Christian Anarchy is the only sensible answer...

[Rillion]

That's my whole point about religion and science.  To some extent they cannot be held at the same time.  I believe there is a strict boundary between the two.  That boundary exists when studying beings that are significantly more advanced than we are.

You mean like aliens?  Why shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?   

A religious philosophy is an attempt to understand these beings.

No, I don't really think it is.  Understanding the supernatural is not the emphasis of religion for most religious people.  It simply taken to exist, and used to satisfy a variety of needs-- moral justification, comfort, existential grounding, etc.  Gods and spirits are useful (and, for most people, unavoidable), and that's why they've stuck around for so long. 

Philosophers of religion and theologians attempt to understand the supernatural....but having a religious philosophy and being a philosopher of religion are two very different (though not mutually exclusive) things. 

It makes metaphysical statements and uses an epistemological system not terribly unlike that of science, but is very different in other ways.

What, in your opinion, is the epistemological system of religion, and how is it not terribly unlike that of science?

[ChristianAnarchist]

You mean like aliens?  Why shouldn't we be able to study them scientifically?   
...

No, I don't really think it is.  Understanding the supernatural is not the emphasis of religion for most religious people. 

Maybe you need this:

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source
su·per·nat·u·ral      /ˌsupərˈnætʃərəl, -ˈnætʃrəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soo-per-nach-er-uhl, -nach-ruhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1.   of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
2.   of, pertaining to, characteristic of, or attributed to God or a deity.
3.   of a superlative degree; preternatural: a missile of supernatural speed.
4.   of, pertaining to, or attributed to ghosts, goblins, or other unearthly beings; eerie; occult.
–noun
5.   a being, place, object, occurrence, etc., considered as supernatural or of supernatural origin; that which is supernatural, or outside the natural order.
6.   behavior supposedly caused by the intervention of supernatural beings.
7.   direct influence or action of a deity on earthly affairs.
8.   the supernatural,
a.   supernatural beings, behavior, and occurrences collectively.
b.   supernatural forces and the supernatural plane of existence: a deep fear of the supernatural.

So, how's you gonna 'splain the "supernatural" with "science" which studies the "natural"??

[markuzick]

Okay, markuzick, this conversation is not going to go anywhere with such dramatic disagreement about terms. 

Again, you're confusing moral intuition with instinctual personal and social behavior.

I am saying that moral intuition is  instinctive.  I am saying that moral intuitions are evolved.

There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable. Then there is instinct that is inborn and hard wired. Moral intuition can only refer to the first type of instinct, because this kind of instinct is base upon values that one chooses to accept from one's authority figures, peers or through personal experience and thought. These values become integrated into the unconscious mind and so become part of one's instinctual repettoire. Hard wired instinct can evolve only genetically. Moral intuitions are acquired and evolve over one's lifetime. The morality that predominates within a culture and upon which the moral intuitions of of its individual members tend to become based, with immersion into that culture, evolves over countless generations, but cultures do not have moral intuitions, only individuals do.

Morality implies a choice.

Not to me, it doesn't.  Not a conscious one, when the very thing I am saying is that so many of our moral judgments are unconscious.  You can disagree with me, but that doesn't mean I don't understand my own argument.

 

Moral judgements can be unconscious, but they are based upon a morality, or at least some implied morality, that was at some level consciously accepted.

You shouldn't be falsely accusing me of nonsense, while spewing pure ignorant nonsense of your own. I know that you're knowledgeable, so I can only assume this subject upsets you so greatly as to forget that all of your examples are Man.

What I am saying is that when you insist on talking about "Man choosing his," you're basically portraying all of humanity as a single character who has consciously guided "his" own evolution.  That's not what happened-- the whole premise of evolutionary psychology is that a lot of our behavior stems from instincts we developed 100,000 years ago or more.  Before consciousness in the sense we have now even existed. 

You are inferring far too much from my words.

You must first know what morality is, as well as the distinction between morality and inborn instinct, before you can converse meaningfully about the subject.

I already gave you my working definition of morality, and it is not dependent on instinct vs. conscious behavior.  If you want to know where this kind of thinking comes from, I suggest reading this:  http://faculty.virginia.edu/haidtlab/articles/haidt.emotionaldog.manuscript.pdf

I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.

[Rillion]

There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable.

Okay, well, that's not how I define "instinct," nor have I ever encountered anyone else who defines it that way.  I define instinct as being innate and evolved.  "Instinctual" and "learned" are diametrically opposed. 

in·stinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') pronunciation
n.

   1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

(emphasis added)

Then there is instinct that is inborn and hard wired. Moral intuition can only refer to the first type of instinct, because this kind of instinct is base upon values that one chooses to accept from one's authority figures, peers or through personal experience and thought.

Disagree with that as well.  There is no particular reason to believe that "moral" = "chosen."

Moral judgements can be unconscious, but they are based upon a morality, or at least some implied morality, that was at some level consciously accepted.

What is your support for this?  Where is the evidence for it?

You are inferring far too much from my words.

I'm inferring that you speak of a species making moral choices in the same way you speak of individuals making moral choices, and that doesn't make sense.

I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.

I don't know how you can find it consistent with your beliefs when the whole argument of the paper is that the majority of moral judgments involve no rational consideration whatsoever-- that is, no conscious choice at any point. 

[BKO]

Socrates wasn't (allegedly) preaching about people following him into some place called heaven either.

Seriously, CA -This Jesus guy really was an illiterate mud hutter.

[ChristianAnarchist]

Socrates wasn't (allegedly) preaching about people following him into some place called heaven either.

Seriously, CA -This Jesus guy really was an illiterate mud hutter.

Seriously, Brokor, you haven't studied this subject matter...

And, it doesn't matter what Socrates was doing, the point remains that you cannot prove anything more about him than we can about Jesus.  Indeed, there's more to indicate what Jesus said...

[BKO]

OH HELL NO!

Don't even go there, man. Hehe. Lost cause, huh?

Well. Until I change my mind and decide to call you on it again, then...another bat day, same bat channel!

(P.S. Jesus may very well have been the Lee Harvey Oswald of the religious industry.)

*cough*

[ChristianAnarchist]

Hey, you aren't old enough to claim to have seen the Batman series (at least not original air dates), that's MY show...

[markuzick]

There it instinct that is acquired through thought, education and experience and that is also malleable.

Okay, well, that's not how I define "instinct," nor have I ever encountered anyone else who defines it that way.  I define instinct as being innate and evolved.  "Instinctual" and "learned" are diametrically opposed. 

in·stinct (ĭn'stĭngkt') pronunciation
n.

   1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

(emphasis added)

It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

I just read the abstract and I find the premise consistent with my beliefs and I'm inclined to believe it.

I don't know how you can find it consistent with your beliefs when the whole argument of the paper is that the majority of moral judgments involve no rational consideration whatsoever-- that is, no conscious choice at any point.

It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values. I never said that those values had to be rational or even non-conflicting. I only said they involved choice, even if that choice was only to accept every cultural value blindly and uncritically.

Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.

[BKO]

Batman reruns. Came between the Lone Ranger and Mr. Ed.

[ChristianAnarchist]

These poor saps today don't even know what good television is (or is that an oxymoron?)

[BKO]

It was the Smurfs who changed it all. Gargamel created Smurfette to tempt the happy smurfs and it all went to hell after that.

Damn you all to hellllll!!!!11!!!!

[theghostofbj]

I could use some cereal.

[Rillion]

It can also mean a powerful motivation or impulse. E.g., You may have an instinctive revulsion to socialistic sounding ideas and be instinctively draw to free market ideas and for someone else it could be just the reverse. That doesnt mean that you where each genetically destined to become that way. Once you develop learned instincts, they act much like inborn instincts, the difference being that they can be changed.

I would call those intuitions, not instincts. 

It's consistent with what I've been saying. Unconscious moral judgments are the logical result of one's chosen values.

That's not the argument of the paper.  As I said, the argument of the paper is that most moral judgments were never chosen.

Again, you're failing to distinguish between behaviors that evolve genetically and behaviors that evolve culturally. You're also ignoring the role of the maverick individuals thoughts and actions, whether rational or not, in the evolution of culture.

By insisting that all moral judgments are chosen, you don't seem to be allowing any room for genetic evolution at all. 

[dharveymi]

you just can't expect others who are using logic and common sense to gain FAITH based on an individual's revelation from thousands of years ago....

 at least you have to prove where he was educated, and as far as I can tell there weren't too many schools open to poor carpenters whose parents couldn't even afford a bed when he was born.

These are the things I don't understand.

Why to vitriol against FAITH?  We all have a measure of faith, It's just where we choose to place it.  If you walk into an unfamiliar place, and see something that looks like a chair, you wouldn't think twice about sitting in it, even though you didn't build it, you don't know anyone who built it, and you haven't tested it for yourself.  You have faith in the person that made the chair.  The person that made the chair may be long dead, it doesn't matter to you.

That's right, in a free market system, sometimes people can't afford school, and their parents are their only teachers.  When Jesus appeared at the synagogue in Jerusalem when he was twelve, the scribes and pharisees where amazed at his wisdom.  When I read the words attributed to him, I am compelled to agree.  I did not make my mind up because I wasn't thinking but because I had examined it for a long time.

You are right that I can't PROVE it.  But, most of what you believe to be true, you can't prove, if only because no one could live that long.  And yet, you hold to them as tenaciously as any fundamentalist Christian.