The Role of Empirical Science and Demonstration in Morality

5min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

Bhe osid: We have to bring all, all relevant knowledge to bear on that question. It's not as though a narrowly empirical science can't say anything about morality. And so there is some kind of nexotus. But at the same time, we it seems to us,. at the outsede at least, that there are some of the deepest, most important questions a about morality. Bhe Osid: Maybe success will tell us how we came to be the kinds of beings that could know these things. A lot of the questions that are dealt with in evolutionary psychology would be at this level. They don't tell us what's right or wrong. But they can

In their book Science and the Good, professional philosophers James Hunter and Paul Nedelisky trace the origins and development of the centuries-long, passionate, but ultimately failed quest to discover a scientific foundation for morality. The conversation takes a decidedly interesting turn when Drs. Hunter and Nedelisky reveal that they are both theists and that their Christian worldview informs their thinking on moral issues. The three then dig into the weeds of the difference between religious and secular moral systems, the nature of God and morality, why a purely naturalistic approach to morality does not negate religion or even the existence of God (natural law could be God’s way of creating moral values), natural rights and rights theory, consequentialism, deontology, and virtue ethics, progress in philosophy, why philosophers never seem to reach consensus on important subjects like morality, how to think about issues like abortion, why they believe in God and follow the Christian religion and yet reject Divine Command Theory, and much more.