So what is your point exactly? I guess you mean something like what you posted in another thread: When it's all boiled down, science relies on faith in materialistic presuppositions.
So what is your point exactly? I guess you mean something like what you posted in another thread: You have no basis, therefore, to question Christianity at all, except by experience and choice.
You have to claim there are different ways of gaining knowledge in a non-naturalistic way. Every miracle, vision, prophesy, the creation, the resurrection and whatever your faith relies on: You could still verify that they exist, just maybe not where they came from. But according to what we know at the moment and how tests of similar claims worked out it seems highly unlikely that they did really happen.
Lorkas June 12, at Anonymous August 30, at 4: Hats off to Joseph. I completely agree with the author of this website that belief in God can not provide us with an objective morality, as shown clearly by these examples, which more generally illustrates the Euthyphro dilemma g: However, I believe that the same challenge could be posed to any form of atheistic moral realism.
Over the past decades, numerous discoveries in neurology and evolutionary psychology have shown beyond any reasonable doubt that our moral intuitions ultimately stem from the shaping of our brain by evolution and that WITHOUT any such emotional intuition, no moral system can be built from reason alone.
This is well illustrated by the study of the brains of psychopaths: No moral system can be created without the appeal to at least one kind of intuitions, the brute facts of nature never lead to moral duties and obligations. Now, I want to state a Thesis statements on child soldiers of the Euthyphro dilemma which shows the impossibility of defining an objective atheistic morality: Let me now develop the first point: Given the huge dimension of the sample, it is more than likely that many such intelligent beings have evolved conceptions of morality which would appear completely disgusting to us.
When invading a city and killing or enslaving all its inhabitants, their brain generate a warm feeling of happiness, satisfaction. When however confronted with weakness among their own folk, they feel an overwhelming indignation, anger, rage which lead them to kill the individual guilty of failureand after having done that, their brain awards them with an intense feeling of pleasure.
Now imagine such beings arrive at our earth and conclude based on their evolutionary intuitions that it would be moral and perfectly good to enslave all human beings capable of working and to kill all others.
What would an human atheist and moral realist say to these lizards? Do they ought to behave in a way coherent with the moral intuitions they have and slaughter or enslave all humans? My contention is that it would be completely impossible to show to these creatures that killing innocent beings is wrong: Now, a defender of godless moral realism could agree with me it is fallacious to rely on evolution to define an objective morality in the same way it would be fallacious to rely on the commandments of a deity.
But he could then argue that there exists a moral standard independent of Evolution upon which moral realism would be based. The problem of this argument is the following: As I have said, no moral system can be grounded by mere logic or factual analysis alone, at some point moral intuitions due to Evolution are always going to come into play.
Take for example the possibility of torturing a baby just for fun: Neuroscience has proven that such reaction does not stem from a rational consideration of all facts but rather from instinctive gut feelings.
Afterwards, people try to rationalize their belief by backing them up with arguments and mistakenly think they feel this disgust because of their reasoning although it is the other way around.
Based on rigorous experiments in the field of neuroscience, Jonathan Haidt shows that in the case of moral reasoning, people always begin by getting a strong emotional reaction, and only seek a posteriori to justify this reaction.
For example, saying to a intelligent lizard they ought no to do that because the baby is cute, because he is innocent, because he has an entire life before him would completely beg the question for our intelligent alien, which would then ask: After one or two hours of circular reasoning, the honest human would be coerced to recognize it is so because these things sounds intuitively bad for him.
Concerning the objectivity of morality, I am neither a moral relativist nor a moral subjectivist but a proponent of an error theory: We, as human being, love infant life and desire baby to growth and become happy, therefore if we want our desires to be fulfilled, then we ought not to torture babies for the fun.
I really appreciate the critical thinking of my fellow atheists when applied to religion but I am really sad to remark they fail to apply it to their own cherished beliefs like the existence of an objective morality.
I reject all moral systems based on moral intuition. Greene and Haidt are doing very exciting work.Lifting the Veil An Investigative History of the United States Pathocracy.
Researched and Written by Timothy M. Silver “I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America.
Turnitin provides instructors with the tools to prevent plagiarism, engage students in the writing process, and provide personalized feedback. by Ron Fino. PROLOGUE. Even though I have taken every step to maintain accuracy, some errors and omissions may be found.
The applicable law that appears throughout this document is in many cases simplified and expressed as I perceive it. Welcome to the first of the new SHCY Commentary series, in which SHCY members provide written contributions on various academic topics pertaining to the history of childhood and youth.
Arawak men and women, naked, tawny, and full of wonder, emerged from their villages onto the island's beaches and swam out to get a closer look at the strange big boat.
to the ministry of helps: its scriptural and functional position in the local church. william nathan bailey.