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

  • #31
    Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
    Axioms are unavoidable but they are generally something indisputable.
    Nonsense, demonstrate (logically or empirically) that what goes on in your mind corresponds to reality. Descartes proved that that very foundational assumption is without question disputable.
    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


    • #32
      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
      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.
      First, I'm glad you finally agree that science tells us nothing about what is moral or not - you were confusing me. Second, Moral Realism is saying more than that - that moral truths exist independently of humankind or cultures. And no one here, certainly not you, have been able to demonstrate how that is possible. It is a mere assertion without evidence.

      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 righht or wrong.
      Right that is an assertion without evidence. Did you follow the questions I asked Matt - who in the end rejected NMN?
      Last edited by seer; 03-07-2017, 09:13 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


      • #33
        Originally posted by seer View Post
        First, I'm glad you finally agree that science tells us nothing about what is moral or not - you were confusing me. Second, Moral Realism is saying more than that - that moral truths exist independently of humankind or cultures. And no one here, certainly not you, have been able to demonstrate how that is possible. It is a mere assertion without evidence.
        No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

        I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:21 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


        • #34
          Originally posted by seer View Post
          Right that is an assertion without evidence. Did you follow the questions I asked Matt - who in the end rejected NMN?
          I am not concerned and indifferent as to what Matt says, nor his opinion. I am simply arguing what NMN claims and the nature of science concerning the natural origins of morals and ethics.

          No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

          I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
            No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.
            No Shuny, we agree that science says nothing about what is moral or not.

            I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
            No Shuny, moral realism says that moral truth exist independently of cultures, that they are objective.

            Moral Realism (or Moral Objectivism) is the meta-ethical view (see the section on Ethics) that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. http://www.philosophybasics.com/bran...l_realism.html
            So again Shuny, demonstrate how these moral truths exist independently of our perception, beliefs, feelings, attitudes. Is you can not show how they exist independently you are just making an assertion with no evidence.
            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


            • #36
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              No Shuny, we agree that science says nothing about what is moral or not.
              That was not the topic of disagreement.

              No Shuny, moral realism says that moral truth exist independently of cultures, that they are objective.
              True, nut being objective does not claim that particular morals and ethics are right or wrong, nor that one moral system is superior nor right over another. As usual you are over stateing and misrepresenting the claims of NMN.

              So again Shuny, demonstrate how these moral truths exist independently of our perception, beliefs, feelings, attitudes. Is you can not show how they exist independently you are just making an assertion with no evidence.
              No. This does not represent the argument nor our disagreement.

              No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

              I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
              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


              • #37
                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                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.
                Nah. It isn't false, and you clarified nothing. As anyone can tell by reading the threads, it's just you running around in circles without a clue about your professed faith.

                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.
                That's false. The Baha'i Faith teaches that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice are all infallible.

                Even if we limit infallibility to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah points out that "We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book." Baha'u'llah makes clear in other writings that the first sign refers to a common universal language shared by all people, and the second sign refers to teaching people pseudo-science silliness on alchemy and transmutation,

                Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh Pages 197-198, as translated from the original Farsi by Masoud Basiti, Zahra Moradi in Twelve Principles: A Comprehensive Investigation on the Baha’i Teachings


                From amongst the doubts that the polytheists have induced in this land is [the question] that how is it possible for gold to transmute into copper? Say, "Yes [it is possible], by my Lord, but we have the knowledge and teach it to whoever we want through a knowledge from our side. Whoever has doubts should ask his Lord to show him so that he becomes one of those who has certitude." The [fact] that copper can attain the state of gold is a clear reason that gold can retain its original state (meaning copper), [they would understand] this if they had any sense. All metals can attain the weight (wazn), face (surat), and substance (maddih) of each other, but we have this knowledge in a hidden book. We say that the knowledge of the deniers has not reached a state for them to understand that gold transmutes into gold and they have not understood yet that it can turn into earth. This state is visible for all those who have any sense, that they all originated from earth and to earth they will return. Earths importance and price is cheaper than copper for [earth] is from the masses (ajsam) and copper is from the bodies (ajsad). This is very obvious and evident and if the people had been mature and worthy we would have definitely uttered some of the secret Divine Sciences.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • #38
                  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?
                  Real science can show that homosexuality is not healthy.
                  . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                  . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                  Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                    Nah. It isn't false, and you clarified nothing. As anyone can tell by reading the threads, it's just you running around in circles without a clue about your professed faith.



                    That's false. The Baha'i Faith teaches that the Bab, Baha'u'llah, Abdu'l Baha, Shoghi Effendi, and the Universal House of Justice are all infallible.

                    Even if we limit infallibility to the Kitáb-i-Aqdas, Baha'u'llah points out that "We have appointed two signs for the coming of age of the human race: the first, which is the most firm foundation, We have set down in other of Our Tablets, while the second hath been revealed in this wondrous Book." Baha'u'llah makes clear in other writings that the first sign refers to a common universal language shared by all people, and the second sign refers to teaching people pseudo-science silliness on alchemy and transmutation,

                    Source: Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh Pages 197-198, as translated from the original Farsi by Masoud Basiti, Zahra Moradi in Twelve Principles: A Comprehensive Investigation on the Baha’i Teachings


                    From amongst the doubts that the polytheists have induced in this land is [the question] that how is it possible for gold to transmute into copper? Say, "Yes [it is possible], by my Lord, but we have the knowledge and teach it to whoever we want through a knowledge from our side. Whoever has doubts should ask his Lord to show him so that he becomes one of those who has certitude." The [fact] that copper can attain the state of gold is a clear reason that gold can retain its original state (meaning copper), [they would understand] this if they had any sense. All metals can attain the weight (wazn), face (surat), and substance (maddih) of each other, but we have this knowledge in a hidden book. We say that the knowledge of the deniers has not reached a state for them to understand that gold transmutes into gold and they have not understood yet that it can turn into earth. This state is visible for all those who have any sense, that they all originated from earth and to earth they will return. Earths importance and price is cheaper than copper for [earth] is from the masses (ajsam) and copper is from the bodies (ajsad). This is very obvious and evident and if the people had been mature and worthy we would have definitely uttered some of the secret Divine Sciences.

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Bad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith and the understanding of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith. I have responded to this many times before in detail.

                    Source: https://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha


                    We are aware of many of the statements about Abdu'l-Bahá, which are usually quoted from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh. We are also aware of Bahá'u'lláh's statement concerning the degrees of infallibility and the Most Great Infallibility of the Manifestations of God. While the former statements certainly strongly imply the infallibility of Abdu'l-Bahá and leave no possible excuse for Bahá'ís to not follow and obey Him, we have been unable to discover, either in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh or in the writings and authenticated statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, any explicit statement concerning Abdu'l-Bahá's infallibility.
                    (2) What is the authority of the writings and authenticated utterances of Abdu'l-Bahá concerning subjects not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, or to religion in General?

                    The Guardian states that his (the Guardian's) infallibility applies only to statements related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings. He says that he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. Do these statements also apply to Abdu'l-Bahá?
                    (3) Can certain statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, be taken as true only relative to the time and place in which they were made, or are they a more universal expression of truth?

                    In particular we are interested in some of Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning scientific subjects. Can these statements be understood in the context of the early twentieth century audience to whom they were made (and hence be taken as possibly a lesser expression of the truth than is found in present day science), or are they more complete statements of truth which future science will discover and corroborate?

                    For example, Abdu'l-Bahá makes several statements concerning the ether, a hypothetical medium through which light waves propagate. To an early twentieth century audience with some scientific knowledge, these statements would have been instantly comprehensible and would have powerfully reinforced the points which Abdu'l-Bahá wished to make. Present-day scientific theories, however, do not use the concept of the ether and indeed it is believed on good evidence that an ether of the form used in the nineteenth century theories does not exist. Are we then to take Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning the ether to be statements of truth more complete than those of present-day science, and perhaps attempt to construct a "Bahá'í theory of the ether", or can these statements be interpreted in the context of the time in which they were made?

                    © Copyright Original Source

                    Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:50 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


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Bad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith and the understanding of infallibility in the Baha'i Faith. I have responded to this many times before in detail.
                      Oh you've responded, but not with anything meaningful. And no, it isn't a bad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith, but then, you've demonstrated thoroughly on these forums that you don't know much about what the Baha'i Faith actually teaches.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                        No philosopher would start at revelation. There is no connection between philosophy and theology.
                        Really? So philosophy does not have thoughts about God (theology)? Even the concept of "atheism" that there is no God or gods touches on theology.
                        . . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV

                        . . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV

                        Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          Oh you've responded, but not with anything meaningful. And no, it isn't a bad and selective misrepresentation of the Baha'i Faith, but then, you've demonstrated thoroughly on these forums that you don't know much about what the Baha'i Faith actually teaches.
                          I edited the post after you responded with a meaningful reference.

                          Source: https://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha



                          We are aware of many of the statements about Abdu'l-Bahá, which are usually quoted from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh. We are also aware of Bahá'u'lláh's statement concerning the degrees of infallibility and the Most Great Infallibility of the Manifestations of God. While the former statements certainly strongly imply the infallibility of Abdu'l-Bahá and leave no possible excuse for Bahá'ís to not follow and obey Him, we have been unable to discover, either in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh or in the writings and authenticated statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, any explicit statement concerning Abdu'l-Bahá's infallibility.
                          (2) What is the authority of the writings and authenticated utterances of Abdu'l-Bahá concerning subjects not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, or to religion in General?

                          The Guardian states that his (the Guardian's) infallibility applies only to statements related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings. He says that he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. Do these statements also apply to Abdu'l-Bahá?
                          (3) Can certain statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, be taken as true only relative to the time and place in which they were made, or are they a more universal expression of truth?

                          In particular we are interested in some of Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning scientific subjects. Can these statements be understood in the context of the early twentieth century audience to whom they were made (and hence be taken as possibly a lesser expression of the truth than is found in present day science), or are they more complete statements of truth which future science will discover and corroborate?

                          For example, Abdu'l-Bahá makes several statements concerning the ether, a hypothetical medium through which light waves propagate. To an early twentieth century audience with some scientific knowledge, these statements would have been instantly comprehensible and would have powerfully reinforced the points which Abdu'l-Bahá wished to make. Present-day scientific theories, however, do not use the concept of the ether and indeed it is believed on good evidence that an ether of the form used in the nineteenth century theories does not exist. Are we then to take Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning the ether to be statements of truth more complete than those of present-day science, and perhaps attempt to construct a "Bahá'í theory of the ether", or can these statements be interpreted in the context of the time in which they were made?

                          © Copyright Original Source

                          Last edited by shunyadragon; 03-07-2017, 09:56 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


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by 37818 View Post
                            Real science can show that homosexuality is not healthy.
                            It is possible, but nonetheless what is healthy or not healthy does not translate to as to what is moral nor immoral.
                            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


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                              Source: https://bahai-library.com/uhj_infallibility_abdulbaha


                              We are aware of many of the statements about Abdu'l-Bahá, which are usually quoted from the writings of Bahá'u'lláh. We are also aware of Bahá'u'lláh's statement concerning the degrees of infallibility and the Most Great Infallibility of the Manifestations of God. While the former statements certainly strongly imply the infallibility of Abdu'l-Bahá and leave no possible excuse for Bahá'ís to not follow and obey Him, we have been unable to discover, either in the writings of Bahá'u'lláh or in the writings and authenticated statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, any explicit statement concerning Abdu'l-Bahá's infallibility.
                              (2) What is the authority of the writings and authenticated utterances of Abdu'l-Bahá concerning subjects not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, or to religion in General?

                              The Guardian states that his (the Guardian's) infallibility applies only to statements related strictly to the Cause and interpretation of the teachings. He says that he is not an infallible authority on other subjects, such as economics, science, etc. Do these statements also apply to Abdu'l-Bahá?
                              (3) Can certain statements of Abdu'l-Bahá, not directly related to the Bahá'í Faith, be taken as true only relative to the time and place in which they were made, or are they a more universal expression of truth?

                              In particular we are interested in some of Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning scientific subjects. Can these statements be understood in the context of the early twentieth century audience to whom they were made (and hence be taken as possibly a lesser expression of the truth than is found in present day science), or are they more complete statements of truth which future science will discover and corroborate?

                              For example, Abdu'l-Bahá makes several statements concerning the ether, a hypothetical medium through which light waves propagate. To an early twentieth century audience with some scientific knowledge, these statements would have been instantly comprehensible and would have powerfully reinforced the points which Abdu'l-Bahá wished to make. Present-day scientific theories, however, do not use the concept of the ether and indeed it is believed on good evidence that an ether of the form used in the nineteenth century theories does not exist. Are we then to take Abdu'l-Bahá's statements concerning the ether to be statements of truth more complete than those of present-day science, and perhaps attempt to construct a "Bahá'í theory of the ether", or can these statements be interpreted in the context of the time in which they were made?

                              © Copyright Original Source

                              The edit you just made was from a question posed to the Universal House of Justice on the subject, not their answer. It even tells you that at the top of the page "Question from two Bahá'ís to the Universal House of Justice". The answer from the Universal House of Justice was,

                              There is nothing in the Writings that would lead us to the conclusion that what Shoghi Effendi says about himself concerning statements on subjects not directly related to the Faith also applies to 'Abdu'l-Bahá. Instead we have assertions which indicate that 'Abdu'l-Bahá's position in the Faith is one for which we find "no parallel" in past Dispensations. For example, Bahá'u'lláh, in addition to His reference to the Centre of His Covenant as the "Mystery of God", states that 'Abdu'l-Bahá should be regarded as God's "exalted Handiwork" and "a Word which God hath adorned with the ornament of His Own Self, and made it sovereign over the earth and all that there is therein..." And from Shoghi Effendi we have the incontrovertible statement that the Guardian of the Faith while "overshadowed" by the "protection'' of Bahá'u'lláh and of the Bab, "remains essentially human", whereas in respect of 'Abdu'l-Bahá Shoghi Effendi categorically states that "in the person of 'Abdu'l-Bahá the incompatible characteristics of a human nature and superhuman knowledge and perfection have been blended and are completely harmonized.


                              Basically the very opposite of what you were hoping to find in your quickly googled source. Man your reading comprehension is bad.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                That was not the topic of disagreement.
                                When I said this:

                                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.
                                Why did you say this:

                                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.
                                Why didn't you just agree with me in that thread?



                                No seer, we definitely do not agree, unless, of course, you now agree that morals and ethics can possibly have natural non-theist origins, as described in NMN and Utilitarian Teleology.

                                I clearly demonstrated from the reference that Moral Realism is not saying what you said it says. My argument has never changed and the references are clear and specific. NMN argues that morality and ethics have a natural basis, and not whether science determines whether the morals and ethics of any one culture, society, religion or belief system is the true correct system of morals and ethics.
                                Shuny, I gave you the definition of Moral Realism, that moral truths exist objectively and independently of us. It was not my definition. You do not understand what NMN is claiming, nor can you defend it. And I'm not arguing against the idea that morality could come about through the evolutionary process, but that is mere biology - I'm arguing against the idea that moral truths are objective and can exist independently of us.
                                Last edited by seer; 03-07-2017, 10:06 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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 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