Comment Re:It's also nonscience because it leads nowhere (Score 1) 989
You claim that "if you want morals, then you have to include religion." but you provide no logical backing for this grand statement. You ask "But whose ethics and morality?" Adding religion to the mix does not help you figure out "whose ethics and morality". Each religion and each denomination of religion will give differing views of morality.
You try to make a plea to authority by bringing the "founding fathers" into the discussion. Fortunately we have made great moral progress since their times. Do you realize that women have only had the right to vote for less than less 100 years in America? WOW. This is contrary to the line of morale thinking in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Thank goodness we have transcended religious morality in favor of a more righteous and intuitively humanistic one. These types of examples are near endless.
It's true that some things one can't help but be ambivalent about. Intellectual honesty demands that we see both sides of the abortion, euthenasia, capital punishment, and health care debates (etc...). But we don't consult ancient books full of superstition to get towards a better world. We get there through the hard-fought extrapolation of compassion and love.
You try to make a plea to authority by bringing the "founding fathers" into the discussion. Fortunately we have made great moral progress since their times. Do you realize that women have only had the right to vote for less than less 100 years in America? WOW. This is contrary to the line of morale thinking in 1 Corinthians Chapter 14, "As in all the congregations of the saints, 34women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. 35If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." Thank goodness we have transcended religious morality in favor of a more righteous and intuitively humanistic one. These types of examples are near endless.
It's true that some things one can't help but be ambivalent about. Intellectual honesty demands that we see both sides of the abortion, euthenasia, capital punishment, and health care debates (etc...). But we don't consult ancient books full of superstition to get towards a better world. We get there through the hard-fought extrapolation of compassion and love.