[Vision2020] Religious Diversity Education

[Luke]

Hello, Mr. Moffett:

> >because of man's sinfulness. Whatever God commands us not to do is what
we
> >want to do the most. He condemns stealing, yet thievery occurs en mass
> >throughout the world. He condemns lying, but it is so natural for us to
> >deceive others, and sometimes ourselves, when it suits our purposes. He
> >condemns fornication, yet there are millions who either do it or tolerate
> >it; the same goes for adultery. And the list goes ever on. Everything
> >divinely forbidden is sought after, and so when God draws out a just
reward
> >for the murderer, the world today shuns His justice and lets the slayer
get
> >off free.
> >
>
> Ted replies:
>
> Luke, stay tuned!  I have been doing research on biblical references and
> analysis regarding the death penalty (but not simple minded analysis,
sorry
> about my bias!).

    My point about the bias was that having bias is like breathing air - you
can't escape it; everyone looks at the world from a particular vantage
point, and there are things we like and things we dislike. I wasn't
upholding simpletons.



> >     Oh, I have nothing wrong with science, but it is a tool with limited
> >application; you cannot make moral judgments off of scientific knowledge,
> >or
> >upon the basis of empirical probability, which is in effect what you
were
> >doing.
>
> Ted replies:
>
> So if I use science to conclude that a chemical pollutant has a certain
> probability that it will kill people, and so should be avoided, the use of
> science in this example is invalid?  Notice I am not saying that science
> tells us it is immoral to kill, merely that it is part of the process of
> finding out what does kill, and therefore what to avoid.

I don't know that we have a disagreement here. I fully support technological
research, but as you said, technology does not tell us that it is immoral to
kill.


> PLease supply the quote from my text where I used science as the total
basis
> to determine a moral or ethical rule.
> I do not believe I have done this.

>From your post on July 20th:

"Some statements I do believe are certain...
Some absolutist belief systems about God and the whole universe may be true
in whole.  The evidence is lacking to PROVE any of these belief systems to
be wholly true, for many reasons.  Logical and empirical uncertainty."

    You're juding these things based entirely on the scientific method. The
scientific method is founded on the properties of physical matter, and it
cannot make moral judgements or recommendations. It works great for telling
you which solution will dissolve paint, or how to get better fuel economy,
but the empirical modus operandus has no grasp on ethics or faith.

Sincerely and respectfully,
Luke Nieuwsma