-
Do you think naturalism holds an adequate basis for ethical values? Explain.
-
When you declare you have no absolutes…you have an absolute. It is circular theology that contradicts itself and doesn’t hold up. If we are all right in our own minds than we are all ultimately wrong.
-
I think that naturalism is inadequate because it holds to there being no moral absolutes that cut across groups. Close observation would reveal that all groups hold to some absolutes and have some expectation of fairness and justice. Further the world as a larger group has formed organizations like the international criminal court that tries despots solely because all nations agree to some degree that there is such a thing as a war crime i.e. killing innocent people in pursuit of selfish ambition. Without absolutes we would have no framework to have such organizations, as imperfect as they may be, each group would do whatever is right in their own eyes.
-
The basis for morality cannot be tested by the naturalist scientific method, which is crucial to their worldview.
-
No, naturalism does not hold any ethical value. This view could explain what happens to the materialistic, physical bodies that we possess but does not address thoughts feeling, emotions. God did state that from dust you were made and dust you shall return.
-
I don’t think so. As we see in our world today, there is so much sin ruling our universe, and if we just go along with what society says is right a lot of the times we just end up pleasing ourselves and not others.