Originally Posted by Mercurial

And what of secular deontological approaches to ethics like that of Kant? Or the many varieties of consequentialism which are not preference utilitarianism?

I am largely in the camp of Weinberg on all of this, ie on the issues you raise that I quote above. Weinberg is as passionately anti religious as is Dawkins but Weinberg is a serious scientist whereas Dawklins is not.

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

I am largely in the camp of Weinberg on all of this, ie on the issues you raise that I quote above. Weinberg is as passionately anti religious as is Dawkins but Weinberg is a serious scientist whereas Dawklins is not.

Is this Weinberg chap a serious philosopher?

Originally Posted by ffc

Oh i imagine you can get bored of anything, even being boiled alive must lose it's terror after the first three or four million pots are worn out.

I've been thinking about it a bit more, the more I think about it the more I cannot see a situation where I would not be some depraved cultist of Slaanesh eventually.

I find the thought very unsettling.

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

I am largely in the camp of Weinberg on all of this, ie on the issues you raise that I quote above. Weinberg is as passionately anti religious as is Dawkins but Weinberg is a serious scientist whereas Dawklins is not.

So you agree that morality exists outside of religous teaching?

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

No brainer to me and billions more.

I think that is Dawkins point.

Originally Posted by Dan_Murphy

I've been thinking about it a bit more, the more I think about it the more I cannot see a situation where I would not be some depraved cultist of Slaanesh eventually.

I find the thought very unsettling.

Fulgrim, the 40k's Harvey Dent.

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

I am largely in the camp of Weinberg on all of this, ie on the issues you raise that I quote above. Weinberg is as passionately anti religious as is Dawkins but Weinberg is a serious scientist whereas Dawklins is not.

Standard appeal to authority. What relevance has a man's standing in one field have to his criticisms of religion?

Originally Posted by aldiper

Standard appeal to authority. What relevance has a man's standing in one field have to his criticisms of religion?

Not at all. Dawkins is merely a populariser, a TV presenter. He is not a credible scientist. His views on evolution as as insightful as his views on GAA.

Morality derives from inherited religions: it is handed down from mother to daughter, almost always within a religious context. This remains so in China and Vietnam today which, though nominally atheistic, still have to the old beliefs.
Don't take my word for it. The passionately anti religious Darwin family who make a living slamming religion agree with me

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

Not at all. Dawkins is merely a populariser, a TV presenter. He is not a credible scientist. His views on evolution as as insightful as his views on GAA.

Morality derives from inherited religions: it is handed down from mother to daughter, almost always within a religious context. This remains so in China and Vietnam today which, though nominally atheistic, still have to the old beliefs.
Don't take my word for it. The passionately anti religious Darwin family who make a living slamming religion agree with me

There you go again. By what metric are you measuring his performance as a scientist? He is highly respected in his field.
An anonymous poster on the Internet simply declaring that he is not a good scientist does not cut it and is contrary to all the other opinion out there. You said before that you were not out to discredit him but have spent an inordinate amount of time doing exactly that.

Originally Posted by mary_queen_of_the_gael

Not at all. Dawkins is merely a populariser, a TV presenter. He is not a credible scientist. His views on evolution as as insightful as his views on GAA.

Morality derives from inherited religions: it is handed down from mother to daughter, almost always within a religious context. This remains so in China and Vietnam today which, though nominally atheistic, still have to the old beliefs.
Don't take my word for it. The passionately anti religious Darwin family who make a living slamming religion agree with me

There are moral systems that are derived from the ground up without appeal to the divine. Kantianism makes no appeal to religion and is a complete moral system.
Virtue ethics also makes no appeal to a divine agency so your contention that morality is derived from religion is plainly false.