Atheism and Christianity: a Third Way?

[andyandy]

As for how morality is calculated and what it is, there are many different ways to look at that, and we go on and on about it. I hope I haven't been so evasive. I'm trying to give answers to general statements without getting into my own personal ideas of what is moral.

I don't see how one can separate absolute morality from one's own personal ideas without recourse for an immutable moral truth removed from human consideration (such as god).

I don't agree that god is nebulous. False, maybe, nebulous, I'm not so sure. Various, certainly. Disprovable, sometimes. And I don't see how you can claim god concepts are irrelevant and impotent. Have you been to a church lately?

I talk of the god construct as the infinite set of possibilities which the term implies. What definition would you regard as sufficient to describe god? there are partial definitions that one could argue are necessary, but necessary =! sufficient.

 

[JJM 777]

I don't see how one can separate absolute morality from one's own personal ideas without recourse for an immutable moral truth removed from human consideration (such as god).

Do you need "god" to define:
- the laws of physics?
- the criteria for medical diagnoses and treatments?
- basically any scientific theory?

To define ethics neutrally, in a manner acceptable for science, you simply need to declare that "any action shall be considered innocent and morally neutral, unless proven otherwise". What follows then is scientific study and debate about the actual (or statistical) consequences of diverse actions. What is left behind are empty moralist claims without any scientific evidence supporting them. (I think you can think of a few claims that have no other basis than ideology X or guru Y saying so.)

I refer to my own system, which is a step towards describing ethics as neutrally as possible:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=85348