Post by twetch#6

We can't take religious morality at face value because there are too many falsehoods. Nor can we use a scientific alternative, because it simply doesn't exist. The middle position is to value evidence, reason, and religious morality simultaneously.

I think their disagreement is that Jordan Peterson does not see a scientific alternative to religious morality. Sam Harris argues a scientific alternative is possible, but does not provide one. We are stuck in the middle.

We must be informed by religious morality, but we must also take new facts into account. We are on a quest to find a theory of scientific morality, but such a thing may never exist.

I am not convinced of either extreme. We are in the middle.

morality is made up by social consensus..

that's why it is a waste of time to discuss.

Nature's morality are Universal Laws, that can be implemented scientificially, and practiced religiously.

Morality is that which avoids causing intentional harm.

I'll give you an example.

The Golden Rule - "do unto others as ye would have it done unto you"

Newton's Third Law - "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

@1711 Great comparison. This is exactly the idea I was pursuing in my video "Jesus, Trade, and Entropy" - the idea of finding common ground across all disciplines. This includes physics and religion.

@1711 I agree. That's the conclusion I've been driven to as well.

There's a problem though. What are those laws?

In order for us to achieve Self-realization we have to become one with those laws, to realize those laws, to act in harmony with them, and to have our every motion, our every movement, our every thought, and feeling be harmonious with those laws.

one of my goals is to reconcile science with religion because i believe they are 2 sides of the same coin

these Laws are all Natural Laws that can be proven scientifically.

what religion calls Karma or Sin
stems from the Law of Cause & Effect.

what religion calls Faith,
science says "Placebo Effect".

what religion calls "Good & Evil"
is polarity to science.

Stefan Moleyneux’s “Universally Preferable Behaviour - a Rational proof for secular ethics “ should be of interest. I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on it. It’s an attempt at this challenge.

Religious morality is mirrored by the Ring of Gyges in Plato's Republic.

Are people moral because God is watching? Can religion teach us how to be good? Or is there an absolute morality innate within us?

https://youtu.be/RwaWJLvxKPI

First step: Who/what is god? Can morality be emergent or must it be handed out by a “decider.”

Also, is there a difference between worldview and religion?

Like Buddha suggested 🙏🏻

One day an expert in religious law stood up to test Jesus by asking him this question: “Teacher, what should I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus replied, “What does the law of Moses say? How do you read it?”

The man answered, “‘You must love the LORD your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your strength, and all your mind.’ And, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’”

“Right!” Jesus told him. “Do this and you will live!”

Luke 10:25-28 NLT

All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.

Matthew 22:40

So Jesus makes the point that ethics/morality/creeds/laws really come down to the simplicity of loving God (1st 5 commands) and loving other people (2nd 5 commands of the 10).

@385 the natural laws of the universe have been known to mankind for millennia, but have been continually marginalized by the elite classes so they might be used for their benefit alone.

Learn more here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1pkJaNbzLU