And they are entirely natural.
Of course. There is nothing higher, only somethings that are locally, personally as dear. I’m unaware of anything unnatural.
1 Like
I was mainly thinking of human brain and behavioral plasticity. But thank you for calling my attention to phenotype. haha
I think it’s perfectly reasonable to take the terms of methodological naturalism as axiomatic. The scientific method has served humanity quite well, in terms of discovering factual truths about the physical universe. Totally agree that science isn’t comprehensive. Haidt and others can draw conclusions about the evolution of morality and how that affects contemporary divisions between “right” and “left,” but the methods of science can’t tell us which answer is “good.” That’s Wittgenstein’s point. Some questions involve a non-theoretical understanding, often based on what he called “imponderable evidence.” Why does one wine score 95 pts and another 90? Is there such a thing as “taste”?
Yes for properly empirical questions where science applies as you say too. 
1 Like
I’m still waiting for you to explain why one wine scores 95 and another 90 when I can’t tell any difference. C’mon, California guy! haha
1 Like
Heck I’ve had good wine I especially liked but I didn’t pick it out and couldn’t. I’m not even gourmet where coffee is concerned, just medium roasted black. I’m lucky not have been deported.
2 Likes
Get behind me, Satan!
For the record, I draw the line at metaphysical naturalism.
That thing you call “faith expressed in love,” maybe? Or the “ground of being” that you call “God”? None of those things are truths that can be investigated by methodological naturalism.
Because none of them are truths. Period.
1 Like
Is it a true statement that you love your wife? How could that be proven?
It’s obvious. God is not. Faith is a thing, but is its own substance. Just as doing the right thing is its own reward. Faith in a person or a situation is born of love, of experience. Faith in God is not. Apart from as an extension of the desire to love and be loved.
It’s obvious to you but I’m agnostic regarding this claim you make regarding your wife. At least I don’t hold a positive belief that you have no love for your wife. How come you by positive belief that those who claim to love God in fact do not? You’d say they love only a figment of their own imagination but why should we not believe that the wife you claim is not a representation you hold in your mind, a mere figment. Which claims of love is it okay to pi** on? Is the criteria generalizable and objective?
Is there any clear criteria for that rejection beyond personal/traditional preference and custom?
No you’re not. As you have a theory of mind. You love yours. Therefore I love mine. It’s a fatuous comparison isn’t it. Nobody can ‘prove’ an emotional state that one way or another nearly all humans share along with mammals and birds at least vs. there actually being ‘higher things’ because we believe in them with no evidence whatsoever.
This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.