Tag: atheism

Consequences of Forgetting Natural Law (via Ex Libris)

On By southwerkIn business ethics

I have mixed emotions about natural law. I try to be careful to explain the positives and negatives when I teach. I do think there is a lot to say in its favor and this article does so.

This is good writing. I really enjoyed the quote from the Dred Scott decision.

I believe that philosophy has a place in the mind of every educated human being. I am constantly surprised by the intensity and fervor on the online philisophical discussions. Sites dealing with religious philosophy are particularly combative with the atheistic sites not far behind. However, for the more academic, there a dozens of sites where the philosophies of Aristotle and Plato are discussed moving right up to modern (and often little known) philosophers.

I’ve give this one a read.

James Pilant

Consequences of Forgetting Natural Law In the 20th century natural law became an embarrassment to many Reformed Christians (i.e. those in confessional Reformed churches). It isnt difficult to understand how that could happen. The antithesis between unbelievers and the redeemed, and the priority of special revelation would seem to leave little room for the “medieval” idea of natural law. But there have been voices within the Reformed community arguing that there is a rightful place fo … Read More

via Ex Libris

Andrew Comments On My Post: “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)”

On By southwerkIn ethics

Andrew has some comment concerning my blog post: “Could science prove that vanilla is better than chocolate? (via No Right to Believe)”

Here are Andrew’s thoughts –

I disagree with Mr. Harris. Science was designed to be descriptive, not prescriptive. In other words, science is meant to describe how things are or how they appear to be. Not how things ought to be.

The scientific method could be used to examine how and why different cultures end up with their specific philosophical values systems. It is not equipped, however, to determine which system is “better” and which ought to be followed.

Sam Harris and the other founders of the New Atheist Movement (NAM) have been trying, for the past few years, to make science into more than what it is. They’ve put it up on a pedestal and seem to be almost worshiping the idea of science as this perfect process for the attainment of knowledge and reason. They’ve run into a few roadblocks, however, when trying to reconcile the notion of morality and “what we OUGHT to do” with the scientific method that they worship. The funny part is, by doing this they fall into the very same philosophical traps that they accuse the followers of religious philosophies and doctrines of doing.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist as well (not as militant as the NAM though), and I am very familiar with a few areas of science (mainly physics and mechanics) so I know how good of a tool science can be at helping us further our understanding of the universe we live in. Having said that, however, let me emphasis that it does have its limits.

A good example of this is in the topic of nuclear weapons. Science helped us understand how to build the atom bomb. The ethics behind building and using such a weapon, however, is a completely different ball game. As such, we can see that there is more to being human than what science can help us see.

Whether or not science has moral answers I will leave to my readers’ discretion. I am still struggling with the history and basic tenets of moral philosophy. Isn’t John Wayne supposed to have said, “A man’s got to know his limitations.” I try to not in over may head although I’m sure I do at times.

James Pilant