We should not accept justifications for moral positions that depend upon the truth of unevidenced claims (religious or otherwise). @sjzara
-
-
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp To use a British idiom, when it comes to unevidenced claims, religion 'has previous'.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sjzara
@sjzara its divine command justifications). So, for example: http://bit.ly/KKfg0V1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp Ah yes. I see your point. It's a good one.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara But surely those ‘babies’ are borne from simple humanitarianism? Nothing to do with religion as such?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisadwebb
@chrisadwebb@sjzara Is that true historically & culturally?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara I would suggest so - do you have something specific in mind?4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @chrisadwebb
@chrisadwebb@sjzara ...origins are the only game in town. I'd say it is indisputable that religion has played a role in many of the great1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @PhilosophyExp
@PhilosophyExp@sjzara I suppose my question would be “played a role….that would not have been arrived at anyway”?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@chrisadwebb @sjzara As I say, it's a baby & bathwater thing. Get rid of the bathwater. Demystify the baby. But remember, there is a baby.
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.