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
See more
See less

Relationship between Philosophy and Theology

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    No philosopher would start at revelation.
    But they would start with an unproveable assumption - and do.
    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


    • #17
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      So 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?
      The 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.

      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


      • #18
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        But they would start with an unproveable (sp?) assumption - and do.
        Philosophy would not start with the assumption of anything not provable, because different philosophical arguments start with the assumptions of a particular philosophical view, and fortunately not an assumption of Theism for all off philosophy, except those specifically arguing for the Theistic belief.
        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


        • #19
          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          The 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.
          I 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.
          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


          • #20
            Originally posted by seer View Post
            I 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.
            No seer, the spiritual law in the Baha'i Faith is not in conflict with science. Science does not determine what is morally correct. The determination of what is moral and ethical are philosophical and theological issues. There are many immoral and unethical behavior that would be considered 'natural,' but are immoral and unethical.

            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


            • #21
              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


              • #22
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                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.
                You asked in this thread if some took theology over science - well that is exactly what you do with homosexuality.
                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


                • #23
                  Originally posted by seer View Post
                  You asked in this thread if some took theology over science - well that is exactly what you do with homosexuality.
                  False seer, because science does not make the determination of whether homosexual acts are moral or not.

                  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


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                    False seer, because science does not make the determination of whether homosexual acts are moral or not.
                    So 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? 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 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


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by seer View Post
                      So 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?
                      Yes, 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.

                      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.
                      Absolutely no. This is not the nature of our disagreement. The disagreement was whether science and NMN can potentially describe morals and ethics have natural origins. This has nothing to do with whether science can determine what is moral and ethical in any one of the diverse societies in history, nor today. The sciences particularly the basic sciences is descriptive of the nature of our existence, and not judgmental as to what is moral or immoral.
                      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


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        You asked in this thread if some took theology over science - well that is exactly what you do with homosexuality.
                        Honestly, 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

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Honestly, 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 basically selective and false. The bottom line is that in the Baha'i writings it is clear that the interpretation of scripture in terms of the nature of our physical existence, and that includes the Baha'i writings MUST be understood and interpreted in the light of the evolving nature of our scientific knowledge. That has been clarified in numerous treads for many years.

                          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


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            Yes, 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.
                            Wait, 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:

                            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.
                            Then you said:

                            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.
                            So you balked with double talk. Why didn't you just agree with me that science does not tell us what is moral/immoral?
                            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


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But they would start with an unproveable assumption - and do.
                              If we want to employ reason, we want axioms that are as simple as possible. Axioms are unavoidable but they are generally something indisputable.
                              “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


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Wait, 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?
                                No. NMN supports that morality and ethics is a brute natural fact of non-theistic origins, and NOT whether science determines what is moral and ethical. The existence of objective moral values and duties in different diverse societies and cultures over time may vary and be conflicting, but yes they are objective moral values and duties for that society and culture of that time and place.

                                Please note from the first post concerning NMN:

                                Originally posted by mattdamore
                                NMN: 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.
                                This addresses the brute fact of the NMN basis for morality and ethics, and not whether specific morals and ethics of different societies and cultures are right or wrong. This is clearly the reality of societies and cultures over time. Chattel slavery was moral and ethical for the Hebrews of the OT, and it is not moral and ethical today.
                                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
                                160 responses
                                507 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X