Unitarians

I'm not really sure why this is a discussion.

In post 4, you asked what the beliefs are. When told, you apparently took that as license to offer your unilateral judgment about religion and other loosely related topics. You're entitled to your opinion on them, but that doesn't negate anyone else's philosophies.

Michael 345 said:
scientific basis of kindness - there is none
objectively good - it isn't - good / bad run through a spectrum of value judgements which are all subjective
Click to expand...
Exactly. Kindness, good and bad are not scientific concepts. They are ethical concepts, that science is silent on but which spiritualisms embrace.

Since kindness and good and bad are definitely part of the what it means to be human, that means science is insufficient. Belief systems are required. One set of belief systems falls under spiritualism (though there are others).
 
DaveC426913 said:
Exactly. Kindness, good and bad are not scientific concepts. They are ethical concepts, that science is silent on but which spiritualisms embrace.
Click to expand...
Ah! So there is no conflict between your beliefs about morality and science, even though there is no scientific evidence to back up that morality.

That is true of many things - including religion and science.
Since kindness and good and bad are definitely part of the what it means to be human, that means science is insufficient.
Click to expand...
Nope. Science will never become "sufficient enough" because they are completely separate and orthogonal topics.
 
billvon said:
Ah! So there is no conflict between your beliefs about morality and science, even though there is no scientific evidence to back up that morality.
Click to expand...
I'm talking "royal we", not personally.

I'm an atheist. I know where my morals come from, but that doesn't mean I don't grok where others' get their morals from.

billvon said:
Nope. Science will never become "sufficient enough" because they are completely separate and orthogonal topics.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if your nope is agreement, or disagreement.
But that was my point. Science is silent on philosophical issues.
Michael seemed to be suggesting spiritualism serves no purpose since we have science. That's silly. As you say, they're orthogonal.
 
I notice mathman hasn't been back. Perhaps he's less interested in a discussion than he is in lobbing a banana into a monkey house and watching what happens.
 
DaveC426913 said:
When told, you apparently took that as license to offer your unilateral judgment about religion and other loosely related topics
Click to expand...
In other words put forward my ideas about the reply I was given

DaveC426913 said:
You're entitled to your opinion on them
Click to expand...
That's a given

DaveC426913 said:
but that doesn't negate anyone else's philosophies.
Click to expand...
Never thought or claimed my opinions did or would

DaveC426913 said:
Exactly. Kindness, good and bad are not scientific concepts. They are ethical concepts, that science is silent on but which spiritualisms embrace.
Click to expand...
A reminder - billvon asked me to
billvon said:
Show me the scientific basis of kindness, why it is objectively good.
Click to expand...
from which came my reply
Michael 345 said:
scientific basis of kindness - there is none

objectively good - it isn't - good / bad run through a spectrum of value judgements which are all subjective
Click to expand...

DaveC426913 said:
Belief systems are required
Click to expand...
Debatable

However IF people wish to operate with a BELIEF SYSTEM they are very much entitled to do so (a given)

What they are NOT entitled to do is claim THEIR belief system is one under which we all should operate

DaveC426913 said:
Michael seemed to be suggesting spiritualism serves no purpose since we have science.
Click to expand...
It appears to serve some NEED (not sure about purpose) for those into spiritualism

Again if they have a need fine, but please leave me alone with my non-need

This bouncing ball is becoming harder to follow

I'm out

Coffee here I come

:)
 
mathman said:
As I understood it, Unitarians were Christians who rejected the concept of Trinity and to some extent the divinity of Jesus. The Wikipedia article describing Unitarian-Universalist says that Christianity is not required. People of any religion (Jewish, Islam. Buddhism, etc.) can participate. What is going on?
Click to expand...
Unitarian Universalism is a pluralistic or non-exclusivist religion.
Religion is a vehicle for a community or a people to interface with what they deem to be Sacred. It doesn't require a specific dogma, nor exclusive claim to the truth. The UU Church is a pretty big tent, deliberately so.
I participate in the local Covenant of Unitarian Universalist Pagans chapter, for instance.
 
The concept seems valid to me, although I can't claim a Universalist Unitarian title. Progression seems more applicable. Religious roots are where most of us stem from. Even as atheist. Universal salvation is the premise of the universalist church. That much I understand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top