Science must destroy religion

[uther]

Harris went through a thought experiment similar to this in “The Moral Landscape.” He came to a different conclusion.

I suppose that would depend upon your own self evaluation, the evaluation of your own worth in society. If you believe, as most socialists believe, that you are not one of the masses, then perhaps you may determine that your odds are better.

Or perhaps you may be an irrational atheist, willing to do the Catholic thing if necessary, and sacrifice yourself for the good of the rest of society. It is not necessary that an atheist or particularly an agnostic be rational, although ceasing to exist is an interesting price to pay.

The argument that the world would be a better place without any religion has always seemed an odd one to me, however, because it is based on a premise of good that eludes me. And the aggressive atheist is the most puzzling, the one who seeks to eradicate religion.

If the proposal is to overcome religion with science organically, while it may take a long time, long past the life of any given atheist, then may the best theology win (atheism is a theology). That would be the laissez-faire approach, predicated on human free will and understanding and the free choice to accept what is rational. If in fact humanity is rational, and that is what the atheist must cling to in this argument, then rationality will win, and if religion is indeed irrational, it will lose.

However, if there is a time-line in view for this overtaking of religion by science, ie. rationality, then the rational thing to effect is coercion in some form. This force comes from somewhere, either by government or by self-appointed crusaders. If it is attempted or carried out within the confines of a civil society such as America, while it may push the law to the max it must conform to law within the boundaries of law and the political and structural order in which it finds itself. If it is to be lawless it is a revolution, necessitating blood-letting. In the lawful scenario political push-back must be expected, in which, if it remains confined to the lawful order, the outcome may well be in doubt depending upon the balance of population of atheist and religious.

If we are then to create another order to facilitate this through revolution, we are then talking about a push-back with weapons, and again the result is in doubt until the final victory is gained by the atheist forces, at which time the regime, whether national or global, can go about conducting the rational measures that are required to eradicate religion. But you will notice that the kind of society necessary to effect this eradication cannot be free in any meaningful sense, because we know that when left to themselves, a certain portion (a large one) will seek religion is some form or another. If that means that humanity is mostly irrational, then the process must therefore be to try to eradicate irrationality. But it is clear, as history shows us, that the eradication of religion requires coercion, the application of force, which when considered in the larger context is not very rational.

And all of this assumes that atheists agree with one another about the direction society should take. Otherwise they begin to find excuses to kill each other, witness the purges in the histories of communism.

The only other scenario is to rationally live and let live, resist the coercion impulse, and in fact fight against it wherever is to be found, including in the vast socialist movements of the world. The only truly rational atheist is the Ayn Rand type, in the end, and all she really wanted was the freedom to be what she believed was the best that a rational self-interested human being could be, materially successful and fulfilled by achieved self-interest, in the maximum absence of coercion.

But in her world, the religious would be allowed to be irrational, as she believed them to be, and sink in their own irrationality, provided that the social, political and governmental structure did not give them any power to coerce her or any objectivists like her to follow the religious morality.

Would the religious cease to exist in the objectivist world? I doubt it. In fact I think they would thrive.

So why does the atheist Sam Harris even bother to worry about religious in the first place? What is this coercive impulse about anyway? Is he speaking about the Islamists and their compulsion to conquer the world by force for Allah? Or is he merely speaking about the irritating Christians who insist upon poking at his conscience?

If the Islamists, the rational thing is to defeat them militarily and thoroughly. Self defence, or at least defence of the defenceless has an ally in Catholic faith. If he is speaking primarily of Christians, why not just ignore them? Do they have power over his life in some way? Or is it simply that he wants power over their lives?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Does anyone have the complete list of Sam Harris’s published research?

I found only two on pubMed and based on these two published papers, his research methodology seems very juvenile to me (small sample size, statistical significance, weak inclusion and exclusion criteria of subjects, questionable choice of biomarker, inconclusive results, unproven correlation), very unprofessional from a clinical point of view and lack of scientific rigor.

Are there any atheists who actually take his “scientific” papers seriously? Please share your thoughts and rationality. Thanks

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Just to share this news analysis on Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who gunned down 77 people in 2011.

Here are some quotes about Breivik based on the manifesto he published prior to the massacre:

"Breivik also stressed that science trumps religion: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings”

"He argued that fully 20 percent of all government spending must be devoted to scientific research and that science funding is even more important than aid to the poor: “Welfare expenditure should not take precedent over the 20% fixed sum dedicated to science/technology, research and development”

“He explained that the Nazis had the proper social Darwinist goals, but unfortunately they destroyed the reputation of “eugenics” by combining it to … mass extermination. But seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept … We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone or at least start by legalizing it …. This must be a non-coercive form of biological improvement which will be predominantly motivated by … the desire to create the best … children”

"Breivik laments that the Nazi abuses have made implementing eugenics more difficult today:

We all remember the horrors from WW2 where the Empire of Japan committed atrocities against the Chinese by large scale massacres and by using them as human test subjects … Nazi Germany and other countries did the same thing in a smaller degree … Unfortunately, the horrors of WW2 created a stigma associated with all future research and advances in … improving humans biologically by removing negative hereditary factors."

We don’t need any more testament to show that how sick and twisted these people are when they champion science over religion.

 

[tonyrey]

Getting back to Sam Harris, I think that in terms of public policy, presuming that his idea has captured enough social and political force to be implemented, it might be worthwhile for any who are atheists and agnostics to consider and make a kind of Pascal’s wager.

Let us presume for a moment that not all atheists and agnostics are part of the elite who can spare themselves the consequences of any given public policy. Moreover, let us presume that not all atheists and agnostics have obvious social value. Some may be uninterested in working, others may be deformed, defective, diseased, disabled or otherwise not prime productive people. Let us just imagine the wide scope of humanity and every possibility that we can witness or think of is represented in the atheistic or agnostic community.

Now let us suppose that the proposal is on the table to eliminate religion, one way or another. Since we are on a Catholic forum here, let us then take the Catholic religion as our marker.

The Catholic Church teaches that the human person is intrinsically valuable, regardless of its development, its physical or psychological defects, its age or even its attitude toward God.
(It should be noted that not all Catholics in all times have acted as though they believed this to be true, but it is still the teaching of the faith.)

On the other hand, the a-religious, the non-believer in any kind of God, the atheist or the agnostic accepts the idea that man is only matter, and mind is a result of that combination of matter and energy in whatever way the god-less scientists wish to explain it. From that the rational conclusion is that no individual human being has any more intrinsic value than any other material thing, regardless of the human emotions that may be involved.

Therefore, as a matter of public policy, for the atheistic society, were it deemed necessary or desirable to irradicate or eliminate any portion of the human population for whatever reason, rationally speaking there should be no objection, for none of the individuals targetted have any particular intrinsic value, especially if we are targetting the non-productive in a time of economic suffering on the larger scale. In fact, should we doubt the premise, there is ample eveidence to demonstrate it. We have seen such public policies from the National Socialists in the past as well as the Communists, both ostensibly atheist in their official outlook. In fact, there was nothing irrational about their policies and practices of genocide, providing the premise is in place that no individual human being has intrinsic value apart from their social value. This is the rational principle or equation at work leading to forced abortion and sterilization to support the one-child policy in China to this day.

However, inconsistencies aside, the society built upon the Catholic idea of intrinsic human value holds much better odds for the survival of the atheist or anyone else who may or may not be considered socially valuable by a strictly rational godless society. It would be a better bet for any kind of misfit, atheist or not, to promote the governance of society based on the Catholic principle of intrinsic value. And, were he of the right temperment he could well sit back and snipe at the Catholic faith, the Church and the Catholics, safe in the knowledge that they will likely never succumb to the temptation to shut him up permanently. Actually it would be in his interest and security to encourage Catholics to be as faithful and good Catholics as they could possibly be, and promote their elevation to public office.

But for my money, give me even the Catholic hypocrites over the atheist true believers any day.

Irrefutable logic - provided the Catholic hypocrites or the materialists are not extremists! Most people are inconsistent…

 

[tonyrey]

Just to share this news analysis on Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who gunned down 77 people in 2011.

Here are some quotes about Breivik based on the manifesto he published prior to the massacre:

"Breivik also stressed that science trumps religion: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings”

"He argued that fully 20 percent of all government spending must be devoted to scientific research and that science funding is even more important than aid to the poor: “Welfare expenditure should not take precedent over the 20% fixed sum dedicated to science/technology, research and development”

“He explained that the Nazis had the proper social Darwinist goals, but unfortunately they destroyed the reputation of “eugenics” by combining it to … mass extermination. But seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept … We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone or at least start by legalizing it …. This must be a non-coercive form of biological improvement which will be predominantly motivated by … the desire to create the best … children”

"Breivik laments that the Nazi abuses have made implementing eugenics more difficult today:

We all remember the horrors from WW2 where the Empire of Japan committed atrocities against the Chinese by large scale massacres and by using them as human test subjects … Nazi Germany and other countries did the same thing in a smaller degree … Unfortunately, the horrors of WW2 created a stigma associated with all future research and advances in … improving humans biologically by removing negative hereditary factors."

We don’t need any more testament to show that how sick and twisted these people are when they champion science over religion.

Irrefutable logic - without any provisos!

 

[LogisticsBranch]

A 5 year old boy who is a son of a colleague where I work just died this past March of a brain tumor. A cruel, painful, terrible and slow death, with parents as committed and faithful and hopeful for a miracle from God that I’ve ever seen. And yet, God, in his evil genius ways, deigned it right and well that the girl Padre Pio healed miraculous had her vision restored. This monster of a god can see fit to work a “miracle at Fatima”, but this young, innocent boy is ravaged and ruined before he is extinguished by cancer.

Christians, and many Catholics among them, are quite ready to tell me of their petty, pathetic “miracles” that bring them closer to God. I have to much desire to not admit the depths of God’s evilness to believe them, because if they are right, YHWH is way more of a cruel demon than I can bear to contemplate. Frivolously wasting his supernatural interventions while so many innocent, desperate and deserving people go unhelped, alone, unanswered, forsaken by this “God of Love”.
-TS

Let me ease back into the topic “Science must destroy religion” by saying I’m very sorry to learn that your friend (colleague) no longer has his/her little boy. It wasn’t God who killed the child. It was cancer. Maybe you would be kind enough to tell his parents who believe in God that I send them my love, knowing how difficult it must be though realizing that they must be surrounded with kind and loving friends and family that will support them at this time of sorrow. Oftentimes, having loving friends and family to comfort them is somewhat a miracle since there oh so many times a parent(s) may not have such and there are times a child has no parent or loved one at his or her side. I recall long ago flying to a bedside of a person(adult) because no family member wished to be present since they thought the individual was already dead because to them the person wasn’t responding to them but did respond to me for a few moments before passing on.

Take care TS. I might ease again back into the topic in a few days.

 

[vera_dicere]

Not even the Occupy Movement can destroy the Catholic Church.

They can’t even come up with their own orginial masks.

 

[Sair]

Irrefutable logic - provided the Catholic hypocrites or the materialists are not extremists! Most people are inconsistent…

Quite true. And the way a belief makes people behave tells us absolutely nothing about the truth or falsity of that belief - only its effect upon the minds of the people in question.

Part of the problem comes when people who are used to having their moral strictures handed to them from some form of authority take impersonal nature to be that authority, little realising that nature only allows for the development of morality - it doesn’t provide a handbook on how we ought to behave or advice on whether it’s actually a good idea to give our impulses free rein.

It’s all very well to give examples of unbelievers who decided to take moral dictation from amoral science; but it would be hypocritical - and entirely consistent, of course, with human inconstancy (!) - to suppose that these folks are worse than those who use religious beliefs to support their own hateful and violent impulses.

 

[Sair]

Worship occurs when you regard something as the supreme factor in your interpretation of reality, pay it homage and adapt your way of life in accordance with its demands (even if these turn out to be illusions!) There is obviously nothing else you consider to have greater power and significance than physical energy. So you should be full of awe, adulation and gratitude towards it if you value your life…

Actually, that is an entirely theistic concept of what worship or reverence entails. Scientists, in general, don’t defer to “science” or “nature” as a recognisably personal entity, in the way religious believers defer to god(s). It’s not as if the universe will be hurt or offended if we refuse to die when undoctored natural causes might determine that we should, or if we interfere with our natural fertility (by equally natural means, let’s be honest) for practical and personal ends. It also won’t be hurt if we take deliberate action that hurts another resident of the earth, human or otherwise - but that shouldn’t matter, because the victim of this action will be hurt just the same whether there’s a personal god looking over our shoulders or not.

What tends to happen when people develop a fascination for science is that they begin to feel a sense of awe for the power and intricacy of blind, impersonal natural forces. My first experience of this - and the moment from which I can definitely date my pantheistic leanings - was in a high school science class, looking through a microscope at a bacterium, and feeling a curious but undeniable sense of affection and wonder for this tiny, unthinking, yet living and functioning organism and the natural “miracle” it represented. To suppose this is the result of external design unspeakably diminishes the fascination it holds - to think that it could be “designed” by an anthropomorphic mind which is like us only in that it surpasses the accomplishments of human minds is to belittle, if not utterly deny, the achievement of natural forces and to negate our understanding of and respect for the power they still have over our lives.

At the end of the day, the original and entire aim of science is to develop our understanding of the world we inhabit, that we might better appreciate it and know how to operate within it to achieve our most cherished ends as an effective and affective species. Yes, of course science can be - and has been - abused by those with malevolent aims, but in this, it stands in company with every single other human endeavour, including religion. The lesson in all this is that we must always exercise discernment (a natural potential of human minds) and assess situations and consequences, rather than blindly follow the dictates of any given system. Once we are no longer children, we should be able to overcome our natural credulity with our equally natural capacity for more considered judgement…

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Does anyone have the complete list of Sam Harris’s published research?

I found only two on pubMed and based on these two published papers, his research methodology seems very juvenile to me (small sample size, statistical significance, weak inclusion and exclusion criteria of subjects, questionable choice of biomarker, inconclusive results, unproven correlation), very unprofessional from a clinical point of view and lack of scientific rigor.

Are there any atheists who actually take his “scientific” papers seriously? Please share your thoughts and rationality. Thanks

I have a few minutes. I do think he did publish in a peer-reviewed journal. I’d have to find
it . In the meantime Sam Harris said, "This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage. "
huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/drugs-and-the-meaning-of-_b_891014.html

Well, I can’t say I agree with what he wrote since I honestly don’t think taking LSD and psilocybin are ‘indispensable tools of insight’ nor do I think it is ‘a anchor of sanity’. I earlier on did discuss Sam Harris.

What I did locate that I thought might be worth sharing is the following:

1. Motivational and neural systems of religion by Kathryn A. Johnsona, B. Hunter Balla, Gene A. Brewera & Adam B. Cohena
   tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/2153599X.2011.647854
2. Building a neuroscience of pleasure and well-being by Kent C Berridge and Morten L Kringelbach
   psywb.com/content/1/1/3
3. Brain surgery boosts spirituality by Janelle Weaver
   nature.com/news/2010/100210/full/news.2010.66.html

---

DP,
[snip]
I think of disposing of those I dislike . . .
atheistgirl;9452494:

With some of the CEOs and CFOs I have to deal with, this can be an hourly occurance for me. Nothing immoral in it what so ever

Sarah x

Thanks unfortunate Sarah that you would dislike those CEOs and CFOs. I’ve had the pleasure of having lunch with Anne at her home.forbes.com/profile/anne-cox-chambers/ I will tell you this much the men in Atlanta,GA are to die for! There is something about a good looking man wearing a suit with boots that kindly says, “May I help you Mame? Can I carry your luggage for you?” Sure!

 

[DeepBlueSea]

In the meantime Sam Harris said, "This is not to say that everyone should take psychedelics. As I will make clear below, these drugs pose certain dangers. Undoubtedly, there are people who cannot afford to give the anchor of sanity even the slightest tug. It has been many years since I have taken psychedelics, in fact, and my abstinence is borne of a healthy respect for the risks involved. However, there was a period in my early 20’s when I found drugs like psilocybin and LSD to be indispensable tools of insight, and some of the most important hours of my life were spent under their influence. I think it quite possible that I might never have discovered that there was an inner landscape of mind worth exploring without having first pressed this pharmacological advantage. "

Sick! His grey matter probably has been damaged by those psychedelics. That really explains why his “scientific” papers and his “reasoning” are so “insightful” and “profound”.

Thanks unfortunate Sarah that you would dislike those CEOs and CFOs.

I am more wary of controlling shareholders on the Board. They can shove any CEO & CFO out of the door anytime. uch:

I will tell you this much the men in Atlanta,GA are to die for! There is something about a good looking man wearing a suit with boots that kindly says, “May I help you Mame? Can I carry your luggage for you?” Sure!

 

[DCNBILL]

From my observations i would say that there are a great many similarities in the morality of any given group of individuals, and closer groups of peers tend to share their morality more closely. However, it is worth noting that there are often radical differences between the moral zeitgeists of people in disconnected cultures, for example cultures on different continents and distant from each other in time. Our world and our history is peppered with examples of this.

I agree there are some exceptions in certain cultures and individuals but as you say generally the similarities are recurrent.

I guess you could say that at the most general level most codes of morality say that causing suffering is wrong and reducing suffering or creating happiness is right. That said, in any given code of morality the specifics are very important.

Note that I am not so much talking of a particular moral code, as a sense of what is moral or immoral or right and wrong.

Seems reasonable, although it’s worth noting that it’s not just human “minds” various different social animals have forms of morality as well. Of course these are often radically different to ours, but clearly a morality nontheless.

I believe that there is a distinction that you may be overlooking. Animals have certain behaviors that may seem to be morally right but these are behaviors none the less, the animals do not make rational choices. Moral behavior in humans is different, in humans a person is faced with a decision, say to return excess change that they were just handed. The morality of that person “informs” the person that money should be returned to the rightful owner and the person does. In this case the morality guides the action but not is the action.

Not sure if that is sufficient agreement for you.

Close enough.

Would you agree that there can exist moral behaviors in some persons that would be considered better than moral behaviors in some other people?

 

[epan]

Just to share this news analysis on Anders Breivik, the Norwegian mass murderer who gunned down 77 people in 2011.

Here are some quotes about Breivik based on the manifesto he published prior to the massacre:

"Breivik also stressed that science trumps religion: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings”

"He argued that fully 20 percent of all government spending must be devoted to scientific research and that science funding is even more important than aid to the poor: “Welfare expenditure should not take precedent over the 20% fixed sum dedicated to science/technology, research and development”

“He explained that the Nazis had the proper social Darwinist goals, but unfortunately they destroyed the reputation of “eugenics” by combining it to … mass extermination. But seeking biological perfection is still a logical concept … We just have to make sure that we offer it as a voluntary option to everyone or at least start by legalizing it …. This must be a non-coercive form of biological improvement which will be predominantly motivated by … the desire to create the best … children”

"Breivik laments that the Nazi abuses have made implementing eugenics more difficult today:

We all remember the horrors from WW2 where the Empire of Japan committed atrocities against the Chinese by large scale massacres and by using them as human test subjects … Nazi Germany and other countries did the same thing in a smaller degree … Unfortunately, the horrors of WW2 created a stigma associated with all future research and advances in … improving humans biologically by removing negative hereditary factors."

We don’t need any more testament to show that how sick and twisted these people are when they champion science over religion.

So, if I were to dig up an example of an atrocity performed with religion over science as motivation, then would you claim the converse?

Besides, Harris point is to find consistency in moral understanding through science. So your examples are not very relevant to his points.

 

[NeedImprovement]

Morality without a Creator could not, logically, exist.

• The ultimate truth , when logically thought through.

The unfortunate reality of what we see, is that those whose souls are (as of yet) not open to the concept of assenting to an absolute truth must ultimately begin to modify the rational truth (to suit their own understanding/comfort level) any time it begins to converge on the ultimate truth ; allowing for a degree of moral relativism to dictate the perimiter limiting how much truth they may bear - the perimiter beyond which logic is not permitted to function.

In this sense, they perhaps aren’t that different from the apostles at one point, recalling that passage where our Blessed Lord said to them:

John 16:12 [NAB] **“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.” **

Subsequently , we are obliged to deal with both deliberately and inadvertently altered definitions which, when presented in “arguments” here, tend to dictate the terms of the argument in a restrictive manner.

As an extreme example, when I started ruminating on DCNBILL’s post :

If “science must destroy religion”, that’s like saying the “mother must destroy the father” , but first , so the “altered” definitions can be applied, we must kill two of the mother’s and father’s children - theology and metaphysics.

Similar to the examples posted earlier on this thread , science and religion are in perfect harmony or, (congruent to the analogy) the mother and the father speak in perfect unison when they say : abortion is murder.

As we have seen on this thread, anyone who starts to squirm when they read that , have absolutely *zero scientific proof *nor *religious proof *to refute it . . . becaue it is the ultimate truth . We might say, the absolute truth speaks here , but some of us, “cannot bear it now.”

How sad - :sad_yes: - on something as integral, as crucial , as the morally bankrupt concept of the expendability of a little child’s life in the womb of his or her mother.

 

[DPMartin]

Hardly an agreement.

DCNBILL

You really don’t know much about the Lord and the Bible, or what a covenant is, or a agreement is, do you? What did God call the Ten Commandments that He wrote on stone tables? God called it a covenant:

Ex:34:28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

and a covenant is:

**Covenant: **OED

1. A mutual agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing certain acts; a compact, contract, bargain; sometimes, the undertaking, pledge, or promise of one of the parties. Phrases, to make or enter into a c.; to hold, keep, break c. (No longer in ordinary use, exc. when coloured by legal or theological associations.)

You people stare right at a thing, talk about the thing, but you don’t have a clue to what the thing is. I do believe that is understood as some sort of blindness, isn’t it?

 

[DeepBlueSea]

So, if I were to dig up an example of an atrocity performed with religion over science as motivation, then would you claim the converse?

Nope. Because religion, at least not Catholicism, never claim that it must destroy science. If not, I don’t know why Nobel Laureates are sitting on the panel of The Pontifical Academy of Sciences

Besides, Harris point is to find consistency in moral understanding through science. So your examples are not very relevant to his points.

Nope. His positions are that religion and science are incompatible and maintenance of religious dogma comes at the expense of science. He made sweeping statement about religion by lumping all belief systems under one common umbrella, without any practical understanding of how each one derives its moral understanding based on faith and reason.

I maintain that Anders Breivik is an apt example to demonstrate that not only science fails to bring consistency in (his) moral understanding, science is used to justify (his) eugenic killing.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

Irrefutable logic - without any provisos!

Thanks and this is my 100th post on CAF:extrahappy:

 

[DCNBILL]

DCNBILL

You really don’t know much about the Lord and the Bible, or what a covenant is, or a agreement is, do you? What did God call the Ten Commandments that He wrote on stone tables? God called it a covenant:

Ex:34:28: And he was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.

and a covenant is:

**Covenant: **OED

1. A mutual agreement between two or more persons to do or refrain from doing certain acts; a compact, contract, bargain; sometimes, the undertaking, pledge, or promise of one of the parties. Phrases, to make or enter into a c.; to hold, keep, break c. (No longer in ordinary use, exc. when coloured by legal or theological associations.)

You people stare right at a thing, talk about the thing, but you don’t have a clue to what the thing is. I do believe that is understood as some sort of blindness, isn’t it?

So you are asserting that God did not create humans with a moral conscious prior to the covenant at Sinai?

Note that we are discussing philosophical concepts concerning the relationship between science and religion here, not covenant theology.

If you wish to start a thread on covenant theology I am sure you would get a great discussion on the apologetics forum.

If you wish to study more about Covenant Theology please see these books by
Dr. Scott Hahn - A Father Who Keeps His Promises, Kinship by Covenant, Swear To God and Understanding the Scriptures

For a historical view on the concept of covenant please see Dilbert R. Hillers book Covenant (The History of a Biblical Idea)

 

[tonyrey]

Thanks and this is my 100th post on CAF:extrahappy:

Congratulations! It’s good to have a contributor from Singapore. I haven’t noticed any others on the philosophy forum…

 

[DPMartin]

So you are asserting that God did not create humans with a moral conscious prior to the covenant at Sinai?

Note that we are discussing philosophical concepts concerning the relationship between science and religion here, not covenant theology.

If you wish to start a thread on covenant theology I am sure you would get a great discussion on the apologetics forum.

If you wish to study more about Covenant Theology please see these books by
Dr. Scott Hahn - A Father Who Keeps His Promises, Kinship by Covenant, Swear To God and Understanding the Scriptures

For a historical view on the concept of covenant please see Dilbert R. Hillers book Covenant (The History of a Biblical Idea)

You Catholics will say any sort of vomit, with a very unethical intent to win an argument don’t you?
You made a statement I responded with the correct information butthead, no need to try and look like you know what you are talking about now.

He who can’t agree to the Truth, should not be trusted in anything he says or does.