Originally Posted by nl
Science has been known at times to steer away a priori from any evidence or reasoning that leads towards God.
Sorry. I could have been clearer. My point is along these lines:
If some evidence points toward rapid deposition of water-borne sediments in Grand Canyon Arizona USA and other evidence points toward slow deposition, then the rapid deposition arguments get less attention from conventional scientists because they might support concepts of Noah and a global flood.
If some evidence points toward a sediment dam breaking and rapid erosion of sediments in Grand Canyon Arizona USA and other evidence points toward slow, uniformitarian erosion over a long period of time, then the attention of conventional science steers naturally away from the conclusion of the catastrophic event in favor of the non-catastrophic event taking long ages of time.
PS. After reading your response I went looking for more Tyson videos and came across one I had never seen. It's an interview by Larry King. Note also that Larry didn't ask him a single God question so there really isn't anything that relates to this thread; but again Neil DeGrasse Tyson entertains.
PS. After reading your response I went looking for more Tyson videos and came across one I had never seen. It's an interview by Larry King. Note also that Larry didn't ask him a single God question so there really isn't anything that relates to this thread; but again Neil DeGrasse Tyson entertains.
Are you asking who comes up with the definitions for what these words mean specific? Usually the definitions start out a bit vague, but become more specific as a better understanding of the systems are developed based on demonstrable data. We see this in the medical field when it comes to what is healthy. Generally the term is used differently than how it is used colloquially, as it is not only more specifically defined but it is also more skeptical in coming specificity. The definitions are, to some extent, based on consensus but only after the ideas had been heavily tested against both the objective world and the intent of the previous definitions. The process here is very important because it makes it so it is pretty much impossible for anyone to control for their own personal gain.
It is probably best to look at it as which culture is less wrong rather than which is correct. It would be determined by seeing which of the ideas would better promote happiness, well being and health while also minimizing unnecessary harm and suffering. The definitions we are using now might not be the best definitions for describing these concepts, so it is impossible to say for sure if we are ever completely in the right. However, we could still show objectively that one is less wrong than another given the definitions.
I do not see a preprogrammed moral standard when I look around the world and read about some of the difficult cultures that have existed. How did you come to idea? How can someone, like me, test if this really is the case?
I'm really more interested in knowing who is deciding on my behalf, and by what authority. Some policy wonks might suggest that religion is the bane of civilization and must be eradicated for the sake of world peace. That to me would be akin to an athiest version of the Dark Ages. Other militant theocracies might decide we all must convert to religion X or die. For them, that would be for the benenfit of all. Are they wrong? Which one? Who decides?
Nobody needs to be an absolute authority who is deciding on your behalf. However, there is a general consensus on what "health" is in a medical sciences which is based on demonstrable data. I am just claiming that morality can work in the same manner. I am not talking about using force to make sure people are acting morally. I am not talking about using force to make sure people are acting morally. Although I think that moral intent should be promoted as much as possible. However, trying to legally, and physically, enforce people to make moral actions is, ironically enough, most likely a very immoral act.
Yes. All of them. There is no real who here that decides.
This isn't really a big issue since it is not being legally enforced. However it could use a model that is very similar to scientific discovery. Which is in a way based off of a consensus but all the information needs to go through so many checks and balances that it is hardly to notice that is the case. There are problems with using a system like this, for instance it is a fairly slow process, but it has been shown to be an extremely effective tool for the advancement of human knowledge on many subjects. I would assume it could work for fine tuning morality, however it would not be able to let us come to the basic definitions that we initial decide upon.
I would argue that this test isn't specific enough to be able to determine if this really is a moral standard. There are a great many explanations I can think of for this that don't involve having a built-in moral standard set for all people.
Do you think some people lack this?
Somehow I think that if this was a different discussion you would quickly drop this as the test that shows that something is a human.
Jesus has risen to never die again and promised to give that to anyone who believes. If we are still dying in the midst of this RISEN SAVIOR, then are we not the ones committing adultery. Even Daniel upon realizing this included himself along with sinful Israel.
