Can One Be Agnostic?

4min Snip

00:00

Play full episode

Summary

Transcript

Episode notes

i think that the am, you one can't empirically demonstrate, or even rationally demonstrate, am, that god exists. Can't prove negative either. I to me, a rational basis for belief in god is, is, like so many of other philosophical questions, i think there are good arguments, but they, but there are plenty of people who disagree about them. There are some questions we can resolve through empirit, you know, inter subjectively, verifiable, empirical demonstration. It's nice to be able to agree on some things, but just maybe it's,. maybe it's a tragedy, maybe it's sad, but itt sems like a fact.

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.