I would add, however, that the scientific method can only discover material truth. It is incapable of discovering moral truth or metaphysical truth.
-
-
-
We have to work out moral values ourselves. Metaphysical truth may be meaningless.
-
Also, unless you are willing to embrace complete moral reletavism, you must accept that there are some universal moral truths.
-
No, I don't. I have access to only a tiny part of the universe. There is almost certainly an optimal morality for human thriving and wellbeing based on consistent needs we have. No reason to think this holds up outside us. Our evolved to very specific environmental pressures.
-
How do you decide that your idea of thriving and well-being is the correct one?
-
Evidence of what helps humans survive. Honestly, I have no interest in having this conversation for the billionth time. You can either search & read previous conversations or just accept I go largely with Sam Harris' argument on this.
-
Ill just point out that there's more to thriving & wellbeing than mere survival and leave it at that. We can agree to disagree if you're not up for this discussion.
-
Thriving. We'll be arguing about the best way to do that forever but it is basically rooted in basic common human needs. After that, for liberal humanists, there is freedom to do one's own thing as long as it harms no-one else.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
In religion, understanding of truth must be open to correction, even as some things are accepted by faith. Unless one is convinced of ones own power of understanding, which is pride.
-
But the truth claims of the faith are not. There is no chance that Christians are going to correct their core beliefs. They'll just correct other members who they think diverge from the correct meaning.
-
Which core beliefs did you have in mind?
-
They're not looking for disconfirming evidence that God exists, that he had a son etc. Might squabble over interpretation of minutiae. But i am not interested in arguing about existence of God. I did that for too long. So over it. Boring and unproductive.
-
God is unfalsifiable and thus inherently unscientific. There is no percentage in arguing about God's existence. There is therefore no "correcting" to be done.
-
That's how I feel, yes. Until there is evidence and some way to make him or any other mythic intangible thing falsifiable, there is no reason to consider it a serious proposition. It can't be claimed to exist. It's boring to argue about.
-
Sorry for the delayed reply. I've been in Twitter's bad books. Uh, something can be a serious proposition without being scientific.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
I am a Christian, but I don't see myself as having all the answers, and am open to correction ...science is not always humble...
-
Science is a method and the most self-doubtful one we have. It works on falsification and replication and rewards people for disproving others. Even then, knowledge is always provisional. Scientists might not always be humble tho.
-
Jacques Ellul wrote that reality is often confused with truth. I think that science seeks to understand (material?) reality. Not sure if truth, (goodness, beauty, human condition) is of the same order.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'd say that your view on Religion is one that considers the near worst of the religious and your view on science is one that might consider only the ideal not the reality, eso conscerning entrenched theories.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.