You are, by law, directed towards the institutions of knowledge. In my humbly humbleness I can't help calling that authorative... : — Haglund
That is not the definition I was using at all. It is one plied by religious dogmatic types to justify labelling science as ‘dogmatic’. — I like sushi
We must put logic in the dock, interrogate it! How did it come to be this powerful? What vile trickery did it put to its service? Who were/are its accomplices? — Agent Smith
Once upon a time, in a country far far away, called Greece.... — Haglund
The Indians too were very good logicians. — Agent Smith
Buddhism for example has no belief in a creator god, yet it seems to be similar to theistic religion in terms of its ethical philosophy and behavioural demands (celibacy, non-violence, non-coveting etc) and even in many philosophical respects. — Wayfarer
A 'dogma' is defined as a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority and held to be incontrovertibly true.” — I like sushi
These are not mutually exclusive, many but not all scholars are believers. — Fooloso4
Are you claiming that stoning was never taken literally? If it conflates your dubious distinction it does so for good reason. The rabbis who interpret the Law, both then and now, were both believers and biblical scholars. — Fooloso4
How do you reconcile such changes with your claim that there is an objective morality? — Fooloso4
So what would you suggest is the best way to answer the question? — Fooloso4
You shifted from biblical scholarship to modern biblical scholarship. The inclusion of the perspective of time is significant. — Fooloso4
I'm saying that I'm not committing to your strawmen and am asserting what I take to be a more proper conception of God.At least we can define God as the good and deny unholy acts are decreed by him, but only falsely in his name.
— Hanover
seriously? Or are you saying that you are not prepared to back up your claim? When you say "we" who are you referring to? — Fooloso4
There is no historical evidence of the stonings taking place and extremely few death penalties being carrier out in the rabbinical era beginning in the 1st century CE. — Hanover
Through personal experience, introspection, and a need for there to be an anchor for meaning and purpose. — Hanover
I'm saying that I'm not committing to your strawmen — Hanover
Do you mean no historical evidence taking place or no historical evidence of them taking place in the rabbinical era? — Fooloso4
So there is for you no connection between your moral realism and your claims about God and identification with Judaism? — Fooloso4
In other words, your definition of God is subjective and based on the presupposition that there must be a meaning and purpose that is not subjective. — Fooloso4
To be clear, are you claiming that the quotes from Isaiah and Job are false? And that they are false because they do not conform to your definition of God as good? A definition that "we" or "one" should accept because that is what a reasonable person should do? — Fooloso4
What I can say is that the institutional religious records written by the rabbis do not reflect stonings occurring, with that era beginning in the first century CE. — Hanover
our wisest ancestors used it as the vehicle to describe good from evil — Hanover
The experience of the sacred is clear; there is nothing clearer. Clarity par excellence. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Notions of the "numinous" "sacred" "spiritual" "supernatural" "miraculous" "mystery" ... are 'meaningful' only in relevant discursive forms of life (metaphysical / religious / aesthetic traditions) as highly-qualified, or overly-interpreted, 'experiences' of limit-situations (Jaspers), etc — 180 Proof
I'm not sure if I'm right about this, but in physics, especially quantum physics, there seems to be an inclination towards eastern philosophies. — Haglund
The experience of the sacred is clear; there is nothing clearer. Clarity par excellence. — ZzzoneiroCosm
Right. This supports the claim of moral relativism, that even under the pretext of what is unchanging and absolute the beliefs and values of human beings are not invariant. — Fooloso4
In the absence of such knowledge perhaps what is best is to accept that certain moral problems do not yield clear solutions, that the recognition of uncertainty leads to toleration of differences. — Fooloso4
What I am suggesting is that our wise ancestors did not make such a clear distinction. The tree of knowledge is of both good and evil. One tree, so to speak, that bears fruit that is both good and evil, just as experience shows. (Koholeth) eschews the pollyannic view and squarely faces the fact that the wicked may prosper and the righteous get what the wicked deserve. — Fooloso4
The problem is that epistemological uncertainty has no bearing on ontological reality. — Hanover
Whether we know what is right doesn't affect what is right — Hanover
This has no bearing on moral relativism or absolutism, but is just pragmatics. — Hanover
By using a biblical analogy to make your point, do you not invoke the wisdom of the Bible? — Hanover
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.