If you can't question it, it's not science....period.
lol... That's not how it works.
Karl Popper claimed -- not without quite a bit of dispute, we should note -- that science should be falsifiable. By that, he means that a theory has to be testable to qualify as science. By that measure, there is
no question whatsoever that evolution is scientific. Not only is it based on evidence, not only is every claim it makes testable, but we can even do experiments in labs and in the field that confirm evolution.
Falsifiability doesn't mean that some religiously biased crank can make up a bunch of nonsense and, on that basis, claim "evolution isn't science."
My point (and the point of evolutionary biologist Dr.Provine, PhD.) is that if evolution is true then there is no God, no afterlife, no soul; the end.
...and I've thoroughly explained how that is a) incorrect, and b) not a valid way to "disprove" evolution. Try to keep up.
Not of any note, there's not. Believe it or not everybody that has an opinion is not necessarily a "philosopher"..
lol.... Dude, you have no idea what you're talking about.
There is really no question that professional philosophers, who are publishing in philosophy journals, and almost all of whom teach or used to teach philosophy, are... philosophers.
Secular ethicists "of note" include, but are not limited to:
Sidgwick
Mill
Bentham
Arendt
Anscombe
Sartre
Mackie
Scanlon
Rawls
Foot
Singer
Blackburn
Butler
Parfit
Nussbaum
So, yeah. Moral realism can
definitely work without any religious assumptions whatsoever.
Sure there are. Nazi Germany simply leaps to mind, as well as, any communist country. Jim Jones's (
not a Christian, by the way) had a wonderful ethic...didn't he?
Yet more ignorance. None of the individuals that I listed above view Nazism or genocide as morally acceptable. The Nazis were Christians, and most certainly weren't reading Mill or Kant. Meanwhile, Christianity -- as in, the actual theological, ethical and political positions of Christianity, and its scriptures -- were and still are used to justify forced conversions, torture, invasions, colonizations, racism, forced labor, slavery, genocide, and other things we now see as morally untenable.
Maybe you ought to get off your high horse about the alleged ethical superiority of religions, because... it just isn't true.
At the end of the day, you have people with opinions that are founded on...nothing.
At the end of the day, you have
no idea what you're talking about. Seriously. You don't even understand the basis of secular ethics, which means you are in no position whatsoever to comment on its foundations.
Meanwhile, religious ethics are often the ones built on sand. They are injunctions that a bunch of humans conveniently claim come from a divine source -- which they enforce or ignore arbitrarily. Christians bend over backwards to avoid thinking about issues like theodicy or the Euthyphro Dilemma.
And, of course, we see how religious commands can often be completely ineffective at enforcing ethics. For example,
half of American Christians regard premarital sex as morally acceptable. Kinda seems like a dismal failure, huh?
But this is a problem with Christians--not Christianity.
Lol... By that logic, we could also say that the problems with Communism were with the individual leaders, not with Communism itself. Does that work for you? Anyway....
Both Christians
and various Christian institutions
and Christian leaders are the ones changing their minds. Any claims about "eternal unchanging ethics" is just a self-serving lie or an ignorant assertion, because that simply doesn't exist. Even a cursory reading of history should make that apparent.
It's what he can find to mold to fit the Bible and his beliefs.
