God’s Not Dead, Chapter 3 – In Search of A Moral Foundation (pt30)
IN SEARCH OF A MORAL FOUNDATION
Knowing that morality must be grounded in some authority, the skeptics’ desperate struggle is to find any alternative other than God. The real issue becomes identifying the basis for morality.
Umm, no, we (at least I) reject that morality needs to be “grounded in authority”. As I have explained I am confident that morality need not have been bestowed upon us, a believable supernatural-free alternative can explain morality without the extra parts a god brings.
It’s very hard to see why they would be anything more than a subjective impression ingrained into us by societal and parental conditioning.
Unless I have well misunderstood this quote from William Lane Craig, I agree with this as a definition of morality and think that my previous explanations fit this very well.
When humans play God they usually act in their own self-interests, not the interests of others.
There’s a reason it’s called playing god when they do this, remember Exodus 34:14? Gen. 7:4?
The author continues, attempting to explain that science can’t be the “arbiter of ethics” to which I kind of agree. Science can tell you about the consequences of actions we take but the ‘why’ is left up to the individual. Science can tell you what is likely to happen as a result of an action you take and be used to decide if one action would be better than another, but still the decision is left to the person.
However, when you hold to a worldview that only science can give you truth, you’re forced to look to it for all your answers.
Not forced, but it is the best way. If science can give an answer or provide data about the repercussions of your decisions your decisions would be supported with that behind them. Science isn’t there to decide for you, it gives you reasons to make your decisions.
Again I will say, do you know of any answer provided by philosophy or religion that is better (better supported and a better explanation) than one provided by science?