the value of religion

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

Political ideologies may be incorrect if they rely on bad information or wrong if they aim at bad ends, but religious ideologies are epistemologically, and therefore ethically bankrupt by default.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

All religions should be weaned off in the future and as soon as possible, but note;

There are two main categories of religions, i.e.
1. theistic - e.g. Abrahamic religions and the likes.
2. non-theistic - Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes

The non-theistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes, AT THEIR CORE are based on sound rational arguments, whilst those practicing at the fringes may resort to topping up with irrational practices.
Thus whatever morality from these non-theistic religion, they are not outright morally bankrupt.

The theistic religions are grounded on an illusion, thus fundamentally irrational and unsound.
While the theistic religions are grounded on the irrational, their 'morality' is based on moral intuitionism of hit and miss.
Because they rely on intuition and experiences, there are moral elements from theistic ideologies that do align with universal moral facts [verified and justified within other sound moral framework and system].

For example, the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is 100% is in alignment with the justified universal true moral fact i.e. 'no humans ought to kill humans'.
There may be other moral elements within theistic doctrines that align with universal moral facts.

That Christians killed humans [a punishable sin] against the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not the fault of the ideology but rather it is due to the inherent evil nature of the person as human being and not as a Christian.

Thus we should not be hasty in concluding religions are morally bankrupt, but rather we should investigate the moral elements on a case to case basis to verify whether they aligns to universal justified true moral facts or not.

However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote="Veritas Aequitas" post_id=484740 time=1607937416 user_id=7896]
[/quote]

Non-theistic religions still include dogma and require faith, putting them on identical epistemologically footing with theistic ones. Dogma is an inseparable part of all religions. In Buddhism it's things like karma and dukka. In Jainism it's dualism, at least.

If they were saying "here's some tools to help you no matter what you believe" they would be a philosophy, but that's not the common understanding of either. They say "based on these metaphysical beliefs, here's some tools you can use".

The West likes to grant unwarranted optimism in all cases and gives the benefit of the doubt to every version of epistemology, but religions All remain dogmatic.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:16 am All religions should be weaned off in the future and as soon as possible, but note;

There are two main categories of religions, i.e.
1. theistic - e.g. Abrahamic religions and the likes.
2. non-theistic - Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes

The non-theistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes, AT THEIR CORE are based on sound rational arguments, whilst those practicing at the fringes may resort to topping up with irrational practices.
Thus whatever morality from these non-theistic religion, they are not outright morally bankrupt.

The theistic religions are grounded on an illusion, thus fundamentally irrational and unsound.
While the theistic religions are grounded on the irrational, their 'morality' is based on moral intuitionism of hit and miss.
Because they rely on intuition and experiences, there are moral elements from theistic ideologies that do align with universal moral facts [verified and justified within other sound moral framework and system].

For example, the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is 100% is in alignment with the justified universal true moral fact i.e. 'no humans ought to kill humans'.
There may be other moral elements within theistic doctrines that align with universal moral facts.

That Christians killed humans [a punishable sin] against the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not the fault of the ideology but rather it is due to the inherent evil nature of the person as human being and not as a Christian.

Thus we should not be hasty in concluding religions are morally bankrupt, but rather we should investigate the moral elements on a case to case basis to verify whether they aligns to universal justified true moral facts or not.

However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible.
The moral intuitionism and experience is grounded on a percieve revelation from a higher source. Under your standards hallucinations are the cause of a morality developing. Hallucinations thus have truth values, again applying your standards.

Provide a test for all of the above. Warfare and violence exist without religion, such as state and personal interests.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:16 am All religions should be weaned off in the future and as soon as possible, but note;

There are two main categories of religions, i.e.
1. theistic - e.g. Abrahamic religions and the likes.
2. non-theistic - Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes

The non-theistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes, AT THEIR CORE are based on sound rational arguments, whilst those practicing at the fringes may resort to topping up with irrational practices.
Thus whatever morality from these non-theistic religion, they are not outright morally bankrupt.

The theistic religions are grounded on an illusion, thus fundamentally irrational and unsound.
While the theistic religions are grounded on the irrational, their 'morality' is based on moral intuitionism of hit and miss.
Because they rely on intuition and experiences, there are moral elements from theistic ideologies that do align with universal moral facts [verified and justified within other sound moral framework and system].

For example, the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is 100% is in alignment with the justified universal true moral fact i.e. 'no humans ought to kill humans'.
There may be other moral elements within theistic doctrines that align with universal moral facts.

That Christians killed humans [a punishable sin] against the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not the fault of the ideology but rather it is due to the inherent evil nature of the person as human being and not as a Christian.

Thus we should not be hasty in concluding religions are morally bankrupt, but rather we should investigate the moral elements on a case to case basis to verify whether they aligns to universal justified true moral facts or not.

However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible.
Provide a test for all of the above. Warfare and violence exist without religion, such as state and personal interests.
Test for which claims - be specific.

All evil and violence must be addressed and eliminated in the future, if not to be minimized to the optimal minimal progressively.

All evil and violence can be grouped in many categories, and the two main ones are;
1. Secular driven evil and violence
2. Religiously driven evil and violence.

Since this OP focused on religion, thus my point is confined to religions.

I never imply anywhere, we should ignored non-religious or secular driven evil and violence.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:04 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 11:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:16 am All religions should be weaned off in the future and as soon as possible, but note;

There are two main categories of religions, i.e.
1. theistic - e.g. Abrahamic religions and the likes.
2. non-theistic - Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes

The non-theistic, e.g. Buddhism, Jainism, and the likes, AT THEIR CORE are based on sound rational arguments, whilst those practicing at the fringes may resort to topping up with irrational practices.
Thus whatever morality from these non-theistic religion, they are not outright morally bankrupt.

The theistic religions are grounded on an illusion, thus fundamentally irrational and unsound.
While the theistic religions are grounded on the irrational, their 'morality' is based on moral intuitionism of hit and miss.
Because they rely on intuition and experiences, there are moral elements from theistic ideologies that do align with universal moral facts [verified and justified within other sound moral framework and system].

For example, the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is 100% is in alignment with the justified universal true moral fact i.e. 'no humans ought to kill humans'.
There may be other moral elements within theistic doctrines that align with universal moral facts.

That Christians killed humans [a punishable sin] against the commandment 'Thou Shalt Not Kill' is not the fault of the ideology but rather it is due to the inherent evil nature of the person as human being and not as a Christian.

Thus we should not be hasty in concluding religions are morally bankrupt, but rather we should investigate the moral elements on a case to case basis to verify whether they aligns to universal justified true moral facts or not.

However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible.
Provide a test for all of the above. Warfare and violence exist without religion, such as state and personal interests.
Test for which claims - be specific.

All evil and violence must be addressed and eliminated in the future, if not to be minimized to the optimal minimal progressively.

All evil and violence can be grouped in many categories, and the two main ones are;
1. Secular driven evil and violence
2. Religiously driven evil and violence.

Since this OP focused on religion, thus my point is confined to religions.

I never imply anywhere, we should ignored non-religious or secular driven evil and violence.
"However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible"

By your own admission the Evils of religion lie within the evil of the people's involved and not the religion itself. Negating religion, and all the positives which come with it, will not negate the evil people which come from it.


As to testing you would have to test all definitions of God. You would thus have to test for omnipresence but you can't apply a test for that considering the observers would have to be omnipresent through the application of the test. The untestability of God as a definition of God necessitates science cannot be applied to God. This untestability, as a definition, existed long before any formal scientific method was conceived.

The possibility of science, as empty in itself, not being able to provide all true answers, yet true answers are possible to exist beyond science because of science's limits, necessitates science as not the be all end of truth deriving systems.


Personal desire also drives violence as well. If we are to summate this list then anything can cause violence. To eradicate religion is to eradicate the cause of these moral systems thus leaving morality as baseless considering science has not provided us with objective moral tenets.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Wed Dec 16, 2020 2:13 am, edited 3 times in total.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: the value of religion

Post by commonsense »

Advocate wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 6:40 am Political ideologies may be incorrect if they rely on bad information or wrong if they aim at bad ends, but religious ideologies are epistemologically, and therefore ethically bankrupt by default.
Ad:

Please school me. What makes it the default situation that something that is epistemologically bankrupt is also ethically bankrupt? Are you saying that a system of morality depends on having a viable source of knowledge?
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

[quote=commonsense post_id=484986 time=1608057303 user_id=14610]
[quote=Advocate post_id=484723 time=1607924451 user_id=15238]
Political ideologies may be incorrect if they rely on bad information or wrong if they aim at bad ends, but religious ideologies are epistemologically, and therefore ethically bankrupt by default.
[/quote]

Ad:

Please school me. What makes it the default situation that something that is epistemologically bankrupt is also ethically bankrupt? Are you saying that a system of morality depends on having a viable source of knowledge?
[/quote]

Because if you don't have your epistemology right, you only have correct beliefs by accident, and there's no telling where they'll take you next. You could believe anything is justified for any reason. It's not only your sources of knowledge, it's your understanding of logical fallacies, cognitive biases, history, critical thinking, etc. - how to think well. All of which is brought into stark question with regard to a supposedly thinking being who believes any dogmatic woo; which can be particularly known when they celebrate that belief as a positive.
commonsense
Posts: 5087
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: the value of religion

Post by commonsense »

OK, thanks.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:04 am "However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible"
By your own admission the Evils of religion lie within the evil of the people's involved and not the religion itself. Negating religion, and all the positives which come with it, will not negate the evil people which come from it.
I did not admit nor assert that categorically.

There are;
1. Religions with ideologies which are absolutely good and some relatively-good & evil,
2. Religions with ideologies that are inherently net-evil [e.g. Islam].

There are;
A. Humans that are net-good
B. Human that are net-evil prone.

We must strive to get rid of religions that are inherent net-evil [2].
However other religions which are relatively good/evil [1] has to operate as institutional, thus can be exploited by humans who are net-evil prone [.B]. This is so evident.
For example whilst Christianity is overriding a pacifist religion, it negatives are a hindrance to human progress with its respective rigid doctrines, e.g. creationism.
Even with Buddhism being totally compassionate, the evil prone monks has caused a lot of evil and negatives to the believers exploiting their positions, e.g. the violence in Myanmar and the various scandals by Buddhist monks.

As such, humanity will be better off without religions when that is possible in the future and this must not involve a net-loss but a net-gain to humanity.

Getting rid of all religions will not get rid of evil prone humans [.B].
This problem will be resolved with general Morality and Ethics.
As to testing you would have to test all definitions of God. You would thus have to test for omnipresence but you can't apply a test for that considering the observers would have to be omnipresent through the application of the test. The untestability of God as a definition of God necessitates science cannot be applied to God. This untestability, as a definition, existed long before any formal scientific method was conceived.
Since the question of whether God exists is a non-starter, the question of testing for God is also a non-starter.
God is an Impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The possibility of science, as empty in itself, not being able to provide all true answers, yet true answers are possible to exist beyond science because of science's limits, necessitates science as not the be all end of truth deriving systems.
Science do not give a damn with chasing absolutely true answers except for whatever is true that satisfy the requirements of is Framework and System.

To Science, if you not believe scientific claims of truths, then test it yourself to confirm its "promised" truths. If you can verify and justify to prove any scientific claims are false, Science will abandon it.
Personal desire also drives violence as well. If we are to summate this list then anything can cause violence. To eradicate religion is to eradicate the cause of these moral systems thus leaving morality as baseless considering science has not provided us with objective moral tenets.
Whatever that drive violence must be managed.

When humanity weaned off all religions in the future [not possible now], humanity must replace it with a fool proof moral system that is very much better [>1000 times] than the current crude theistic morality which is pseudo.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Advocate wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 4:12 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Dec 14, 2020 10:16 am
Non-theistic religions still include dogma and require faith, putting them on identical epistemologically footing with theistic ones. Dogma is an inseparable part of all religions. In Buddhism it's things like karma and dukka. In Jainism it's dualism, at least.
I have already stated the core principles of Buddhism, Jainism and the likes are very philosophical and rational.
The concept of dukkha i.e. pains [re mental and physical] is so empirical verifiable, objective and rational. In this sense of grounding, they are contrastingly different from theistic religions.

I agree there are fringe ideas and practices [.I have stated above] that are similar with theistic religions, thus these should be replaced with the rational ones in the future.
If they were saying "here's some tools to help you no matter what you believe" they would be a philosophy, but that's not the common understanding of either. They say "based on these metaphysical beliefs, here's some tools you can use".
Note this, the core of Buddhism is an objective Life Problem Solving Technique;
Buddhism's 4NT-8FP is a Life Problem Solving Technique.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25193
Show me if otherwise?
The West likes to grant unwarranted optimism in all cases and gives the benefit of the doubt to every version of epistemology,
You are right, especially enabling the inherently-Islam to hide under that umbrella view. When terrors strike in their cities and elsewhere by SOME Muslims they are still ignorant of the truths of the inherent evil of the Islamic ideology.
but religions All remain dogmatic.
Nope, you are stating the above because you have not researched extensively and deeply on all the major religions.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Dec 16, 2020 7:39 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 6:41 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Tue Dec 15, 2020 8:04 am "However, religions which has to be organized by groups of people, thus inevitably will include evil prone people and so will naturally has its negatives [as evident] impact on humanity.

Currently the trend is the negatives of religions [organized] are over taking whatever positives they have had, as such all religions should be weaned in the future as soon as possible"
By your own admission the Evils of religion lie within the evil of the people's involved and not the religion itself. Negating religion, and all the positives which come with it, will not negate the evil people which come from it.
I did not admit nor assert that categorically.

There are;
1. Religions with ideologies which are absolutely good and some relatively-good & evil,
2. Religions with ideologies that are inherently net-evil [e.g. Islam].

There are;
A. Humans that are net-good
B. Human that are net-evil prone.

We must strive to get rid of religions that are inherent net-evil [2].
However other religions which are relatively good/evil [1] has to operate as institutional, thus can be exploited by humans who are net-evil prone [.B]. This is so evident.
For example whilst Christianity is overriding a pacifist religion, it negatives are a hindrance to human progress with its respective rigid doctrines, e.g. creationism.
Even with Buddhism being totally compassionate, the evil prone monks has caused a lot of evil and negatives to the believers exploiting their positions, e.g. the violence in Myanmar and the various scandals by Buddhist monks.

As such, humanity will be better off without religions when that is possible in the future and this must not involve a net-loss but a net-gain to humanity.

Getting rid of all religions will not get rid of evil prone humans [.B].
This problem will be resolved with general Morality and Ethics.
As to testing you would have to test all definitions of God. You would thus have to test for omnipresence but you can't apply a test for that considering the observers would have to be omnipresent through the application of the test. The untestability of God as a definition of God necessitates science cannot be applied to God. This untestability, as a definition, existed long before any formal scientific method was conceived.
Since the question of whether God exists is a non-starter, the question of testing for God is also a non-starter.
God is an Impossibility to be real.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=24704

The possibility of science, as empty in itself, not being able to provide all true answers, yet true answers are possible to exist beyond science because of science's limits, necessitates science as not the be all end of truth deriving systems.
Science do not give a damn with chasing absolutely true answers except for whatever is true that satisfy the requirements of is Framework and System.

To Science, if you not believe scientific claims of truths, then test it yourself to confirm its "promised" truths. If you can verify and justify to prove any scientific claims are false, Science will abandon it.
Personal desire also drives violence as well. If we are to summate this list then anything can cause violence. To eradicate religion is to eradicate the cause of these moral systems thus leaving morality as baseless considering science has not provided us with objective moral tenets.
Whatever that drive violence must be managed.

When humanity weaned off all religions in the future [not possible now], humanity must replace it with a fool proof moral system that is very much better [>1000 times] than the current crude theistic morality which is pseudo.
1. Religions are set dogmas. The scientific method is a dogmatic system given it is have set rules. Not all religion can be negated.

2. There is not set moral system which exists outside a religion. Buddhism, with reincarnation and belieifs in lesser gods, heaven/hell realms is a religion. To have a general morality is to build it off of a religion.

3. If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.
Advocate
Posts: 3467
Joined: Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:27 am
Contact:

Re: the value of religion

Post by Advocate »

1. Religions are set dogmas. The scientific method is a dogmatic system given it is have set rules. Not all religion can be negated.

Dogma is belief without reason. Science is rigorous reasons for believing. They are polar opposites.

3. If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.

The fact that science will eventually come up with new understandings does not in any sense entail dumping the ones we have now. Some will fall and some will not but we won't know which ones until it happens. Until then, what we've got is as good as there is, so it's obviously the place to start building our understanding of morality. To build it upon anything less certain, less rigorous would be foolish.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 12244
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:49 am 1. Religions are set dogmas. The scientific method is a dogmatic system given it is have set rules. Not all religion can be negated.
Don't you have any sense of shame and embarrassment in resorting to such a obvious case of the fallacy of hasty generalization and also ignorance.
I won't bother to explain, you find out 'why' yourself.
2. There is not set moral system which exists outside a religion. Buddhism, with reincarnation and beliefs in lesser gods, heaven/hell realms is a religion. To have a general morality is to build it off of a religion.
Ignorance again.
Hedonism, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc., are moral system that are not related specifically to religion.
It is also intellectual shameful that you make conclusion about Buddhism-proper without understanding its core principles thoroughly.
3. If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.
I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: the value of religion

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 6:32 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Thu Dec 17, 2020 5:49 am 1. Religions are set dogmas. The scientific method is a dogmatic system given it is have set rules. Not all religion can be negated.
Don't you have any sense of shame and embarrassment in resorting to such a obvious case of the fallacy of hasty generalization and also ignorance.
I won't bother to explain, you find out 'why' yourself.
2. There is not set moral system which exists outside a religion. Buddhism, with reincarnation and beliefs in lesser gods, heaven/hell realms is a religion. To have a general morality is to build it off of a religion.
Ignorance again.
Hedonism, Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, Deontology, etc., are moral system that are not related specifically to religion.
It is also intellectual shameful that you make conclusion about Buddhism-proper without understanding its core principles thoroughly.
3. If science does not pursue absolute truths then by default they are establishing facts which are eventually false. To build a moral system off of science is to build a moral system which will eventually change and leave itself open to the possibilities of violence being justifiable.
I have stated what are scientific facts are merely 'polished' conjectures.
But scientific facts are the most truthful and reliable knowledge we have which is useful to humanity.
What other source of knowledge is more reliable than scientific knowledge?

Note what you are proposing as 'knowledge' is merely from la la land.
see:
From 'No Man's Land' to 'La La Land'
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=31341
1. Religion is dogma, science is a dogma, thus science is a religion.

2. Buddhism believes in gods and heaven/hell realms...read the Tibetan Book of the Dead.

3. Science's dependence upon relative truths necessitates all truth values are eventually false or subject to change. A morality based upon science is subject to change.
Post Reply