Originally posted by firstfloor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Relationship between Philosophy and Theology
Collapse
X
-
Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo if science said that homosexuality was perfectly natural and healthy and your God said that it was immoral and should be rejected/avoided - which one would be true?
What is healthy (?) interesting question of medical science not determined by theological assertions.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-06-2017, 10:11 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut they would start with an unproveable (sp?) assumption - and do.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-06-2017, 10:23 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe determination of normal is a question of the moral and ethical values of the society belief, and not the role of the Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI was speaking of morally healthy or morally correct. The fact is Shuny, your religious beliefs concerning homosexuality (that it is immoral and needs to be avoided) is counter to the scientific sociology of the day. So here you would choose Theology over Science.
For example; Science can research and study the moral of wrongful death in different cultures and the evolution and change in the moral over time, but science does not determine what is the moral standard of wrongful death. It is the morals of the culture reflected in the laws which make that determination.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 06:38 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Seer - The view of the Baha'i Faith is to provide the guidance for the application of science and technology in human society, and not the factual nature of science in the physical existence. This is the role of Methodological Naturalism.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostSeer - The view of the Baha'i Faith is to provide the guidance for the application of science and technology in human society, and not the factual nature of science in the physical existence. This is the role of Methodological Naturalism.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou asked in this thread if some took theology over science - well that is exactly what you do with homosexuality.
If you believe that science does make moral judgements as to what is moral or ethical you need to explain how this is the case.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 07:52 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostFalse seer, because science does not make the determination of whether homosexual acts are moral or not.Last edited by seer; 03-07-2017, 07:59 AM.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostSo you don't believe that sociology and psychology are scientific? And weren't you arguing in the Moral Realism thread that science does in fact tell us what is immoral/moral?
Absolutely no, I never argued that science 'does in fact tell us what is immoral/moral.' I argued that science and NMN can potentially explain the natural origins of morals and ethics.
Remember I was the one saying that science does not tell us what is moral or not, then you claimed that I was rejecting science.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 08:33 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostYou asked in this thread if some took theology over science - well that is exactly what you do with homosexuality.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post146060
And OingoBoingo:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post70512
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostHonestly, when it comes down to theology over science in the Baha'i faith you don't even have to mention homosexuality. Abdu'l-Bahá rejected Darwinian evolution, and also accepted the concept of Ether/Aether. This has been discussed a number of times on the forum, but some of the better dealings with shunya on the subject come from posters Joseph:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post146060
And OingoBoingo:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ll=1#post70512
This view was documented and responded to in detail in the threads referenced.
The only unchanging law of God is the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, and not commentary on the nature of our physical existence in the other writings.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 08:54 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYes, these sciences are descriptive of the behavior and nature of the human condition. They do not make moral and ethical judgments. Psychology is an applied science in particular deals with emotional, mental and behavior problems, and the relationship with society, and not whether the behavior is moral nor immoral.
Absolutely no, I never argued that science 'does in fact tell us what is immoral/moral.' I argued that science and NMN can potentially explain the natural origins of morals and ethics.
And in the other thread I said:
Where does "science" say that murder is wrong, or stealing is wrong or immoral? You keep bringing in science, but where does science make these moral claims? I will be waiting for your answer.
The science of anthropology, sociology, and evolution shows that wrongful death codes of morals are necessary for the cooperation and adherence to a system of morals and ethics to maintain social order. In simpler forms these morals and ethics exist in higher social animals like primates.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostBut they would start with an unproveable assumption - and do.“I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
“And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
“not all there” - you know who you are
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWait, you are confusing me. Moral Realism is about deciding what is moral or not. And you saying that Science does not support or confirm NMN?
And in the other thread I said:
Then you said:
So you balked with double talk. Why didn't you just agree with me that science does not tell us what is moral/immoral?
Please note from the first post concerning NMN:
Originally posted by mattdamoreNMN: There are objective moral values and duties. The values supervene on intrinsically valuable non-normative properties, and the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties make or cause normative objective values to be. The intrinsically valuable non-normative properties also serve as reasons for action, which serve as the action-guiding principles grounding duties. The duties are objective because the reasons are objective; and the reasons are objective because the intrinsically valuable non-normative properties are objective.
NMN admits the existence of brute moral facts and grounds it in the primitive "making-relation" subsisting between the non-normative properties and the normative properties of the values upon which they supervene. The theist is wont to ask about the metaphysical grounding of the non-normative properties themselves. But the non-theist protests that this explanation-expectation is unnecessary because the brute fact of the "making-relation" is sufficient for the grounding. Any objection, they say, lodged against its being a brute fact could equally apply to God's nature/commands.Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:11 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment