I am claiming that moral values cannot be investigated by the scientific method, it would not make any sense, natural science measures physical quantities.
Natural science is a positive analysis, that is to say by strict definition, it is knowledge empirically derrived from physical quanities for what they are
, NOT how you culturally/subjectively believe it to be, that would be normative.
Natural science pressuposes formal science (mathematics and logic), formal science contains inherent knowledge, experience (empiricism) is not required, therefore a science that requires experience cannot verify/falsify the science that it has pressuposed to be true.
Do not misinterpret a physical law for a logical axiom.
The umbrella term "social science" is defined by knowledge being empirically derrived from human phenomena/society, there are normative assumptions and "social research", which entails "qualitative" and "quantitative" methods.
The definition is broad, it may be law, psychology, economics, archaeology it is only as reliable as the limited system and assumptions that it is subjected to, however it pressuposes natural scientific knowledge (you cannot prove assumptions, therefore it illustrates how limited this study is), and just as natural science it uses informal/applied mathematics, it is pragmatic and concearns itself with rationality and usefulness.
These truths deconstruct on the objective level, be it formal or natural truths, as Harris stated, we must "grant" his assumptions of morality, this would mean that the scientific method should allow his baseless assertion as a natural exception
because he says so, or because natural scientific appealings "dont know what were talking about".
My other arguement stated that morality is semantically flawed, that is to say the meaning of good and bad have no axioms to support it and may even be cognitively interchanged because there is obligation to believe such cognitive properties, it is a subject of ethics, and the error with this is that ethical sentences do not appear to be propositional, hence the statement 'you are evil' cannot be true or false, if it is true or false (binary value) it should be compatible with logical and mathematical truths..
There have been attempts to formalise morality, however there has been no solution, views that deny moral propositions (true or false predicates) must be meta-ethical, which questions if moral arguements are meaningful.
Meta-ethics that deny moral knowledge are non-cognitivism and emotivism.
That moral values are not a natural and normal outcome for pack animals evolution including the human pack animal and does call for supernatural elements or at least the belief in such supernatural elements to exist for moral values to exist?
Consciousness has not been defined materially.
However, animal wiring, transmitters and hormones do not translate to good and bad predicates, this also applies to sentient entities, such as humans.
If we were to construct operatable definitions of good and bad, it would negate the emotional basis of these concepts, they would have no natural requirements.
Again, the scientific method is positive.
Given that the old testament god is a sociopath in human terms I can not see how a belief in such a monster would give moral values of any kind....Even the ten commandments did not apply when Mose came down from the mountain and saw what his followers had been up to as he then ordered the large scale killing within the tribe as punishment.
I will analyse your assumptions:
Why do human terms apply to omniscience and omnibenvolent?
Why should humans NOT be sociopathic?
What is a monster and why would a monster not give moral values?
God is suggested to be the moral law giver
, who is to say he does not want us suffer exactly like this
Simply, if you disagree, it is you that is immoral.
In any case could you please rephrase your positions so people who do not share your special vocabulary could get a more accurate idea of your position?
I do hope this clarifies, acknowledge that I am autistic, meaning that I am a neurological variant of what is interpreted to be typical.
This should also clarify on the social level that humans vary.