Normal

Judging by the wildly different interpretations, I'd hardly say there was any kind of consensus

I just meant that a subjective interpretation of scripture would lead a theist to judge the actions of someone else.

I still say science doesn't require an atheistic worldview, just an naturalistic approach to cause and effect.

Normal

As well presented as that was, the difference god makes to a person cannot be calculated or assumed by you.

As long as you want to straw-man gods of theism into the definition of "that which science disproves".

Normal

It might vary per person, but if they agree upon a scriptural starting point they can at least argue.

ComestibleVenom

But YOU however can deterimine that since there is no rational reason to be moral, there is no reason to be moral without god? Nonsense, my point was that morality has genuine roots in the world, independent of our imaginary friends.

Quote:

As long as you want to straw-man gods of theism into the definition of "that which science disproves".

That's not at all what I said. I am saying that the methodological naturalism of science strongly suggests that God is simply not worth taking seriously, and can at best constitute the basis for pseudoscience.

This has nothing to do with straw men, but with a substantial incompatibility between beings of arbitrary power and the scientific method.

Normal

I've determined that based on the utter lack of a rational basis anyone has provided for their own morals.

I know a reason to be moral without god, but that is hardly the issue.

No, it strongly suggests information about the laws of the world, and nothing else.

Well I'm going to have to ask you to be a bit more specific then about the incompatibility that is so clear to you.

HRG

True, but this starting point doesn't have to be a religious text. It could equally well be the works of Aristoteles, Kant, Marx, Mill, Rawls ...

Regards,
HRG.

Normal

True, but is that to say morals are based on documents at all? A subjectivist would claim previous writings on morals are useless, and the only true moral system is the one which is being enacted by the individual.

Vorkosigan

Normal, why is this a problem? Isn't this how the world actually is? As far as I know, no human's set of values is 100% coterminus with any other human's set of values. Variations occur across the human species. So what exactly is the problem?

Vorkosigan

Normal

The problem is convincing anyone that something is not right.

ComestibleVenom

But that is the very essence of the issue. If there are inevitable moral realities we have to confront as relevant to our lives, why is it that you at the same time maintain that materialists inevitably must dismiss morality as irrelevant or purely individualistic? Did you not say "In a materialistic worldview, there is no rational judgement of good beyond any particular subjective stance."?

A pencil's components are made in many different countries involving hundreds of areas of expertise. Merely because no one individiaul knows how to make a pencil (or analaogously, a full determination of all the causes behind their ideosynchratic moral system) does not mean we don't have a rational clue of how they are made.

Morality is an objective phenomenon with important ramifications for our lives. Everything that is important, I mean everything that is real about morality, is publicly acesssible, non-mystical and an endevor in which we can make progress or regress but never perfection or total uncertainty. There are no moral shortcuts along the lines of "God's will".

There are many naturalistic means of discourse, explanations of a moral rationally that transcends the individual. That it game theoretically rational for morality to be individualistically irrational is no objection to the morality of the methodological naturalist.

There are many problematic properties and characteristics attributed to god. They conflict with naturalism for overlapping reasons.

God cannot play any useful role in a theory because it waves every interesting question off to mysterious unlimited properties. "Q.How does god relate to us?" "A.It is an ineffable (publicly inaccessible) relationship" "Q. How did god set about creating the world and how did we recieve the information that the good chap might have done it.?" "A.He did so with his power which is sufficient to create the universe and did so with means sufficient to produce it."