firedragon
Veteran Member
Exactly science and philosophy do not deal in absolutes, religion does. We are debating religion and science not philosophy. Nice switch though.
What is a moral absolute in your opinion?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exactly science and philosophy do not deal in absolutes, religion does. We are debating religion and science not philosophy. Nice switch though.
If you can show me a religion that does not depend on faith I will certainly look at it.So you have empirical evidence that all religions are like that and you have empirical evidence that is a good example as good is empirical?
Exactly science and philosophy do not deal in absolutes, religion does. We are debating religion and science not philosophy. Nice switch though.
Have you forgotten what our discussion is about, that I contend science is an open system, everything can and should be doubted.So it can be doubted what empirical is and you can use another version of what emperrical is and thus get a different version of science?
None.What is a moral absolute in your opinion?
Really, can you tell me when a scientific community last stoned an apostate to death.
I was using an example of one of the most intelligent religious persons as a good example of the religious, if you want to discuss some of the less enlightened we can do so.
Lets look at how science has offered excellent evidence that homosexuality is not a choice, yet still it is denied for no better reason than scriptures say so.
If you can show me a religion that does not depend on faith I will certainly look at it.
Which is exactly why I used the example of WLC rather than go to the lowest common denominator.We could do that. Or we could look at the historic willingness of the scientific community, to serve the weapons industry; if scoring cheap points to claim the moral high ground is all we are concerned with.
But that would be foolish, and not conducive to a civilised exchange of views between people of different outlooks.
Have you forgotten what our discussion is about, that I contend science is an open system, everything can and should be doubted.
Faith is what is hoped for but not seen. I think that is quite a good definition. We can debate what is or is not seen, I do not mean in the literal sense.What is faith? Is there only one kind of faith and do faith depend on what in your opinion of what faith is?
Which is exactly why I used the example of WLC rather than go to the lowest common denominator.
Hoe many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe in absolutes. I am only arguing that science is an open system.Thus science can't be based on empirical evidence as you understand it, because it is possible to use a different version. Or is it an aboulute, that science is based on your understand of empirical evidence and it has to be accepted on faith?
Subjective opinion.What is your scientific empirical evidence for your choice or it is your subjective opinion?
None.
Hoe many times do I have to tell you that I do not believe in absolutes. I am only arguing that science is an open system.
That there are no moral absolutes.What does that mean?
Subjective opinion.
If you're someone who thinks we should treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, then outside of the debate forums here, it doesn't matter to me. Although I continue to dislike the idea of teaching fundamentalism to children.If John Doe believes in a god and you don't, why does what's he believes in matter so much to you?
I never get that far. I fall at the threshold question, what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word 'God'? No one knows, or if they do. they're not telling. Instead God is / gods are made up of imaginary qualities like omnipotence and perfection and so on, and there's no objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not. For instance, if God is real (not imaginary, found in nature), what species is [he]?Evidence for a god can neither show a god does or doesn't exist.
I think the fact that reasoned enquiry, including science, has an objective definition of 'truth' gives it a huge advantage over religions, which have no such test.So my question is what makes anyone think their belief is stronger than the belief of others?
If you're someone who thinks we should treat others with decency, respect and inclusion, then outside of the debate forums here, it doesn't matter to me. Although I continue to dislike the idea of teaching fundamentalism to children.
I never get that far. I fall at the threshold question, what real entity is intended to be denoted by the word 'God'? No one knows, or if they do. they're not telling. Instead God is / gods are made up imaginary qualities like omnipotence and perfection and so on, and there's no objective test that will tell us whether any real candidate is God or not. For instance, if God is real (not imaginary, found in nature), what species is [he]?
I think the fact that reasoned enquiry, including science, has an objective definition of 'truth' gives it a huge advantage over religions, which have no such test.
But as far as your question is concerned, I have no way of determining whether some believer believes in God more strongly than I believe in the skeptical and methodical approach of reasoned enquiry.
mikkel, ol' buddy! Trust you're well and cheerful?Just as with God, that applies to objective reality in the strong sense. Any strong positive metaphysical claim so far has not been based on knowledge.
Live with it, if you want to prove things beyond doubt your on a hiding to nothing. Never ceases to amaze me how much people are always after certitudes, maybe that is why they choose religion.So I have another subjective opinion about what science is? Now what?