6 ms·
> They probably just want a substitute for religion, an authoritative source of knowledge. Going on a complete tangent here. And I'm not disagreeing with anyth
by javert 12y ago
> They probably just want a substitute for religion, an authoritative source of knowledge.
Going on a complete tangent here. And I'm not disagreeing with anything you said.
The substitute for religion is philosophy, not science.
- garrettgrimsley 12y ago>The substitute for religion is philosophy, not science. Philosophy has not offered me the easy, yet wholly unsatisfying, answers that my baptist upbringing did. I wouldn't say that it is the best substitute for religion.
- randallsquared 12y agoPhilosophy and science aren't opposed. Philosophy is conjecture about fields in which we don't know enough to have a science, yet. This is not a dig at philosophy; it's important to keep searching for answers so that we do get enough evidence to build a science.
- javert 12y agoI don't agree with that at all. Philosophy should and can be held to the same rigor as science, i.e., objectivity.
- randallsquared 12y agoI think there are at least some philosophical topics which are non-objective by nature. Consider whether to be a solipsist. ;) More seriously, if you don't believe in an objective morality, then moral philosophy is a subject which qualifies.
- javert 12y agoSomething that is non-objective by nature is a matter of faith, not philosophy. I do believe in objective morality. Morality is simply the study of what we should do. What should we do? That question is perfectly open to scientific enquiry. If Hume was right---that the question cannot be answered scientifically---then that's the end of moral philosophy and the beginning, perhpas, of morality based in faith. but I do not agree with Hume.