@hammersklavier,
Yes, we are all products of our time. But to say this is quite different from saying that Buddhism arose as as a reaction to political undercurrents in Hinduism.
hammersklavier wrote:This argument is inductive. If there's one case where what creates and maintains the world (cosmology) and what underpins it (metaphysics) is different, then this argument fails. So, the question becomes: is your assertion true? Or is mine?
This is a misunderstanding. I only suggested that you should not make asumptions. The point is not whether you or I think the assumption is true or false. I certainly wasn't suggesting you should replace your assumption with one of mine.
Quote:...I am afraid, Whoever, you are right. There is not a single case I could find where that which creates and maintains the universe is indeed significantly different than that which underpins the universe. Thus, in a religious context, it does indeed seem that cosmology and metaphysics ought to be unified.
I think this depends on how the two words are defined. I can see no point in distinguishing between the two, but it may be useful to do so in some contexts. I can't even distinguish between metaphysics and fundamental physics.
Quote:However, Whoever, your assertion that there is an objective, empirically discoverable system of ethics via the scientific method is highly suspicious. Ethics is inherent within us and the anthropological principle of cultural relevance (that which is right to one culture may not necessarily be right to another) and that rightness is relative seems to eliminate absolute ethics from scientific ken. It is instead the responsibility of us philosophers to discern true ethics.
Yes, this is the current 'scientific' view, and if we treat ethics as strictly relative this is the view we hold. But it's perfectly possible that it's a false view. (Indeed, I think I can prove that it is. That essay was the beginning of my attempted proof). If it turns out to be a false view this would not be the end of science.
I'd suggest that the common cosmological assumptions made by scientists are not what defines science, and that anyone who claims that the physics has no bearing on ethics has abandoned the scientific method for philosophical speculation.
