Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yeah, but I wouldn't say that's the only variable. Sometimes people just honestly disagree on a text's meaning. Other differences in denominations have to do with values (like helping the poor through giving money or helping them through sweating it out).
Yep, he is a piece of work, all in the name of God.
Sam Harris absolutely handed him his rear end and Bart Ehrman did well against him as well. Craig is the king of; misrepresenting the other person's position, so they have to burn up debate time correcting the lies that Craig told.
Yeah, but I wouldn't say that's the only variable. Sometimes people just honestly disagree on a text's meaning. Other differences in denominations have to do with values (like helping the poor through giving money or helping them through sweating it out).
Agreed. But that´s - again - a completely different point.Actually, I would say that appealing to a deity that seems to support exactly how you're living your life is the perfect example of creating god in your image.
Imagine two circles. Truth is much larger and contains fact, which stands for truth that is empirically verifiable. This is so because there are more things that are true that aren't empirically verifiable, and can't even be empirically verified.
Well, if it's too broad it doesn't really become science, just separate philosophical principles that can stand on their own. Science has to be all the above added together.
But you inform yourself other than through science by using reasoning, experience without induction, experience without replication, intuition, etc.
Isn´t that exactly when it becomes convenient to appeal to a deity that allegedly sides with you: if you want to establish a "morality" that otherwise nobody would accept?
A morality that interestingly seems pretty much exactly with how you're already living your life...
I'm not overthinking by simply pointing out that one word has to mean something that's different than another word or else there's no point in using two different words.
Maybe you shouldn't have that ninth cup of coffee.
Sure it is. Morality is itself an authority, just like reason is.
There are also lots of facts that we don't know about, can not know about and will never know about.
I don't see the difference.
Seems to me the words are synonyms.
No. Science (academia doing research) uses the scientific method.
I can use the principles of the scientific method in my daily life to come up with rational answers to questions. And in fact we all do.
And in science we don't reason, use experience (experiment), etc to come up with conclusions?
And I don't always rely on my intuition. In fact, that's the last resort. It's what I'm left with if I don't have any actual data to inform my decision. Then I'll have to go with intuition and hope for the best.
Huh? A computer is organized matter but it's not the least bit intelligent in the sense i'm talking about.
Scientists don't understand how consciousness relates to the brain.
Some philosophers doubt they ever will.
Agreed. But that´s - again - a completely different point.
I talked about when it is required to invent an authority in order to establish your morality. (IOW: If your morality is sound, intelligible and empathic, you don´t need to evade to such methods.)
Can't there just be no point to using two different words? Language isn't the pinnacle of efficiency.
Morality is an idea.
Maybe you shouldn't have that ninth cup of coffee.
Sure it is. Morality is itself an authority, just like reason is.
Nah.... I am rolling my second joint, I'm fine.
No, it's not.
Mere obedience to perceived authority is the "morality" of psychopaths:
X is good because the authority says so.
Yeah, but they have technical differences when you ask philosophers or linguists. Without these distinctions, there's no point in even having two different words. They make terrible synonyms. Usually we use synonyms to make ourselves sound cool. Loud and sonorous. Quick and immediate. Bright and scintillating. You know.
Okay, but my point is that the principles of the scientific method are just independent principles, whereas science (or the scientific method) fuses all these principles into one package.
Science is technically inductive reasoning plus all the other principles we talked about, again, as one package. Most reasoning we use is deductive, or even abductive. And personal experience is different than experience with replicability and some type of standardization, as is the case with science.
And you do use intuition in very important ways. In this case you're using your intuition to ascertain the philosophical presuppositions that come together (even this come together-ness is intuitively mediated) to create science.
Okay, now I'll really get complicated. Morality involves sets of ideas that actualize a previous non-ideological sense of universality. Two savages walk up to one another and one hits the other; both sense, by appealing to universality (whether or not you say it's evolutionarily adapted), that there's something wrong with this action. Putting it into rules just makes this sense of wrongness much more concrete.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?