessness and utter lack of purpose in a random universe that is totally indifferent. Consequently, they struggle to find ways to justify meaning and impart purpose. I think this is where you are. You cannot tolerate the abyss of nothingness, so you construct an alternate by faith. My prayer for you this Advent season is that you find your way to a faith that fulfills and ultimate redeems you.

"Almighty God, give us grace that we may cast away the
works of darkness, and put upon us the armor of light, now
in the time of this mortal life in which thy Son Jesus Christ
came to visit us in great humility; that in the last day, when
he shall come again in his glorious majesty to judge both the
quick and the dead, we may rise to the life immortal; through
him who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost,
one God, now and for ever. Amen. Book of Common Prayer

---

Thank you for your story. Mine shares many parallels before the big turn. In witnessing to people who wanted a rational path to god I had the same feeling you did about the necessity, and sufficiency, of faith.

---

Yes thanks for your story. I too had a similar path as you and Quash, but landed basically where Quash did.

TS: "Some questions can only be answered by the individual in question."

Agreed. Hence the subjective characteristic already mentioned.

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

Oldbear83 said:

---

"It is doctrinally ignored by Christians."

No, it is doctrinally opposed by Christians.

Kind of the point?

---

Ok, it's generally not followed today, except in Muslim states. If the Jewish law is opposed by today's Christians and Jews, then either god's morals changed or their morals have changed (excepting Islam). In Islamic states, beheading and lashing is still practiced as ordered in the Quran. Rabbinic law is not much different. All are immoral by my standards, but not by the Judeo/Christian/Islamic god.

Waco1947 said:

---

Good Sam, Samaritan woman at well, Sure-Phoenician woman. Social order is upside down in Jesus.

---

Maybe I wasn't clear, which was my fault - when I said Jesus didn't come to overthrow the social order, I was thinking more of political changes in society. He didn't tell the Jews they had to accept Samaritans, he dealt with an individual in a way so as to change hearts.