This is what I have been trying to say on this section of the forum for most of the past 3 years...or so I hope.Hugh wrote:To reject god completely is not scientific. But to operate on the assumption that he exists is also not science, the proper scientific approach to god is to say that it is possible that a higher power exists and that the probability of that higher power being the judeo-christian god is exactly the same as the probability of that god being Thor.
As to the morality question. Would you then agree that:
1. there exists (if only theoretically) a "perfect" biological morality?
2. nature has never yet reached that ultimate end?
a. the progression of morality from the beginning of nature, over time, always been "upward"?
b. have institutions (e.g. religions), and the morality codified under those institutions caused nature to regress "lower" for periods of time?
I would suggest (operating under assumptions 1 and 2) that only option is acceptable based on the evidence that religion offers a moral code that modern society has rejected. (modern society being the most objective way to determine morality, in a humanistic way).
My final question: is this process accurate to your view: biology causes morality to efficiently (but slowly) move "upward", while society causes morality to fluctuate quickly, often regressively?
Remark: The idea of natural law and divine revelation offers a rather exquisite alternative to this process, assuming there is a god (and, that god possesses some very specific character).