Relationship between Philosophy and Theology

[Carrikature]

What about philosophers who are Christians? Don't they have the motivation to not contradict God's revelation?

No. Let's not pretend 'revelation' is anywhere near as cut and dried as it would need to be for this, let alone that 'revelation' is nearly complete enough.

[shunyadragon]

No, it was because you just did not want to agree with me.

No.

Stop parroting and answer the question - what is the Teleology for humankind. Don't you know?

In the beliefs of Theistic religions it is Theistic Teleology. In the beliefs of non-Theist philosophies it is Utilitarian Teleology.

[seer]

In the beliefs of Theistic religions it is Theistic Teleology. In the beliefs of non-Theist philosophies it is Utilitarian Teleology.

Shuny, why do you keep avoiding the question? Just tell us what the teleology for mankind is - or don't you know?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, why do you keep avoiding the question? Just tell us what the teleology for mankind is - or don't you know?

In the beliefs of Theistic religions it is Theistic Teleology. In the beliefs of non-Theist philosophies it is Utilitarian Teleology.

In Theistic Teleology - The doctrine of design and purpose in the material world.


In Unitatarian Teleology -

[seer]

In Unitatarian Teleology -

OK, so which one of these do you hold to? Greatest happiness/pleasure of the greatest number?

[shunyadragon]

OK, so which one of these do you hold to? Greatest happiness/pleasure of the greatest number?

I personally do not believe (hold to?) Utilitarian Teleology. In the other thread I argued for the possibility that Utilitarian Teleology has the ability to to provide a non-Theist explanation for the natural origins of morals and ethics, and that indeed is an option. The reference is general and not comprehensive nor explains in detail. The best explanation of Utilitarian Teleology is that morals and ethics evolved to meet the needs of the survival of the species,

[seer]

I personally do not believe (hold to?) Utilitarian Teleology. In the other thread I argued for the possibility that Utilitarian Teleology has the ability to to provide a non-Theist explanation for the natural origins of morals and ethics, and that indeed is an option. The reference is general and not comprehensive nor explains in detail. The best explanation of Utilitarian Teleology is that morals and ethics evolved to meet the needs of the survival of the species,

Right, and like I said these are invented theories that can not be justified or confirmed empirically or scientifically. Nature has no teleology for humankind, though we can make up our own.

[shunyadragon]

Right, and like I said these are invented theories that can not be justified or confirmed empirically or scientifically. Nature has no teleology for humankind, though we can make up our own.

Again . . . if you take this route, it is equally possible that all Teleologies are made up to satisfy particular philosophical or Theological agendas, which is not a good argument. The descriptive scientific view of the evolution of morals and ethics is based on objectively verifiable evidence.

[seer]

Again . . . if you take this route, it is equally possible that all Teleologies are made up to satisfy particular philosophical or Theological agendas, which is not a good argument. The descriptive scientific view of the evolution of morals and ethics is based on objectively verifiable evidence.

Shuny you keep bringing up science! Where does science say that there is a teleology (end or goal) for humankind? Where is the actual evidence that we have a teleology? I have asked you a number of times yet you refuse to present said evidence or tell us what this teleology is. If you have no idea what the human teleology is then how can you possibly know if it exists?

[shunyadragon]

Shuny you keep bringing up science! Where does science say that there is a teleology (end or goal) for humankind? Where is the actual evidence that we have a teleology? I have asked you a number of times yet you refuse to present said evidence or tell us what this teleology is. If you have no idea what the human teleology is then how can you possibly know if it exists?

You reject science, therefore any response is hopeless.

Again, again and again . . . Utilitarian Teleology in terms of the ecientific view is indeed supported by the objective verifiable evidence, and Theistic Teleology is not.

[seer]

You reject science, therefore any response is hopeless.

Again, again and again . . . Utilitarian Teleology in terms of the scientific view is indeed supported by the objective verifiable evidence, and Theistic Teleology is not.

I'm not rejecting anything Shuny, you are using that as a ruse to not answer the question. What is the scientific evidence that there is a teleology for humankind, what is that teleology? What is objective verifiable evidence that Utilitarianism is more correct than Ethical Egoism or Social Contract Theory or Deontological ethics? Where does science support one over the other? You can't just keep asserting that science supports Utilitarianism or a teleology for human kind without any real evidence. I have no problem if a person has a personal opinion or preference on this, but to try and bring science in to support your position is dishonest without showing the actual evidence.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not rejecting anything Shuny, you are using that as a ruse to not answer the question. What is the scientific evidence that there is a teleology for humankind, what is that teleology? What is objective verifiable evidence that Utilitarianism is more correct than Ethical Egoism or Social Contract Theory or Deontological ethics? Where does science support one over the other? You can't just keep asserting that science supports Utilitarianism or a teleology for human kind without any real evidence. I have no problem if a person has a personal opinion or preference on this, but to try and bring science in to support your position is dishonest without showing the actual evidence.

The science of the evolution has objective evidence for the evolution of morals and ethics.

Seer, the are a number of journals and societies that publish research on the evolution of human and animal behavior. There are literally thousands of articles published on this research. I doubt that citing one or two nor all of them would convince you of anything based on the objective evidence.

See: https://www.hbes.com/ The Human Behavior and Evolution Society for just one journal that constantly publishes this research.

The following site provides an extensive list, literally hundreds of research articles, on the evolution of morals and ethics:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...KUDccQgQMIGDAA

Again, since you reject the science of evolution you will reject the thousands of research projects and scholarly articles from major universities of the world in recent history.

Actually I am not arguing for any one philosophy, because it is science and not philosophy that relies on the objective verifiable evidence to support a Utilitarian Teleology. Ethical Egoism fails, because the vast amount of research and the objective evidence has demonstrated that the group society and culture determines the morals and ethics, and not the choices of the individual.

[seer]

Actually I am not arguing for any one philosophy, because it is science and not philosophy that relies on the objective verifiable evidence to support a Utilitarian Teleology. Ethical Egoism fails, because the vast amount of research and the objective evidence has demonstrated that the group society and culture determines the morals and ethics, and not the choices of the individual.

Shuny, that is your opinion on Ethical Egoism, but Social Contract Theory or Deontological ethics would not fail, even by your standard. And again, I'm not arguing that the a society or culture don't determine their ethics, I'm arguing that there is no empirical or scientific evidence that humankind has a teleology. Or that there is empirical or scientific that Utilitarian ethics is more correct than it's competition. You have not once told us what this teleology actually is and why.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, that is your opinion on Ethical Egoism, but Social Contract Theory or Deontological ethics would not fail, even by your standard. And again, I'm not arguing that the a society or culture don't determine their ethics, I'm arguing that there is no empirical or scientific evidence that humankind has a teleology. Or that there is empirical or scientific that Utilitarian ethics is more correct than it's competition. You have not once told us what this teleology actually is and why.

There is no objective verifiable evidence for the Theistic Teleology, but there is for the Utilitarian Teleology as cited. The question why? is a philosophical/theological question. Scientific evidence and research overwhelmingly supports the natural non-theist origins of human morals and ethics.


It is increasingly apparent as it always has been that you reject evolution despite the overwhelming academic research and literature supporting it.

The science of the evolution has objective evidence for the evolution of morals and ethics.

Again . . .

Seer, the are a number of journals and societies that publish research on the evolution of human and animal behavior. There are literally thousands of articles published on this research. I doubt that citing one or two nor all of them would convince you of anything based on the objective evidence.

See: https://www.hbes.com/ The Human Behavior and Evolution Society for just one journal that constantly publishes this research.

The following site provides an extensive list, literally hundreds of research articles, on the evolution of morals and ethics:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...KUDccQgQMIGDAA

Again, since you reject the science of evolution you will reject the thousands of research projects and scholarly articles from major universities of the world in recent history.

Actually I am not arguing for any one philosophy, because it is science and not philosophy that relies on the objective verifiable evidence to support a Utilitarian Teleology. Ethical Egoism fails, because the vast amount of research and the objective evidence has demonstrated that the group society and culture determines the morals and ethics, and not the choices of the individual.

[seer]

There is no objective verifiable evidence for the Theistic Teleology, but there is for the Utilitarian Teleology as cited. The question why? is a philosophical/theological question. Scientific evidence and research overwhelmingly supports the natural non-theist origins of human morals and ethics.


It is increasingly apparent as it always has been that you reject evolution despite the overwhelming academic research and literature supporting it.

The science of the evolution has objective evidence for the evolution of morals and ethics.

Again . . .

Seer, the are a number of journals and societies that publish research on the evolution of human and animal behavior. There are literally thousands of articles published on this research. I doubt that citing one or two nor all of them would convince you of anything based on the objective evidence.

See: https://www.hbes.com/ The Human Behavior and Evolution Society for just one journal that constantly publishes this research.

The following site provides an extensive list, literally hundreds of research articles, on the evolution of morals and ethics:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q...KUDccQgQMIGDAA

Again, since you reject the science of evolution you will reject the thousands of research projects and scholarly articles from major universities of the world in recent history.

Actually I am not arguing for any one philosophy, because it is science and not philosophy that relies on the objective verifiable evidence to support a Utilitarian Teleology. Ethical Egoism fails, because the vast amount of research and the objective evidence has demonstrated that the group society and culture determines the morals and ethics, and not the choices of the individual.

Shuny, your links say nothing about Utilitarian Teleology, and there is no empirical or scientific evidence that humankind has a teleology. You have not offered ONE example of science supporting a Teleology for humankind, nor have you offered empirical evidence for Utilitarian theory. Please quote from your links where they support your OPINION.