Relationship between Philosophy and Theology

[seer]

There is nothing in the Utilitarian science of evolution that presupposes the survival of species. The only thing that is predisposed is that the Laws of Nature are objectively uniform and consistent throughout our universe at least. The objective verifiable evidence and the obvious witness of the history of life the goal and purpose is the evolution is the survival of life through adaptation to changing environments. Species evolve and change to different species, and most species go extinct and are replaced by other species, and life survives, at least until our sun cooks everything to crisp, and explodes.

Shuny, first there is no such thing as "Utilitarian science of evolution" that is a term you just made up. Science does not claim that Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, to the exclusions of all others. And if species can go extinct, and if human beings can go extinct,then there is no teleology (plan or goal) even for our survival. So then, what is the teleology for humankind?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, first there is no such thing as "Utilitarian science of evolution" that is a term you just made up. Science does not claim that Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, to the exclusions of all others. And if species can go extinct, and if human beings can go extinct,then there is no teleology (plan or goal) even for our survival. So then, what is the teleology for humankind?

Pffffffit!

[seer]

Pffffffit!

Yep, that is what your argument is reduced to...

[shunyadragon]

Yep, that is what your argument is reduced to...

Get some reasonable knowledge and attitude toward science and than maybe we can have a discussion.

[seer]

Get some reasonable knowledge and attitude toward science and than maybe we can have a discussion.

Oh stop Shuny, time and time again you have not been able to answer two simple questions: What is the actual teleology for humankind, and where does science claim that Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, to the exclusions of all others? All your hand waving does not change the fact that your could not answer these questions.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, first there is no such thing as "Utilitarian science of evolution" that is a term you just made up. Science does not claim that Utilitarianism is the correct ethical theory, to the exclusions of all others. And if species can go extinct, and if human beings can go extinct,then there is no teleology (plan or goal) even for our survival. So then, what is the teleology for humankind?

How does utilitarian concepts relate to science? See the following. Utilitarian Teleology and NMN are non-theist philosophies for the origin of morals and ethics. There non-theist basis for not only morals and ethics, but the nature of our physical existence could not develop with a more utilitarian approach to philosophy Methodological Naturalism of science, which began with the industrial revolution.

Source: https://www.saylor.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HIST201-8.1-TheScientificRevolution-FINAL1.pdf

The developments of the Scientific Revolution were spurred on in part by utilitarian concerns, including the need for improvements in navigation and locomotion. Many of the major thinkers of the Scientific Revolution justified their work on the basis of its actual or potential usefulness.

© Copyright Original Source

Likewise Theistic Teleology applies to all of our physical existence in purpose, goal and plan as having a Divine origin.

[seer]

How does utilitarian concepts relate to science? See the following. Utilitarian Teleology and NMN are non-theist philosophies for the origin of morals and ethics. There non-theist basis for not only morals and ethics, but the nature of our physical existence could not develop with a more utilitarian approach to philosophy Methodological Naturalism of science, which began with the industrial revolution.

Shuny you are doing it again! You did a Google search and linked something that is not relevant. I read your link, Utilitarianism and Moral Realism are ethical theories, your link had nothing to do with ethics, nor did it touch on the idea that there is a Teleology for humankind!

As a matter of fact from your link:

The new natural philosophy took on many of the characteristics that we recognize as features of modern science, including an emphasis on the experimental method, the expression of natural phenomena in mathematical terms, a mechanistic approach aimed at reducing complex phenomena to their constituent parts, and the attempt to avoid both a priori and teleological assumptions about the natural world. The natural philosophers of the period generally attempted to approach nature without preconceived ideas drawn from either Aristotelian metaphysics or medieval theology.

One of the points in this "Scientific Revolution" was to dismiss teleological assumptions.

[Adrift]

Shuny you are doing it again! You did a Google search and linked something that is not relevant. I read your link, Utilitarianism and Moral Realism are ethical theories, your link had nothing to do with ethics, nor did it touch on the idea that there is a Teleology for humankind!

As a matter of fact from your link:



One of the points in this "Scientific Revolution" was to dismiss teleological assumptions.

Again, I simply cannot understand why he doesn't just absolutely die of embarrassment every single time he posts a link that refutes his own goofy arguments. I cringe every time he posts.

[seer]

Again, I simply cannot understand why he doesn't just absolutely die of embarrassment every single time he posts a link that refutes his own goofy arguments. I cringe every time he posts.

Yes, and I don't answer for his sake but for the lurkers, and I will add this for them.

So, as we have pointed out, a goal-oriented theory like utilitarianism could not be validated as a science because natural processes lack intentions.

http://www.academia.edu/4802110/Does...itarian_Ethics

[shunyadragon]

One of the points in this "Scientific Revolution" was to dismiss teleological assumptions.

Actually this is true the development of Methodological Naturalism did in fact reject the assumptions of Theist Teleology, which previously western science was based on Theist Teleological assumptions. Likewise Utilitarian Teleology and NMN developed to explain morals and ethics as having non-Theist explanations of origins, and rejected Theist Teleological assumptions.

It is obvious that if you propose a non-Theist explanation for anything in our physical existence, you will, of course, reject Theist Teleological explanations,

[seer]

Actually this is true the development of Methodological Naturalism did in fact reject the assumptions of Theist Teleology, which previously western science was based on Theist Teleological assumptions. Likewise Utilitarian Teleology and NMN developed to explain morals and ethics as having non-Theist explanations of origins, and rejected Theist Teleological assumptions.

Shuny, your link did not single out Theist Teleology, but there is no Teleology in nature:

Again:

So, as we have pointed out, a goal-oriented theory like utilitarianism could not be validated as a science because natural processes lack intentions.

http://www.academia.edu/4802110/Does...itarian_Ethics

[shunyadragon]

Yes, and I don't answer for his sake but for the lurkers, and I will add this for them.

Source: http://www.academia.edu/4802110/Does...itarian_Ethics

So, as we have pointed out, a goal-oriented theory like utilitarianism could not be validated as a science because natural processes lack intentions.

© Copyright Original Source

Disagree, with the above in that a goal oriented theory like utilitarianism need not include Theist intentions to provide an adequate non-Theist explanation for the origins of our morals and ethics. Just as Methodological Naturalism does not need to address a Theist intent to have an adequate explanation for the origins and nature of our physical existence.

The author is a philosopher with a religious agenda, and not a qualified scientist, and he forces Theological purpose as necessary for science to have explanitory power.

Source: http://www.academia.edu/4802110/Does...itarian_Ethics

For any ethical system to be complete, it first has to answer two important questions:

© Copyright Original Source

Also, note that this reference does refer to a utilitarian evolutionary theory.



Actually this is true the development of Methodological Naturalism did in fact reject the assumptions of Theist Teleology, which previously western science was based on Theist Teleological assumptions. Likewise Utilitarian Teleology and NMN developed to explain morals and ethics as having non-Theist explanations of origins, and rejected Theist Teleological assumptions.

It is obvious that if you propose a non-Theist explanation for anything in our physical existence, you will, of course, reject Theist Teleological explanations,

[seer]

It is obvious that if you propose a non-Theist explanation for anything in our physical existence, you will, of course, reject Theist Teleological explanations,

Did you actually read your own link?

The conflict model (science versus religion) is belied by the historical evidence,
which reveals more complex interactions. Natural philosophers often saw scientific
controversies as debates between factions within natural philosophy or theology, rather
than in terms of an opposition between science and religion as such. Natural
philosophers presented their work as the search for order in a universe regulated by an
intelligent Creator. The premise of an ordered universe itself was based on a
presupposition provided by a God-ordained cosmology. Despite attempts to rid their
inquiries of preconceptions, the particular views of the universe held by the natural
philosophers of the period were nevertheless sometimes informed by their theological
presuppositions..

[shunyadragon]

Did you actually read your own link?

Yes, nothing is changed! Your citation does indeed offer a Theist Teleological explanation, but that does not preclude the possibility of a non-Theist explanation. All ready covered this in the previous posts.

[seer]

Disagree, with the above in that a goal oriented theory like utilitarianism need not include Theist intentions to provide an adequate non-Theist explanation for the origins of our morals and ethics. Just as Methodological Naturalism does not need to address a Theist intent to have an adequate explanation for the origins and nature of our physical existence.

OK, then please tell me - what is the goal for humanity? If there are no theistic intentions or goal what is the non-theistic goal for humanity?

The author is a philosopher with a religious agenda, and not a qualified scientist, and he forces Theological purpose as necessary for science to have explanitory power.

Shuny the man is an Atheist! He is the co-founder of the Peruvian Secular and Humanistic Society...