« Science, a Worthy Christian Vocation | Main | How Christianity Created Science (and Why Atheism Wouldn’t Have) »

May 08, 2014

Comments

On the first sentence in picture:

3:07 to 3:50

On the second sentence in picture:

4:28 to 5:00

That’s 1 minute and 25 seconds to knock down the silly picture. All the rest in the video is good stuff too, but 1 minute and 25 seconds is all it took.

It took longer to design the picture.

You're still thinking there's a dichotomy of relativism versus religion. There are more options than just those two! I'm starting to suspect you ignore naturalistic non-relativist morality because you're afraid of it. You simply don't have a good response.

I agree with you
But I think that you miss the point of the word "religion" in the graphic.

"Religion" among unbelievers more often means 'superstition'; unreasoned obedience to systems of control and mobilization to action. like crusades, or terrorist martyrdom or protest campaigns.

I would stick to discussion about faith and personal application of truth; and eschew the term "religion".

John Moore,

“Naturalistic Non-Relative”

Yes. That’s what they all say.

This means:

There definitely is a right and wrong. These things are not relative. However, we have no earthly idea how these things came to be. The only thing I can offer up is that on the whole, morality is good for society. As for why we should do things that are good for society?.....don’t ask me.

The ability of some to find comfort in the above is beyond me. The really amazing part is that they take it beyond comfort to the assumption that the above is unassailable.

John Moore,
naturalistic non-relativist morality is still a subjective moral argument that is in the end relative.
Check out Greg's solid ground from this month, it is dedicated to this very topic.

http://www.str.org/Media/Default/Publications/Solid%20Ground-God,%20Evolutino,%20Morality%20May%202014-1.pdf

non-relativist morality ...

I'm confused by the terminology. Are we talking about objective, absolute morality, or trying to avoid referring to it all together?

In dealing with relative morality (and its variations and redefinitions), I am drawn to that old adage: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck (supposing it is not a mascot of the U of Oregon or the Anaheim hockey franchise). But it needs to be tweaked: If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and insists it's not a duck ... it's still a duck on which you should keep a wary eye.

The comments to this entry are closed.