America Without God: No 'Moral Facts'

[PoliticalChic]

"But...without the authority of God, there are no moral facts.....only opinions...and any opinion can be countered with another opinion."

Oh, so that makes me the mass murderer.

You're welcome to your idiotic opinions but don't pretend you're interested in a conversation. Every single one of your posts is loaded with your usual insults.

This is just SSDD from our resident home schooled, fundie nutter.

Define "murder" and what is bad (or good) about it.
Who says?

Our society says its wrong. Did you really need to read thou shall not murder to know its wrong?

"Our society says it's wrong."

You dope......

Your god must be very proud that you are following his teachings with your egotistical, know-it-all, holier-than-thou name calling and insults, always calling people stupid, dumb, "dope".

Did you learn that in Sunday school?

Winning hearts and minds....that's what I'm all about.
But...If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


"....egotistical...."
Hmmm....got me.

 

[G.T.]

The weak willed or adolescent minded need a daddy figure to teach them right from wrong.

Us daddys know this.

But hell, if some people need god to do that for them, i guess its better that they learn these things from somewhere as opposed to being the narcissitic monsters theyd supposedly be without religion.

 

[G.T.]

"But...without the authority of God, there are no moral facts.....only opinions...and any opinion can be countered with another opinion."

Oh, so that makes me the mass murderer.

You're welcome to your idiotic opinions but don't pretend you're interested in a conversation. Every single one of your posts is loaded with your usual insults.

This is just SSDD from our resident home schooled, fundie nutter.

Define "murder" and what is bad (or good) about it.
Who says?

Our society says its wrong. Did you really need to read thou shall not murder to know its wrong?

"Our society says it's wrong."

You dope......

Your god must be very proud that you are following his teachings with your egotistical, know-it-all, holier-than-thou name calling and insults, always calling people stupid, dumb, "dope".

Did you learn that in Sunday school?

Winning hearts and minds....that's what I'm all about.
But...If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.


"....egotistical...."
Hmmm....got me.

The ego is the largest barrier from enlightenment. Its no accident yours is huge.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Could be a good topic...regretfully, I treat PChic's posts like Emily posts...I read the first sentence, start to glaze over and then feel the need to relieve myself. Could be a gem of a post...too bad she has to write a boring novella.

Agree ... Does anyone actually read PC, Flanders, Emily or that Spetch freak?

"Define "murder" and what is bad (or good) about it.
Who says?"

Huh?

"Conversation????

No....I'm merely attempting to educate you."

That pretty much sums it up.

She actually believes she is an authority on "god's authority" and will now wander and meander around, not making much sense but telling us that we're stupid for not getting her weird point of view.

Her knowledge does not compare with her ego.

It is Sunday...why isn't she at church?

I ask this every sunday

I am Christian...I go to Church every Sunday and have a strong set of ethical standards because of my relationship with Jesus. It bothers me when pseud-Christians spew nonsense on the interweb and don't even go to church!

If they went to church would it be OK then?

Why aren't you at church now?

"Why aren't you at church now?"

You don't know my religion....do you.
Maybe I'm a Druid....I do look good in blue.


The serious point here is that you must know you're wrong....why else would you try to change the subject?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The weak willed or adolescent minded need a daddy figure to teach them right from wrong.

Us daddys know this.

But hell, if some people need god to do that for them, i guess its better that they learn these things from somewhere as opposed to being the narcissitic monsters theyd supposedly be without religion.

This discussion is for adults....but come back when it gets around to favorite color Legos.

 

[NoNukes]

How come its always the so-called "christians" who say, that without their "god"/religion/bible that they would have no morals or ethics, no sense of right and wrong?

Are you nutters really only one Sunday school session away from being mass murderers?

One does not need religion to know right from wrong.

 

[Geaux4it]

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ildren-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0




2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

3. ".... if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?.... many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts."




4. While raising an excellent point, our philosopher misses the brass ring, here: "What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame."



5.He may not know the provenance.....but I know where the view originates. The proximate roots of this view can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties. ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

a. The more fundamental inception was the French Revolution, which threw out God and religion.
Without the concept of God who sets the rules of morality.....every moral fact is no more than an opinion.




b. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:

"...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] ....
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html




6. Our philosopher seems shocked to find that the Enlightenment ideas, those of David Hume, have been accepted, wholesale, in society.
" When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

You can see where this leaves 'God' or 'religion.'




7. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.

a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.

b. Empiricist philosopher Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of ‘taste and sentiment,” Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



This view reduces morality to personal taste: “Whatever works for you.”

Tooooooooo long. Muslims believe in moral facts too

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ildren-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0




2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

3. ".... if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?.... many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts."




4. While raising an excellent point, our philosopher misses the brass ring, here: "What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame."



5.He may not know the provenance.....but I know where the view originates. The proximate roots of this view can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties. ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

a. The more fundamental inception was the French Revolution, which threw out God and religion.
Without the concept of God who sets the rules of morality.....every moral fact is no more than an opinion.




b. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:

"...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] ....
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html




6. Our philosopher seems shocked to find that the Enlightenment ideas, those of David Hume, have been accepted, wholesale, in society.
" When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

You can see where this leaves 'God' or 'religion.'




7. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.

a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.

b. Empiricist philosopher Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of ‘taste and sentiment,” Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



This view reduces morality to personal taste: “Whatever works for you.”

Tooooooooo long. Muslims believe in moral facts too

1. I'm working with a definition of God that does not include the slaughter of those who fail to agree with you.
You can understand that distinction, can't you?


2. "Tooooooooo long."
Take your A.D.D. meds and pay attention. I've only just begun.

What reasons do you believe in god? And why waste your time on something that probably doesnt exist and matter?

OK so you believe in god. Now what? Did you come up with a cure for cancer? Does belief make you a better person? No? Then why bother?

Most likely it just makes you feel better about yourself. Cognitive dissonance and ignorant bliss. Stop it.

Who said if you believe in god it makes you all of a sudden able to cure cancer? Gods work sometimes goes unnoticed.

But that doesn't mean the OP couldn't in some way be associated with a cure for cancer. Perhaps as a christian the need is there to provide for family off the sweat of the brow. The work as a mechanic, cook, etc- are some services the good doctors need in their daily routines. The routines and processes on the quest to cure cancer involve many people.

You didn't build that lol......

Its the links in the chain, all equally important but some shine brighter than others

-Geaux

 

[G.T.]

The weak willed or adolescent minded need a daddy figure to teach them right from wrong.

Us daddys know this.

But hell, if some people need god to do that for them, i guess its better that they learn these things from somewhere as opposed to being the narcissitic monsters theyd supposedly be without religion.

This discussion is for adults....but come back when it gets around to favorite color Legos.

Youve started as many adult conversations as steven hawking has started foot races.

Plus you have mothball breath and require a book of fiction for your morals and admit youre egotistical, which is agreed upon by pretty much all intelligent philosophers to be the worst barrier of the mind.

You fail so much at life there should be a dummies for dummies book based on you.

Dogma is your god. Religious and political. A mind of your own is a concept so far the fuck out of your reach youd need the moon escalator to catch a clue


None of that was googled, either, mrs googles for insults

 

[guno]

The weak willed or adolescent minded need a daddy figure to teach them right from wrong.

Us daddys know this.

But hell, if some people need god to do that for them, i guess its better that they learn these things from somewhere as opposed to being the narcissitic monsters theyd supposedly be without religion.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ildren-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0




2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

3. ".... if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?.... many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts."




4. While raising an excellent point, our philosopher misses the brass ring, here: "What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame."



5.He may not know the provenance.....but I know where the view originates. The proximate roots of this view can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties. ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

a. The more fundamental inception was the French Revolution, which threw out God and religion.
Without the concept of God who sets the rules of morality.....every moral fact is no more than an opinion.




b. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:

"...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] ....
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html




6. Our philosopher seems shocked to find that the Enlightenment ideas, those of David Hume, have been accepted, wholesale, in society.
" When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

You can see where this leaves 'God' or 'religion.'




7. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.

a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.

b. Empiricist philosopher Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of ‘taste and sentiment,” Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



This view reduces morality to personal taste: “Whatever works for you.”

Lol, an imagined supernatural being who cannot even be proven to exist, as a fact, is required for people to decide that there are moral 'facts'?

Amazing

 

[NYcarbineer]

I suppose then that bringing up young children to believe that if they don't behave,

Santa Claus will put coal in their stocking, is another good example of how believing in the supernatural teaches morality.

Or the fairy tales. Or Aesop's fables.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

For some societies what we might call murder isn't considered wrong, lokevsay stoning a gay man

Or some might consider killings we commit to be murder, like say injecting a killer with poison

So who is right?

You're not serious...are you?

Let's just agree that you're a dope.

Without someone to tell you what you think/believe, you are unable to converse, debate or discuss. As always, you hide behind insults.

 

[sealybobo]

Agree ... Does anyone actually read PC, Flanders, Emily or that Spetch freak?

"Define "murder" and what is bad (or good) about it.
Who says?"

Huh?

"Conversation????

No....I'm merely attempting to educate you."

That pretty much sums it up.

She actually believes she is an authority on "god's authority" and will now wander and meander around, not making much sense but telling us that we're stupid for not getting her weird point of view.

Her knowledge does not compare with her ego.

It is Sunday...why isn't she at church?

I ask this every sunday

I am Christian...I go to Church every Sunday and have a strong set of ethical standards because of my relationship with Jesus. It bothers me when pseud-Christians spew nonsense on the interweb and don't even go to church!

If they went to church would it be OK then?

Why aren't you at church now?

I tend to go with the belief...don't feed your faith to the trolls.

As for church...I go to the 11:30 service. I will be leaving in about an hour.

I have a friend or at least he was when we were growing up. He's such a know it all right wing conservative and he really does believe in god. His life is such a mess. He was always a slacker. Didn't finish school and lazy. Anyways, long story short he just got his second divorce and he's asking people to borrow $30k.

What I'm wondering is how come gods not helping him? My hunch is that all god is good for is helping him cope with his shitty life. Gods not helping him change just cope.

 

[Nutz]

It is Sunday...why isn't she at church?

I ask this every sunday

I am Christian...I go to Church every Sunday and have a strong set of ethical standards because of my relationship with Jesus. It bothers me when pseud-Christians spew nonsense on the interweb and don't even go to church!

If they went to church would it be OK then?

Why aren't you at church now?

I tend to go with the belief...don't feed your faith to the trolls.

As for church...I go to the 11:30 service. I will be leaving in about an hour.

I have a friend or at least he was when we were growing up. He's such a know it all right wing conservative and he really does believe in god. His life is such a mess. He was always a slacker. Didn't finish school and lazy. Anyways, long story short he just got his second divorce and he's asking people to borrow $30k.

What I'm wondering is how come gods not helping him? My hunch is that all god is good for is helping him cope with his shitty life. Gods not helping him change just cope.

He's not helping himself.

Why do you hold Christians to a higher standard? We all have personal issues and bad habits. You shouldn't judge people...you don't know their inner issues...same with Christians...they shouldn't judge people either.

 

[sealybobo]

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts."

Well, the first thing you did wrong was listen to a mutant like Dennis Prager... but let's move on.

2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

Bullshit. I've known religious people who were the most backstabbing pieces of shit I've ever met in my my life. I've known atheists I'd trust with my life.

The real problem is that most kids look at religious folks with a stick up their ass about sex, and just find their morals laughable.

Never trust anyone who feels it necessary to tell you what a good christian they are. The moment I see this kind of preaching, I know to guard my back and my wallet.

Real Christians are known by their actions, not their condescending lecturing and thumping.

Ask the middle east or the rest of the world what they think about american christians based on their actions. They aren't very popular.

Of course we probably give more to help poverty than they do but my point is if our actions are so good why are we hated so much?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ildren-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0




2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

3. ".... if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?.... many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts."




4. While raising an excellent point, our philosopher misses the brass ring, here: "What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame."



5.He may not know the provenance.....but I know where the view originates. The proximate roots of this view can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties. ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

a. The more fundamental inception was the French Revolution, which threw out God and religion.
Without the concept of God who sets the rules of morality.....every moral fact is no more than an opinion.




b. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:

"...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] ....
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html




6. Our philosopher seems shocked to find that the Enlightenment ideas, those of David Hume, have been accepted, wholesale, in society.
" When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

You can see where this leaves 'God' or 'religion.'




7. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.

a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.

b. Empiricist philosopher Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of ‘taste and sentiment,” Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



This view reduces morality to personal taste: “Whatever works for you.”

Lol, an imagined supernatural being who cannot even be proven to exist, as a fact, is required for people to decide that there are moral 'facts'?

Amazing

It always strikes me as very bizarre that we don't treat those who believe in invisible, magical beings flying around as delusional and mentally ill.

 

[PoliticalChic]

How come its always the so-called "christians" who say, that without their "god"/religion/bible that they would have no morals or ethics, no sense of right and wrong?

Are you nutters really only one Sunday school session away from being mass murderers?

One does not need religion to know right from wrong.

While true on an individual basis.....historically it has not proven successful on a societal basis.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How come its always the so-called "christians" who say, that without their "god"/religion/bible that they would have no morals or ethics, no sense of right and wrong?

Are you nutters really only one Sunday school session away from being mass murderers?

Isn't an extreme belief in God the number one criticism of the fundamentalist Islamic extremists/terrorists?

Isn't religion so often the source of their morality?

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. I was listening to Dennis Prager on the radio, and he referred to this NYTimes piece by a secular philosopher, called "Why Our Children Don’t Think There Are Moral Facts." http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.co...ildren-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0




2. Most children who weren't brought up in a religious household, with a clear recognition of God, fail to recognize the difference between moral facts, and opinions.

While the author of the article bemoans, as do most of us, that"the overwhelming majority of college freshmen in their classrooms view moral claims as mere opinions that are not true or are true only relative to a culture" he fails to grasp the reason for this situation..

3. ".... if you found out that our public schools were teaching children that it is not true that it’s wrong to kill people for fun or cheat on tests? Would you be surprised?.... many college-aged students don’t believe in moral facts."




4. While raising an excellent point, our philosopher misses the brass ring, here: "What I didn’t know was where this attitude came from. Given the presence of moral relativism in some academic circles, some people might naturally assume that philosophers themselves are to blame."



5.He may not know the provenance.....but I know where the view originates. The proximate roots of this view can be traced to the anthropologist Franz Boas, who, in an effort to study exotic cultures without prejudice, found it useful to take the position that no culture is superior to any other. Thus was born the idea of cultural relativity.

The idea spread like wildfire through the universities, catapulted by the radical impetus of the sixties. ready and willing to reject "the universality of Western norms and principles."
Bawer, "The Victim's Revolution"

a. The more fundamental inception was the French Revolution, which threw out God and religion.
Without the concept of God who sets the rules of morality.....every moral fact is no more than an opinion.




b. "Cultural relativism is the principle that an individual human's beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that individual's own culture. This principle was established as axiomatic in anthropological research by Franz Boas in the first few decades of the 20th century and later popularized by his students. Boas first articulated the idea in 1887:

"...civilization is not something absolute, but ... is relative, and ... our ideas and conceptions are true only so far as our civilization goes."[1] ....
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/t...elativism.html




6. Our philosopher seems shocked to find that the Enlightenment ideas, those of David Hume, have been accepted, wholesale, in society.
" When I went to visit my son’s second grade open house, I found a troubling pair of signs hanging over the bulletin board. They read:

Fact: Something that is true about a subject and can be tested or proven.

Opinion: What someone thinks, feels, or believes."

You can see where this leaves 'God' or 'religion.'




7. In the West, the dichotomy between empirical truth and morality, or values, began with the scientific revolution, the Enlightenment, impressive as it was, so much so that many thinkers elevated empirical science to the sole source of truth.

a. Empiricism is the doctrine that all knowledge is derived from the senses: what we see, hear, hold, weigh, and measure. Where, then do we find moral truths? Clearly, under such a definition, values and morals could not be truths, but simply emotions, feelings.

b. Empiricist philosopher Hume reasoned this way: if knowledge is based on sensations, then morality, too, must come from sensations, i.e. pain or pleasure, or, as he put it, a matter of ‘taste and sentiment,” Hume claims then, that moral distinctions are not derived from reason but rather from sentiment.
Hume's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)



This view reduces morality to personal taste: “Whatever works for you.”

Lol, an imagined supernatural being who cannot even be proven to exist, as a fact, is required for people to decide that there are moral 'facts'?

Amazing

It always strikes me as very bizarre that we don't treat those who believe in invisible, magical beings flying around as delusional and mentally ill.

I don't begrudge anyone their choice to believe in God, or a god, or gods. Just don't try to tell me you KNOW what He is, and you KNOW what He believes and teaches and desires or requires from his believers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The weak willed or adolescent minded need a daddy figure to teach them right from wrong.

Us daddys know this.

But hell, if some people need god to do that for them, i guess its better that they learn these things from somewhere as opposed to being the narcissitic monsters theyd supposedly be without religion.

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish"

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

In January of 1936, a young girl named Phyllis wrote to Albert Einstein on behalf of her Sunday school class, and asked, "Do scientists pray?"

Dr. Einstein answered as follows:

January 24, 1936

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein"

Letters of Note Dear Einstein Do Scientists Pray