If a Christian committed murder on the basis that God told him so, as a Christian I would be in no hesitation to legally prosecute him. The Bible is very clear on this, for start, "Thou shalt not murder".

In a million year, this will be the same. Murder will still be wrong according to The Bible.

Another example is abortion. The seculars are using science to try to justify abortion. So tomorrow, the secular might say it's ok to murder 5 weeks old fetus, but in 10-20 years they might say "oh actually, you shouldn't abort a fetus that is older than 3 week old as that would be murder". So if that happen, wouldn't that mean the seculars have justified murder for 10-20 years?

Contrary to pro-choice (btw, lucky they have choice, sad that they chose abortion), The Bible is clear about abortion. It will be the same tomorrow or in a million year.

On the topic of slavery, it is the same. The Bible is very clear, that all human beings are equal in the eyes of God. Jesus summarised God's law into love God and love others as yourself.

So I think it is ridiculous to say that with God anything is permitted, at least it is from Christian's point of view.

That is why any justification of slavery, racism, anti-women policies, genocide, etc., etc., by claiming a scientific backing can be tested. It’s a fact that throughout our history we have come to erroneous conclusions about such issues and justified then by claiming scientific evidence. But in the end the very process of science has discredited these approaches.

Of course there are those who take a “relativist” approach to science. Using whatever “evidence” supports their preconceived ideas/dogma, ignoring whatever evidence doesn’t (and arguing for a distortion of science where the testing/validation processes are deleted). This relativist approach is common to the creationist/ intelligent design proponents and some of the climate change deniers.

So, no Glen – I do not support your claim that anything goes in science. Reality keeps us honest.

Recent blog post: Another chance to ignore our true religious diversity

The problem with science is that with science, anything goes. People use it to justify horrible things.

Why are you so anti-science, Ken?

(Don’t bother saying that those horrible things aren’t really scientifically or logically justified. Remember: You said that’s not what you meant by “justify.”)

Neither is it trivial that creationists, intelligent design proponents, some climate change deniers, etc., use science in the same way to “justify” their positions which don’t correspond to reality.

This has nothing to do with whether or not the logic of the universe or human morality are “grounded in a god.” That’s a separate issue.(Glen, if you read my article you will know that it doesn’t deal with that argument). However, it is interesting that those who attempt to impose their inhuman morality or unscientific ideas do often claim they are “grounded in their god.”

My point is that approach, arguing on the basis of a god, arguing for blind following of “divine commands” can produce an extreme moral relativism (and “scientific” realism).

Your Thinking Mater mates accuse non-theists like me of suffering from moral relativism. I have shown in several posts that this is false. And that there is a secular basis for the morality of us all (theists and non-theists alike). But I think the fact still remains that a morality justified by “divine commands” and overriding our normal moral intuitions and logic does lead to moral relativism and can be used to justify the most inhuman actions.

Recent blog post: The necessity of science

If your original point – which both Matt and I understood – was only that various people say that their moral views are justified, and they do so because this or that religion says so, then your point is trivial. Some people say that their beliefs about the world are justified by science too, even though their belief is false. In both cases people are using something to “justify” (i.e. rationalise or bolster) their beliefs, and in each case they are wrong.

But, as has been clearly pointed out to you, this has nothing at all to say about whether morality really is grounded in God.

Ken, you’re complaining that your argument has been misrepresented. It has not been. It’s possible, however, that you never really grasped implications of what you said to begin with.

Recent blog post: I’m heading North

Matt played with the two meanings of that word – consequently he ended up knocking down straw men.

I am sorry – you may have misunderstood my use of “you” – it was not aimed at you but used in a purely rhetorical sense. I certainly didn’t want to claim that you, Glen, “wish to deny the scientific method and the use of evidence.” I don’t know enough about you to make such a claim.

I still think, though, your use of the term “belief” in referring to science is inappropriate as the scientific acceptance or speculation of a specific idea or theory is quite different to belief – as used in the normal sense. And that comes back to the basically unique and powerful way that the scientific method enables us to form a truthful picture of reality. “Belief” as normally used is very often divorced from evidence and less acceptable to change than is the case for scientific ideas. However, although an interesting subject of discussion that is a diversion here.

The fact remains, Glen, that some theists are using their god to “justify” quite different positions. This is independent of their god actually existing (I don’t think any of them do) or their “theism being true” (I don”t think any of them are – and you think most of them aren’t true).

But it’s got nothing to do with the existence or other wise of their gods, the truth or otherwise of their theisms. Their gods are still used to “justify” their different, contrary, moral conclusions. That’s the thing about gods – they can be made to say anything.

Consequently gods can be used to make anything possible. An extreme form of moral relativism.

Recent blog post: The necessity of science

Speaking of straw mannery – you have suggested that I wish to deny the scientific method and the use of evidence. How is this not a straw man? And like it out not, a belief that we should use the scientific method is a belief, no matter how true it may be.

And if you were reacting tot he claim that some theists make, that your beliefs commit you to relativism, then your reply really DOES garble the theists position, exactly as I noted. Your reply suggests that theism leads to conflicting positions. You would be correct if every single variety of theism is true. That really WOULD lead to a variety of conflicting moral positions. But seriously Ken, who actually thinks that every variety of theism is true?

Recent blog post: I’m heading North

Recent blog post: Why is science important?