We should not accept justifications for moral positions that depend upon the truth of unevidenced claims (religious or otherwise). @sjzara
-
@PhilosophyExp To use a British idiom, when it comes to unevidenced claims, religion 'has previous'.
@sjzara its divine command justifications). So, for example: http://bit.ly/KKfg0V
-
-
@PhilosophyExp Ah yes. I see your point. It's a good one. -
@sjzara It's a baby and bathwater thing. There's a fuck of a lot of dirty bathwater floating around, but maybe a baby worth remembering. -
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara But surely those ‘babies’ are borne from simple humanitarianism? Nothing to do with religion as such? -
@chrisadwebb@sjzara Is that true historically & culturally? -
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara I would suggest so - do you have something specific in mind? -
@chrisadwebb@sjzara I have lots of things in mind - e.g., "Let him who is without sin..." - but it's a genetic fallacy to suppose that...
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.