Remember, it is you who seems to have chosen the supernatural "explanation" and rejected the naturalistic one WRT the origins of moral behavior.
quote:
Unless you can prove that there is no God, no creator of nature, there is no conflict.
I agree that there is no way to prove a negative.
However, what do you expect us to say when you ask for ways that morality could exost without God,
are presented with multiple scientific explanations, but you just reject them because you find them "unsatisfying".
I mean, come on. Obviously you think there is a conflict, otherwise you wouldn't have turned your back on the evidence because you didn't like how it made you feel.
Again, I suggest that you read up on Cognitive Psychology as it pertains to morality and emotion. Much of the evidence you reject is produced in that field.
And "making stuff up" and deciding to accept it as truth is not a good way to do that.
quote:
Making stuff up and deciding to investigate whether it could be true, is exactly what scientists do.
Absolutely not true.
Scientists observe phenomena. Then they attempt organize that observational data in a coherent way in order to explain why the data appears as it does. Then those explanations are tested to see if they hold up.
At no time do scientists "make stuff up" in the same way that religious folks "make stuff up".
quote:
I am not a fundamentalist, remember. There are many, many ways to incorporate spirituality into one's life. I have chosen to do that, and I will continue to do so.
Nobody's expecting you to stop doing that.
However, if you ask a question regarding a natural phenomena and refuse to accept the naturalistic explanations because you simply don't like how they make you feel, you are behaving just like fundamentalists do.
™ Version 4.2
