I am reminded of @RichardDawkins point in The God Delusion about scientists who say "here we hand it over to the theologian" when confronted with values/morals/meaning questions. Why the theologian? Why not the plumber? Scientists can address ultimate questions too.
If a deep understanding of reality isn't relevant to ethical issues, what is?
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
We've made some progress in the last couple of hundreds years, IMHO.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Then what can we derive an ought from? Scripture? From which religion? Philosophy? From which scribbler?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I am starting to laugh at scientists & atheists that make fun of Christians. We have Tim Cooke on record saying: "computers/technology can save the world, so our duty is to be gods that create our own morals". If you worship yourself as gods, then how can you criticize yourself?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Certainly crucial for carrying out a value system, yes, but they still don't really inform on what those values should be. The is-ought problem is nowhere near solved.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
@ 14 a mentor said to me “Every conversation devolves into ‘What’s in it for me?’” My brain exploded with “remember this!” signals. “Reality” is meaningless to most people; they have manifold ways shunt it. However evolutionary buttons translated to popular terms are inescapable.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Exactly!
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.