Re: Religion and evidence

From: Kate Distin (
Date: Thu 19 Jan 2006 - 16:42:34 GMT

  • Next message: Ben Dawson: "Re: Religion and evidence"

    Richard Brodie wrote:
    > Kate wrote:
    > <<In that one of us says eating meat is morally unacceptable, and the other
    > that it's morally acceptable. I'm assuming it can't be both.>>
    > It can if you have different morals. One of the problems with these
    > religions that assert certain writings are orders from God is that
    > eventually someone gets the idea to start converting and/or killing the guys
    > with the "wrong" morals from the "wrong" God.
    > Richard Brodie

    I assume you'd be prepared to say that killing the guys with the "wrong" morals/god is morally unacceptable. (So would I, needless to say.) So you're not a hardline relativist/subjectivist about morals. In other words you do believe that there is some sort of criterion against which we can judge morality, even if that's not an absolute criterion like
    "God's will".

    In which case, judged against whichever criterion you have chosen, you will either agree or disagree with eating meat. Even if you say that eating meat is a morally neutral action, this contradicts the vegetarian position.

    That's really all I meant. I am open to the idea that it is me who's wrong about vegetarianism. I just don't see how we can both be right.


    =============================================================== This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing) see:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 19 Jan 2006 - 17:03:42 GMT