So many posters on here claim to be Atheist, so I wanted to know about Naturalism and what it all means.
If a subscriber to the belief system could explain it and what it means to people today perhaps that would be helpful. If you want questions then here are some to begin with:
What is Naturalism?
What does it say about humans, where we came from and why we're all here?
I'd like to get real answers to the questions rather than "this is what we don't believe"......
Everything unfolded naturally without the interference of a magical, supernatural being. We humans are here because our species evolved from other species. Basically, you don't need supernaturalism to explain nature and existence.
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
I think J70 has nailed it. It an acceptance that things are what they are and we have to work it out for ourselves.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 09, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.
If the Bible is correct He created evil.
You still haven't answered the question Muppet, you simply fall back on your typical challenges to believers. Different thread.
This is about Naturalism...maybe try again......
Am I the only one who clicked on this thread to find out why people feel the need to parade about with no clothes on? ;D
Quote from: The Iceman on April 09, 2012, 05:15:00 PM
You still haven't answered the question Muppet, you simply fall back on your typical challenges to believers. Different thread.
This is about Naturalism...maybe try again......
You don't answer anything. You merely trot out vague questions such as
'where does conscience come from?' as answers.
As I was saying....Naturalism is the inevitable consequence of the rejection of the plausibility of Creationism. It is the realistic search for answers that make sense. It creates theories, tests them, adopts some, rejects others and starts again searching for new ones. All the time a very high burden of proof is required before any modicum of acceptance is granted.
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 09, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.
If the Bible is correct He created evil.
Evil is a man-made concept. God gave us a free will to make our own choices, some people made evil choices.
Quote from: ziggysego on April 09, 2012, 05:40:20 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: ziggysego on April 09, 2012, 05:02:49 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
He gave us free will, free to make our own decision.
If the Bible is correct He created evil.
Evil is a man-made concept. God gave us a free will to make our own choices, some people made evil choices.
That is not what the Bible says Ziggy:
QuoteNow the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Theism/religion claims to know the answers to the so-called metaphysical questions - where we came from and why we're here and the questions like those Iceman posed on another thread - what conscience is, what altruism is, how we choose between right and wrong, etc. (In its most radical forms it also intervenes in physical questions and challenges known facts about the physical universe – e.g. the age of the universe – where they don't fit with particular theistic beliefs, but let's treat that as the lunatic fringe.)
Naturalism simply says we haven't discovered any purpose in existence, but we don't need to invent supernatural explanations for how the world works. Naturalism, through science, presents the best theory that fits all known facts as the most likely answer to any question - the Occam's Razor principle. And when we can't know the answer to a question, based on known facts and observations, it doesn't make one up.
For instance, we don't know for sure how altruism developed in humanity (science doesn't know anything for sure – it proceeds on the basis of probability), but the most likely explanation – the Occam's Razor answer – will employ the theory of natural selection that explains everything else we know about how life evolved and developed. This suggests that altruism was a naturally selected trait – species that developed altruism did better in the survival stakes.
Anything else is just unsupported speculation and one unsupported speculation is as valid as another, since they are not based on any known facts or reported observations. Hence the proposition of Russell's cosmic teapot as equally valid an explanation of what governs the universe as the God explanation.
Theists will respond that all of science is also speculation and, in the limit, it is. But it's supported by facts and observations and no speculation is accepted if a single fact or observation is found that doesn't support it. In essence, science is simply the presentation of the most probable explanation for everything we know and no explanation at all for anything that's unknowable based on the information available to us at present.
So the difference between theism and atheism is that theism either presents God as the explanation for everything or at least employs "the god of the gaps" to explain anything we don't know, while atheism doesn't accept that speculating about a god is any more valid than speculating about a cosmic teapot or magic or astrology as they all have equal amounts of supporting evidence – zero.
And the difference between religion and naturalism is that religions present a myriad of different and often mutually exclusive (and all unsupported) speculations to explain the purpose of existence and the laws that govern the universe, whereas naturalism states that we haven't been able to discern a purpose in existence but here is what we know about the laws of the universe and as soon as we learn more, we'll let you know.
In human terms, it always appears to me to be the difference between a conman and a teacher.
J70 said this in two lines, but I don't have the gift of conciseness.
The universe is cool enough without making up crap about it.
http://paulkurtz.net/
Paul Kurtz is a good author to read. He is one of the main voices within secular humanism today. He's not as confrontational as Hitchens or Dawkins and a bit more respectable.
I also personally believe the reading of classic and modern philosophies is very beneficial to any person. You don't have to believe all of it but there is great wisdom to draw upon. Indeed some of it had quite a big influence on western Christianity since the middle ages.
I think that itis important for aethists to collectively organise and come together as people to propagate new ideas. It's very easy in a liberal society for arguments on morality to be left to religious groups. I know this is difficult to get a consensus on an issue from a community that openly and actively challenges its own beliefs however it must make its voice be heard.
With communities no longer congregating at mass like they used to but surely local communities ought to come together to debate issues of morality or any relevant issue within the locality. I know some do but not enough. And often it is not about what's important.
Quote from: Hardy on April 09, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
Theism/religion claims to know the answers to the so-called metaphysical questions - where we came from and why we're here and the questions like those Iceman posed on another thread - what conscience is, what altruism is, how we choose between right and wrong, etc. (In its most radical forms it also intervenes in physical questions and challenges known facts about the physical universe – e.g. the age of the universe – where they don't fit with particular theistic beliefs, but let's treat that as the lunatic fringe.)
Naturalism simply says we haven't discovered any purpose in existence, but we don't need to invent supernatural explanations for how the world works. Naturalism, through science, presents the best theory that fits all known facts as the most likely answer to any question - the Occam's Razor principle. And when we can't know the answer to a question, based on known facts and observations, it doesn't make one up.
For instance, we don't know for sure how altruism developed in humanity (science doesn't know anything for sure – it proceeds on the basis of probability), but the most likely explanation – the Occam's Razor answer – will employ the theory of natural selection that explains everything else we know about how life evolved and developed. This suggests that altruism was a naturally selected trait – species that developed altruism did better in the survival stakes.
Anything else is just unsupported speculation and one unsupported speculation is as valid as another, since they are not based on any known facts or reported observations. Hence the proposition of Russell's cosmic teapot as equally valid an explanation of what governs the universe as the God explanation.
Theists will respond that all of science is also speculation and, in the limit, it is. But it's supported by facts and observations and no speculation is accepted if a single fact or observation is found that doesn't support it. In essence, science is simply the presentation of the most probable explanation for everything we know and no explanation at all for anything that's unknowable based on the information available to us at present.
So the difference between theism and atheism is that theism either presents God as the explanation for everything or at least employs "the god of the gaps" to explain anything we don't know, while atheism doesn't accept that speculating about a god is any more valid than speculating about a cosmic teapot or magic or astrology as they all have equal amounts of supporting evidence – zero.
And the difference between religion and naturalism is that religions present a myriad of different and often mutually exclusive (and all unsupported) speculations to explain the purpose of existence and the laws that govern the universe, whereas naturalism states that we haven't been able to discern a purpose in existence but here is what we know about the laws of the universe and as soon as we learn more, we'll let you know.
In human terms, it always appears to me to be the difference between a conman and a teacher.
J70 said this in two lines, but I don't have the gift of conciseness.
How do you explain Marty Morrissey then?
See above - "unknowable based on the information available to us at present".
Quote from: muppet on April 09, 2012, 04:27:27 PM
The Bible starts with the words 'In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.'
Later it claims: 'And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the
field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam
to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called
every living creature, that was the name thereof'.
And then: 'Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field
which the LORD God had made.'
Thus it is irrefutable, according to anyone who holds the Bible as the Truth, that God created the serpent. Not only that but He created the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Given that God thus created everything and everyone, why would he create a) the knowledge of evil and b) the serpent?
This is the fundamental premise of creationism and any logical analysis would have to see it as at least suspect. Thus it inevitable that people would explore alternative possibilities. Science has shown most of the beliefs long held by the Church to be almost impossible. That does not rule out the existence of God, merely it undermines the interpretation and implementation of what man decided was His will.
It's also anti snake. Snakes have been persecuted for too long.
Quote from: Hardy on April 09, 2012, 06:32:05 PM
J70 said this in two lines, but I don't have the gift of conciseness concision.
;)
Maybe i don't have the gift of preciseness precision either, then.
However, accordion to my (Concise) OED:
concise <definition> ... ~NESS n.
concision n. Conciseness.
So here's my understanding.
Science is a trustworthy method of investigating and gaining accurate information about the natural world?
Naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all there is?
Why did God create so many different religions? Why do Hindus believe in thousands of gods if there is only one god ?
Are the Hindus wrong?
Quote from: seafoid on April 10, 2012, 01:33:14 PM
Why did God create so many different religions? Why do Hindus believe in thousands of gods if there is only one god ?
Are the Hindus wrong?
Wrong thread - this is about Naturalism
I thought this was a thread about going naked at the beach.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
So here's my understanding.
Science is a trustworthy method of investigating and gaining accurate information about the natural world?
Naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all there is?
This reads like the opening line for a follow up of "OK, well in that case - GOTCHA!"
But yes, I would concur that that's a reasonable summary of naturalism, though I would amend it slightly to say naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all
we know there is.
I am aware of shortcomings in the applicability of the philosophy in all cases. For instance, there's a great discussion about how mathematics fits in with naturalism. The scientific method proceeds by hypothesis, test and confirmation. However, mathematics proceeds by pure reasoning – there is no process of experimentation and empirical confirmation of results. Yet science is utterly dependent on mathematics.
So it's not sufficient to say that the scientific method alone is sufficient to describe the natural world. There has to be a definition that includes mathematics and other means of reasoning – e.g. logic - that do not strictly follow the scientific method.
But the key word here is 'reasoning' and I think I would subscribe to a broader philosophy of reason or rationalism, rather than something called naturalism. In general, this contrasts with theism and religion in relying on reason and deduction from known facts and observations, using the scientific method and other means of reasoning, such as mathematics, rather than relying on speculation about supernatural intervention in the natural world.
It's a philosophy that values and promotes honesty, intellectual rigour, respect for the individual and individual responsibility as against authoritarianism, credulity and abdication of personal responsibility to arbitrary, imagined higher powers.
Some of the pagans of Roman times had ideas that will resonate again once climate change hits us and religion has no answers.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/dec/08/most-charming-pagan/
The Swerve: How the World Became Modern
by Stephen Greenblatt
Lucretius, as it proclaimed, was an "Epicurean" poet—a follower of the Greek philosopher Epicurus. The stars, the planets, and the animals and people that inhabited the earth had all come into being by chance, as particles collided, and would eventually fall apart again into nothingness. The gods formed a separate order of being, and took no interest in the fates of humans. Hence it was pointless to fear them or invoke their help.
After surveying the disasters and miseries of human life—which included the plague, vividly described in terms that Lucretius adapted from the Greek historian Thucydides—a wise man would devote himself not to the service of divinities but to the pursuit of true and lasting pleasures: above all the state of ataraxia, freedom from disturbance, which could be attained by contemplation—but also friendship. This was a magnificent vision, as Stephen Greenblatt shows in The Swerve, one that taught the votary of wisdom how to abandon fear and take pleasure in the beauty of the world—but also one impossible to reconcile with Christian ideas about God, the cosmos, and the duties of mankind.
Hardy not a gotcha moment at all. I am honestly interested in the thinking behind a lot of this.
I can't agree with your addition and underlining though if it is saying that the natural world is all there is. If Science only deals with the examination of nature, if something other than or outside nature existed, then by definition it would be outside the realm of what science investigates.
The question of whether God exists or whether nature is all there is, has to be a strictly philosophical question. The answers cannot be determined by the use of scientific method or instruments. For example you can't use a microscope to discover whether right or wrong exist or a ruler to check if courage is a virtue. Likewise just because science has not stumbled over God in a field in Kerry means nothing at all with regard to the question of whether or not God exists. If God was a material substance, it might.
Just because science helps us to better understand the natural world doesn't mean naturalism (the philosophical position that nothing exists but the natural world) is shown to be true....
What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 01:12:51 PM
So here's my understanding.
Science is a trustworthy method of investigating and gaining accurate information about the natural world?
Naturalism is a philosophy that says the natural world is all there is?
I don't necessarily subscribe to this.
You limited the thread to Naturalism and this unfairly frames those of us who struggle with the Catholic Church in particular and any other church for that matter. It does't mean I can be pigeonholed into Naturalism.
As Stephen Hawkins pointed out, we are fairly sure that the Universe began with The Big Bang. But we can't be sure what went before and thus the concept of a God must be considered possible. But this God wouldn't resemble what most of the various dogmas suggest He might be.
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 05:16:25 PM
What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?
Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?
Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?
Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.
The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.
We'll get back to the rest of it later, but if there is a Creator, then what created the creator? And what created that creator. And so on and on. If you posit (using only the incredulity argument, mind you) that a supposedly intelligent cosmos requires a creator by necessity, then surely the creator of such a cosmos would similarly require an even more amazing creator. Where does it end?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 05:16:25 PM
What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?
Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?
Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?
Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.
The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.
If God created the cosmos and everything in it, did God thus not create evil?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 05:16:25 PM
What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?
Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?
Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?
Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.
The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.
You provide two statements supporting the existence of God.
1. Scripture says he exists.
This is a simple circular argument. Scripture is said to be the word of God. So God says he exists. I think you'll understand I need a little more than that.
2. The universe self-evidently needs a creator as the cosmos would be unintelligent without one (I'm not sure about the concept of an intelligent cosmos, but I'll assume you refer to human intelligence).
Again, this is a circular argument (God is the creator because the universe needs a creator) or at best an unsupported conjecture. It is not an axiom that intelligence needed a creator and couldn't have evolved. In fact, the opposite is the case. Everything we KNOW (rather than conjecture) about the universe tells us that intelligence is a product of natural selection.
You say that humanity remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism. If you refer to our existence, in what way is it inexplicable? Which parts of what we know about humanity do you accept and which do you reject? Presumably you accept the facts of medical science, the biology of the human body and the physics of how we live and move about, etc. Where, then, do you draw the line and say science works fine for this bit, but not for that bit?
If your statement is limited to the inexplicability of the purpose of our existence, I agree – there is no known explanation. (But why assume a purpose – is it not entirely plausible, or indeed probable that there isn't one?) In any case, there is no logical path from the statement that existence is inexplicable to the conclusion that God is what makes it explicable.
Where was God on 9/11? Where was God during the South Asian/Pacific tsunami? Where was God during the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear emergency? Where was God in Auschwitz?
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 07:22:24 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 05:16:25 PM
What is the case for God then, Iceman? By what methods are we to determine whether or not he exists?
Scripture says God exists. It says God created the Cosmos and everything in it. Me and you. And made man in His image. Consider creation and everything in it - surely that suggests to you that there is a Creator? You may not accept it as true but do you recognise my argument as at least coherent?
Following on from that then if God doesn't exist then the Cosmos surely would be irretrievably unintelligent?
Humanity itself remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism.
The truth that God exists is evident within all of us. We are all walking advertisements that God exists.
You provide two statements supporting the existence of God.
1. Scripture says he exists.
This is a simple circular argument. Scripture is said to be the word of God. So God says he exists. I think you'll understand I need a little more than that.
2. The universe self-evidently needs a creator as the cosmos would be unintelligent without one (I'm not sure about the concept of an intelligent cosmos, but I'll assume you refer to human intelligence).
Again, this is a circular argument (God is the creator because the universe needs a creator) or at best an unsupported conjecture. It is not an axiom that intelligence needed a creator and couldn't have evolved. In fact, the opposite is the case. Everything we KNOW (rather than conjecture) about the universe tells us that intelligence is a product of natural selection.
You say that humanity remains forever inexplicable when seen through the lens of atheistic naturalism. If you refer to our existence, in what way is it inexplicable? Which parts of what we know about humanity do you accept and which do you reject? Presumably you accept the facts of medical science, the biology of the human body and the physics of how we live and move about, etc. Where, then, do you draw the line and say science works fine for this bit, but not for that bit?
If your statement is limited to the inexplicability of the purpose of our existence, I agree – there is no known explanation. (But why assume a purpose – is it not entirely plausible, or indeed probable that there isn't one?) In any case, there is no logical path from the statement that existence is inexplicable to the conclusion that God is what makes it explicable.
Hardy I'm enjoying the sensible, respectful and intelligent conversation with you.
I do accept the facts of medical science but science cannot account for basic aspects of human experience: morality, knowledge, human dignity, freedom and meaning.
With naturalism nothing exists but the natural world, the realm of material objects. All natural objects or entities, including you and me - come into existence and pass out of existence by purely natural causes and processes. There are no such things as "souls". Nothing exists or can exist that lies outside the realm of physical lawas operating withing the natural realm, which is all that exists. Knowledge of the world at any given time is what science tells us at that time about the world.
But this view doesn't account for anything I have asked about. Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?
That question was asked and answered on the Lent thread.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 08:08:42 PM
Hardy I'm enjoying the sensible, respectful and intelligent conversation with you.
Likewise.
Quote
Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?
I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.
A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.
Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.
In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?
The problem with a creator is, who created the creator? In turn who created the creator's creator's creator? and so on into infinity.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 10, 2012, 07:37:49 PM
Where was God on 9/11? Where was God during the South Asian/Pacific tsunami? Where was God during the Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear emergency? Where was God in Auschwitz?
Brad Paisley trys to answer this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6rwo--Zsx0
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
Quote
Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?
I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.
A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.
Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.
But morality is not in fact an entity that exists in the physical realm. Morals clearly exist. They are standards above the mere preference and taste of cultures, societies and individuals and they are universally perceived.
If as you say they are traits of a species necessary for survival who is to say that today's modern liberal society is any better than Nazi society, or the morals of a group like St. Vincent dePaul are any better than those of the UVF. Its all survival, all evolution, all natural. And if these morals are only traits, then there is no moral measuring stick and isn't it nonsense for us to argue that the hijackers in 9/11 or what happened at Auschwitz was wrong? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions and who are we to judge...?
Quote
In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?
I don't think it is necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense. I think we are born with it, in the image and likeness of God. Picture in your head a crooked line - not straight, but nearly straight. The only way to discern how straight the line is would be to know what a truly straight line looks like. You have an ideal straight line against which all other lines can be compared. If you don't presuppose the ideal of a perfectly straight line, it is impossible to talk about other lines as "more" or "less" straight.
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.
The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......
Quote from: The Iceman on April 10, 2012, 09:41:46 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 10, 2012, 08:56:14 PM
Quote
Explain to me, based on the philosophical stance of naturalism where morality comes from or right or wrong?
I think naturalism would say that morality, or a sense of right or wrong, evolved by natural selection to the stage where we humans who share a common morality are the result of a selection process that favoured the consensus that now exists.
A sense of morality, probably a component of our intelligence, is one of the factors that drove humans to the top of our branch of the evolutionary tree at the expense of species that didn't develop this trait.
Morality, like altruism that we discussed earlier, is clearly a necessary, or a least an enabling trait in a species that has evolved to live in highly interdependent communities. Societies where there isn't a highly developed morality don't tend to be successful in the long term.
But morality is not in fact an entity that exists in the physical realm. Morals clearly exist. They are standards above the mere preference and taste of cultures, societies and individuals and they are universally perceived.
If as you say they are traits of a species necessary for survival who is to say that today's modern liberal society is any better than Nazi society, or the morals of a group like St. Vincent dePaul are any better than those of the UVF. Its all survival, all evolution, all natural. And if these morals are only traits, then there is no moral measuring stick and isn't it nonsense for us to argue that the hijackers in 9/11 or what happened at Auschwitz was wrong? Perhaps they simply live by a different set of conventions and who are we to judge...?
Quote
In return, can you explain to me how it's evident that morality comes from a belief in God and how it's necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense?
I don't think it is necessary to believe in religion to have a moral sense. I think we are born with it, in the image and likeness of God. Picture in your head a crooked line - not straight, but nearly straight. The only way to discern how straight the line is would be to know what a truly straight line looks like. You have an ideal straight line against which all other lines can be compared. If you don't presuppose the ideal of a perfectly straight line, it is impossible to talk about other lines as "more" or "less" straight.
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.
The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......
Morals, alturism etc. are no different from love, mere chemical reactions in ones brain. All are evolutionary accidents, that resulted in certain idividuals surviving and others not.
How certain are you that animals do not have morals or similar emotions to humans. The dolphins in the Shannon Estuary were found to be bioloically the same family group as Fungi that used to live in the waters of Kerry. The doplhins in the Shannon Estuary have been shown to attack family members who exhibit homosexual behaviour. Fungi was believed to be gay due to its reactions to other dolphins that passed hes way. It is believed that Fungi moved to new waters because he was shunned by his family group.
I saw a documentary a few years back where Lions attacked Elephant calfs and killed them. Later the parent Elephant tracked down the Lions and hearded them away from their Lion cubs and stamped all the cubs to death. Is this an example of revenge.
Chimps have been shown to indulge in war, and also murder for fun.
Dogs affections for humans, often even when mistreated.
Dogs brought up with cats, chasing other cats, but protecting the cats they where reared with.
On a different note, both monkies in Japan and Orcas have been shown to have developed distinct cultures from others of their same species. As in some Orcas eat meat and others fish even when both are in supply. Some monkies in Japan took up the practice of washing clothes in a pool after seeing humans do this, they have for generations stolen clothes and taken them to the same pool to wash (sounds almost like a spiritual experience to me).
Oh dear. Iceman's not talking to me. :(
MGHU is talking to himself as well ;D
Quote
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural. It's human. It's God given, because God is good. People all over the world and throughout history know instinctively what is right and wrong. It doesn't mean they always obey these moral truths, but their failure to abide the unwritten, unnatural law or morality does not negate it.
The theist worldview can account for the real existence of a moral law as well as humanity's universal recognition of that law. The theist worldview provides the preconditions that make our experience of this essential issue of life intelligible.
Morality isn't a small insignificant part of our experience. Its at the very heart of it. God's existence as a personal and moral being and our creation in God's image are the preconditions that render our experience intelligible.
The naturalist worldview is simply that right and wrong has no real existence and that there is no objective standard in this natural universe by which to judge the morality of an individual, or society or civilisation; that ethics are personal and relative, that we simply choose whats right for "us" and wrong for "them"......
Iceman, sorry I don't have time for anything but a brief reply. MGHU's reply was pertinent, I thought, to your first point, which is effectively about moral relativism (I think). The fact that morality is a naturally selected trait doesn't necessarily mean that we can't have an absolute, commonly shared morality. In fact, I'd say it tends towards the opposite conclusion – natural selection would surely tend to ensure that we share a common morality, just as we share common physical characteristics.
The following is where, for me, your case for God and theism breaks down.
Quote
The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural.
Yes – that's exactly what I'm arguing.
QuoteIt's human.
Exactly
QuoteIt's God given, because God is good.
This is where logical argument stops and is replaced by a statement – a complete non-sequitur. This, to me is a neat summary of the failing of theism. There is no logical presentation of a case. It's simply "because we can't think of another answer, God is the answer". The god of the gaps.
"The instinct we all have inside to love what is good and be repelled by what is bad is natural"
Way too simplistic. BP Shareholders love dividends and couldn't care less about the environmental damage BP creates through its actions. What is the status of dividends? Good or evil ?
I'm sorry I didn't know I had to address every single point raised by every single person. I was the one asking about naturalism.
I think you are all missing my point. Being able to recognize good or evil, right or wrong is an argument against what you as Atheists or subscribers to naturalism believe. Without a supreme standard of good, then nothing can be called good or evil, it just "is". You may not like or agree with certain things that happen but in the Atheist world you have no basis higher than your own private preferences. In a naturalist universe evil doesnt exist. Nothing exists but material things simply doing what they naturally do. In order to argue differently as an Atheist, surely you are assuming the existence of God or a higher power?
A lot of Ashkenazi Jews who survived the Shoah gave up on
God=good and
only religion= goodness
and you can't really blame them
They followed all the prayers and what good did it do ?
Very hard to try to explain to people that there was a hidden meaning in Auschwitz
Quote from: seafoid on April 11, 2012, 02:21:34 PM
A lot of Ashkenazi Jews who survived the Shoah gave up on
God=good and
only religion= goodness
and you can't really blame them
They followed all the prayers and what good did it do ?
Very hard to try to explain to people that there was a hidden meaning in Auschwitz
The existence of evil in the world does not disprove God's existence and does not by any means address my previous points.
Using it is an unsound deductive argument. Its unsound because it assumes the truth of a premise that can't be known. It takes for granted that an all powerful and all good God would not allow evil to exist, even for a time. And since Evil does exist then God cant..... Well if it is true than God would not or could not allow evil exist then that argument would work, but how does anyone know that God could have no possible reason for allowing evil to exist for a time? He could conceivably have a number of reasons for allowing evil to exist, and apparently He does!
It might be hard for us to understand why evil exists, but just because it does, does not prove the non-existence of God.
But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"
To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 02:31:58 PM
But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"
To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?
I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.
The existence of perceived good and evil does not prove there is a God.
For start one man's good is another man's evil.
Secondly most people are good mainly because society punishes those who are evil. The definition of good and evil in this sense varies and is not a constant.
Thirdly our interpretation of good and evil changes. It has evolved, even within the Church, over the centuries:
'Have nothing to do with these heretics—curse them, hoot at them, spit in their faces—cut the sign of the cross in the air when you meet them, as you would against devils—throw stones at them—pitch them, when you have opportunity, into the bog holes—nay more than that, do injury to yourselves in order to injure them—don't work for them, though they pay in ready money—nay, don't take any medicine from their heretic doctor [Neason Adams], rather die first'.
This sermon, given in Mayo during the famine regarding Protestants offering soup during proselytizing, would be considered completely unacceptable nowadays, but it was normal at the time.
Finally, good and evil are man-made concepts. While there is occasionally consensus they are ultimately completely subjective and are in themselves do not proof of anything.
Quote from: Hardy on April 11, 2012, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 02:31:58 PM
But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"
To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?
I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.
Hardy what I am concerned with are the holes in the Atheist worldview, we can address any perceived holes in the Theist worldview afterwards. Answering questions like Eamonn did on a previous thread with "I can't explain why but can you?" is not defending the Atheist Worldview.....
How can you even talk about logic and reason or even knowledge from an Atheist worldview? In the natural world you can't feel logic or touch reason. Hawking writes that "nothing can be known" and "all truth is relative" isn't that the case?
Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain, right?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 03:00:58 PM
Quote from: Hardy on April 11, 2012, 02:42:13 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 02:31:58 PM
But like I said; in a naturalist world, surely there is no good or evil? There just "is"
To claim otherwise would be inconsistent with the naturalist, atheist world view?
I thought I addressed this, Iceman in reference to morality. I haven't seen your response to my point about the logical failure inherent in the god of the gaps argument.
Hardy what I am concerned with are the holes in the Atheist worldview, we can address any perceived holes in the Theist worldview afterwards. Answering questions like Eamonn did on a previous thread with "I can't explain why but can you?" is not defending the Atheist Worldview.....
How can you even talk about logic and reason or even knowledge from an Atheist worldview? In the natural world you can't feel logic or touch reason. Hawking writes that "nothing can be known" and "all truth is relative" isn't that the case?
Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain, right?
I see no logic or reason to your argument on this at all. Logic and reason are completely natural.
The animals can apply logic and reason at varying levels, but they don't have to go to mass.
Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.
Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?
Iceman
"Our minds are just the product of an unthinking material universe. Our thoughts and beliefs are just 'excretions' of the brain"
Our minds are products of God. In what way ? Our thoughts and beliefs are influenced by God. How ?
And which god? Ganesh ?
And why does God make people stupid ?
Quote from: thejuice on April 11, 2012, 03:40:51 PM
Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.
Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?
I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife..... How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 05:31:56 PM
Quote from: thejuice on April 11, 2012, 03:40:51 PM
Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.
Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?
I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife..... How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?
But if you argue that religion provides morals, then on what basis have people decided to adopt the good parts of the bible and ignore the bad bits?
IM
Would you question other faiths and religions to the same extent you seem to question athiests ?
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 11, 2012, 05:37:38 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 05:31:56 PM
Quote from: thejuice on April 11, 2012, 03:40:51 PM
Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.
Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?
I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife..... How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?
But if you argue that religion provides morals, then on what basis have people decided to adopt the good parts of the bible and ignore the bad bits?
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
Of course it can. Human groups need rules and norms to function. Its arbitrary and dynamic, for sure, but so are supposedly religiously-based morals.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 05:31:56 PM
Quote from: thejuice on April 11, 2012, 03:40:51 PM
Given that we are social creatures, our morality is determined by what society deems necessary or a best fit for its own survival. No moral code fell from a tree. It developed with time with perceived moral truths held aloft to society and they either wither away like a pillar of salt or stand firm as granite against the winds of time and mankinds ever expanding knowledge.
Some of these perceived truths came from the myriad of gods and have fallen by the wayside. Indeed even the gods change their minds from time to time but usually only after being persuaded by human society. If there were some absolute moral truths why do we have more than one church or religion, even after several millennia a consensus cannot be found? So where are these absolute truths?
I don't think you are providing any preconditions that make sense of our moral reality. It's wrong to break a promise, it's wrong to jump the queue, it was right to stand up for the child being bullied, it was wrong of that man to abuse his wife..... How does what you describe, fit with this? Or fit with logic and reason or even the transfer of knowledge?
As I said we were social creatures, collectively as a species we benefit from helping each other. It is wrong to break a promise because it hurts your relationships. Jumping queues is obviously wrong because queuing is a cooperative action where the benefits to all by maintain this action by are obvious. That said queuing is as much a cultural phenomenon that isn't present in all societies. It largely depends on the state of the surrounding environmental conditions.
Hurting ones own species is inherently wrong, as seen in nature too. It does happen though. Yet other other species that offer us some benefit are fair game. How bothered we are about animal suffering largely depends on culture.
Morals and motivation can change and shift with the changes in culture and living condition.
But there is no right or wrong in nature. There just "is".
There are no foundations on which to base your claims.
I don't know how you can argue with that, unless that is, that those arguing or debating it don't fully subscribe to the Atheist or Naturalist worldview?
Humans are empathetic, highly intelligent social animals though. That seems to be a pretty sound basis for a system of morals and ethics to me. And far more noble than the arbitrary whims of whatever god is in fashion at a given place and time in human history.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 07:03:02 PM
But there is no right or wrong in nature. There just "is".
There are no foundations on which to base your claims.
I don't know how you can argue with that, unless that is, that those arguing or debating it don't fully subscribe to the Atheist or Naturalist worldview?
Indeed there is little foundation other than what seems to benefit us either as a species or our close family or those we have a wider affiliation with and history has shown that.
Morality has changed as society has changed and expanded. There was a family morality, a tribal morality and later a national morality. As humanity expands and a global empathy develops, the notion of us and them will
(with time and with a few bumps along the way) disappear when we realise that we are interlocked and benefit when others benefit.
We can invent a god to explain this but even morals supposedly professed by the gods have shifted as the perceived truths of society changes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UtDCGC72K8
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
If you argue that something that we agree exists cannot exist in an Atheist world, you are de facto arguing that it must thus exist in a Theist world.
Your whole approach to this thread is: polarise the debate, shoot down one side of the argument but absolutely refuse to address the other.
While I have sympathy for you facing loads of questions all of which you couldn't possibly answer, the above approach is bringing it on yourself.
But Juice that can't work and doesn't add up. Societal standards, majority consensus, intuition, rules of fair play - do any of these really account for what we know as right and wrong today? Atheism teaches us that morals are a matter of personal opinion and entirely relative. They give us no reason to treat people as anything other than a means to our ends.
If as you say global empathy develops tell me how those thoughts even occur? Or the transfer of that knowledge occurs?
What possible meaning can concepts like 'learning' and 'knowledge' even have in a world where are "thoughts" are nothing more than physical processes occurring in our brains?
Surely now we're debating nothing more than a collection of brains excreting chemicals in various quantities and combinations. It's all random anyway. Who cares?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 08:37:56 PM
But Juice that can't work and doesn't add up. Societal standards, majority consensus, intuition, rules of fair play - do any of these really account for what we know as right and wrong today? Atheism teaches us that morals are a matter of personal opinion and entirely relative. They give us no reason to treat people as anything other than a means to our ends.
If as you say global empathy develops tell me how those thoughts even occur? Or the transfer of that knowledge occurs?
What possible meaning can concepts like 'learning' and 'knowledge' even have in a world where are "thoughts" are nothing more than physical processes occurring in our brains?
Surely now we're debating nothing more than a collection of brains excreting chemicals in various quantities and combinations. It's all random anyway. Who cares?
We all do. That is the point.
Why does a mayfly go through its single day routine, why does a bee sting only to die afterwards?
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
If you argue that something that we agree exists cannot exist in an Atheist world, you are de facto arguing that it must thus exist in a Theist world.
Your whole approach to this thread is: polarise the debate, shoot down one side of the argument but absolutely refuse to address the other.
While I have sympathy for you facing loads of questions all of which you couldn't possibly answer, the above approach is bringing it on yourself.
Muppet, the Atheist worldview cannot account for all these things in our human experience because they are not reducible to matter:
Thoughts, knowledge, learning, morals, logic, reason, emotions, conscience.
The evidence that the Naturalist worldview is wrong is all around you and within you. In your desire for knowledge, in your ability to think, reason and draw conclusions, in every idea you consider.....every emotion you express. Naturalism cannot explain any of this.....
Do you love your children Iceman? Your parents? Your siblings and friends? If so, are your feelings for them predicated on the existence of the god you believe in? When you hold the door open for an old woman or give some change to a homeless person, is that all based on pleasing your god? If you became convinced tomorrow that that god didn't exist, would you throw it all away and just use these people as means to an end, whatever you mean by that?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
If you argue that something that we agree exists cannot exist in an Atheist world, you are de facto arguing that it must thus exist in a Theist world.
Your whole approach to this thread is: polarise the debate, shoot down one side of the argument but absolutely refuse to address the other.
While I have sympathy for you facing loads of questions all of which you couldn't possibly answer, the above approach is bringing it on yourself.
Muppet, the Atheist worldview cannot account for all these things in our human experience because they are not reducible to matter:
Thoughts, knowledge, learning, morals, logic, reason, emotions, conscience.
The evidence that the Naturalist worldview is wrong is all around you and within you. In your desire for knowledge, in your ability to think, reason and draw conclusions, in every idea you consider.....every emotion you express. Naturalism cannot explain any of this.....
Animals know various degrees of emotions, learning, problem-solving and consciousness. Is a god necessary to explain those?
Even if Iceman were correct and naturalism could explain none of these things, its all god of the gaps stuff anyway. If he's still around in 50 years, the goalposts will have shifted some more.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
If you argue that something that we agree exists cannot exist in an Atheist world, you are de facto arguing that it must thus exist in a Theist world.
Your whole approach to this thread is: polarise the debate, shoot down one side of the argument but absolutely refuse to address the other.
While I have sympathy for you facing loads of questions all of which you couldn't possibly answer, the above approach is bringing it on yourself.
Muppet, the Atheist worldview cannot account for all these things in our human experience because they are not reducible to matter:
Thoughts, knowledge, learning, morals, logic, reason, emotions, conscience.
The evidence that the Naturalist worldview is wrong is all around you and within you. In your desire for knowledge, in your ability to think, reason and draw conclusions, in every idea you consider.....every emotion you express. Naturalism cannot explain any of this.....
I'm afraid it does.
All of the above are functions of the brain. Your argument seems to have come to this: because our brain functions the way it does, anything other than the religious notion of god is incorrect.
The problem with that is we know and can prove that the brain evolved along with everything else. We know all of the qualities you describe appear in random amounts in all of us, i.e. some of us reason well, some of us have a greatest desire for knowledge some have better ideas etc. This is fully consistent with natural selection.
On the other hand, if it is all God given why burden some and reward others? How does He decide who gets what? Why does my colleague's 2 year old girl have a brain tumour?
No Muppet, in a Naturalist world, which is what the topic and thread is about - none of these exist.
They are not made of matter. You can't touch logic, or smell reason or cook up some love in a test tube.
We all love our children or siblings or parents, and nothing of what we do is about pleasing God, unless we choose it to be. I'm not arguing you can't have morals or logic or reason or love or conscience. What I'm arguing is that the Atheist Naturalist world has not explanation for them!
The Atheist declares God doesn't exist while making full use of all the good things God's existence makes possible. The Atheist worldview cannot account for how we come to possess any of these things. Yes, several theories have been posted here but they contradict the Naturalist worldview that all things are matter......
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:38:28 PM
No Muppet, in a Naturalist world, which is what the topic and thread is about - none of these exist.
They are not made of matter. You can't touch logic, or smell reason or cook up some love in a test tube.
We all love our children or siblings or parents, and nothing of what we do is about pleasing God, unless we choose it to be. I'm not arguing you can't have morals or logic or reason or love or conscience. What I'm arguing is that the Atheist Naturalist world has not explanation for them!
The Atheist declares God doesn't exist while making full use of all the good things God's existence makes possible. The Atheist worldview cannot account for how we come to possess any of these things. Yes, several theories have been posted here but they contradict the Naturalist worldview that all things are matter......
You cannot reasonably expect to discuss Celtic while refusing to entertain any discussion about Rangers. You are not debating in good faith.
No one says '
all things are matter'. You make sweeping statements such as this, throw out a few vague concepts, ignore any retort and declare victory. For a start everyone is aware of anti-matter. Clearly anti-matter is not matter so your statement is completely false.
Secondly as has been pointed out many times by many posters, and which you continually ignore, the world is not conveniently split into Catholics and Naturalists/Atheists. Some of us do believe there is a God, but I for example believe He is not the type of God who insisted starving Irish people should donate money in his name, refuse food in His name, while none of those who spoke in His name died from hunger.
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:38:28 PM
No Muppet, in a Naturalist world, which is what the topic and thread is about - none of these exist.
They are not made of matter. You can't touch logic, or smell reason or cook up some love in a test tube.
We all love our children or siblings or parents, and nothing of what we do is about pleasing God, unless we choose it to be. I'm not arguing you can't have morals or logic or reason or love or conscience. What I'm arguing is that the Atheist Naturalist world has not explanation for them!
The Atheist declares God doesn't exist while making full use of all the good things God's existence makes possible. The Atheist worldview cannot account for how we come to possess any of these things. Yes, several theories have been posted here but they contradict the Naturalist worldview that all things are matter......
You cannot reasonably expect to discuss Celtic while refusing to entertain any discussion about Rangers. You are not debating in good faith.
No one says 'all things are matter'. You make sweeping statements such as this, throw out a few vague concepts, ignore any retort and declare victory. For a start everyone is aware of anti-matter. Clearly anti-matter is not matter so your statement is completely false.
Secondly as has been pointed out many times by many posters, and which you continually ignore, the world is not conveniently split into Catholics and Naturalists/Atheists. Some of us do believe there is a God, but I for example believe He is not the type of God who insisted starving Irish people should donate money in his name, refuse food in His name, while none of those who spoke in His name died from hunger.
So if you're not Atheist then why jump in to the debate?
I didn't see you were either Catholic or Naturalist. The conversation boils down to can Naturalism explain the things I mentioned or can it not? Why do we have to bring in anything else other than those two sides? I don't think I'm making sweeping statements at all -I think you'll fins that Naturalism does say that all things are matter. I haven't declared any victory either. Tell us about anti-matter then from an Atheist perspective or a Naturalist worldview?
You can't decide for the world that God doesn't exist because you don't understand Him - and that is a totally different conversation.
For once on this board I turn things around a little bit and ask questions of non-believers, self proclaimed Atheists and
its not fair?
I ordered a book on the end times and the book of revelations from the Rose Publishing house in the states and they also sent me a chart refuting evolution.
http://www.rose-publishing.com/Creation-and-Evolution-wall-chart-LAMINATED-P33.aspx
I'll be on to you to discuss later, Iceman.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 09:50:03 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:38:28 PM
No Muppet, in a Naturalist world, which is what the topic and thread is about - none of these exist.
They are not made of matter. You can't touch logic, or smell reason or cook up some love in a test tube.
We all love our children or siblings or parents, and nothing of what we do is about pleasing God, unless we choose it to be. I'm not arguing you can't have morals or logic or reason or love or conscience. What I'm arguing is that the Atheist Naturalist world has not explanation for them!
The Atheist declares God doesn't exist while making full use of all the good things God's existence makes possible. The Atheist worldview cannot account for how we come to possess any of these things. Yes, several theories have been posted here but they contradict the Naturalist worldview that all things are matter......
You cannot reasonably expect to discuss Celtic while refusing to entertain any discussion about Rangers. You are not debating in good faith.
No one says 'all things are matter'. You make sweeping statements such as this, throw out a few vague concepts, ignore any retort and declare victory. For a start everyone is aware of anti-matter. Clearly anti-matter is not matter so your statement is completely false.
Secondly as has been pointed out many times by many posters, and which you continually ignore, the world is not conveniently split into Catholics and Naturalists/Atheists. Some of us do believe there is a God, but I for example believe He is not the type of God who insisted starving Irish people should donate money in his name, refuse food in His name, while none of those who spoke in His name died from hunger.
So if you're not Atheist then why jump in to the debate?
I didn't see you were either Catholic or Naturalist. The conversation boils down to can Naturalism explain the things I mentioned or can it not? Why do we have to bring in anything else other than those two sides? I don't think I'm making sweeping statements at all -I think you'll fins that Naturalism does say that all things are matter. I haven't declared any victory either. Tell us about anti-matter then from an Atheist perspective or a Naturalist worldview?
You can't decide for the world that God doesn't exist because you don't understand Him - and that is a totally different conversation.
For once on this board I turn things around a little bit and ask questions of non-believers, self proclaimed Atheists and its not fair?
This thread was started by you, upon my suggestion, regarding a theological question which you refused to answer as you insisted it was off topic.
I never mentioned Naturalism, yet you are trying to restrict all discussion to not only Naturalism, but to your incredibly narrow view of Naturalism.
Now, again, you are insisting that I am off topic. You are restricting the debate to whatever suits you and declaring anything else to be off topic. Like I said, not in good faith.
Who the hell claimed that "all things", logic, reason, emotion etc."are matter"?
Quote from: seafoid on April 11, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
I ordered a book on the end times and the book of revelations from the Rose Publishing house in the states and they also sent me a chart refuting evolution.
http://www.rose-publishing.com/Creation-and-Evolution-wall-chart-LAMINATED-P33.aspx
I'll be on to you to discuss later, Iceman.
From the above:
Quoteas well as dozens of quotes from secular scientists who say that we have less evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution today, than we did at Darwin's time.
;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
I thought it is fair for Ice Man to question Naturalism only.
As I said, truths are to held up and scrutinized and it is up to those who believe in something to defend it. Only when we strength test a theory through debate, reading and research will we know if it can stand on its own merits. It helps both the believers and the accusers. For the common problem I find with many atheists is that they really only know what they don't believe in. For instance I not fully aware of what Naturalism really is. I study secular humanism and philosophy though (when I have the time).
Ice Man, I think the reason you are not getting a concrete answer to the questions you ask is simply because the answers simply haven't been discovered.
YET.
But if you looked at the youtube link I provided earlier you can see how far science has come in looking at the origins of morality.
Atheists don't claim to have all the answers but they continually are asking the questions and seeking the answers. The research is on-going and mankinds quest for understanding the universe and the reason for life will never stop as it is in our inquisitive nature to do so.
And if that answer is a god being. Well I look forward to meeting it. I'll have many questions I hope it can answer.
God of the Gaps is one thing. God of the Nonexistent Gaps is another. Many of the questions put forward by theists (like the ones that I answered for Ice on the other thread which he then promptly ignored) have already been answered by science, but theists are ignorant if the answers either by accident or deliberately. We sometimes see such examples as the claim that evolution cannot explain where something as complex as an eye comes from even though the evolution of eyes is actually well understood.
@Juice - thanks for your responses and for the debate. Enjoyed it thoroughly.
@Eamonn in fairness you didn't answer anything - you answer was pretty much "no, can you"?
In fact you have been very quiet on this thread, for perhaps as Juice suggests you only know what you don't believe?
Anyways I'm happy enough with how the thread went and I enjoyed the discussion with the folks who took it seriously, it has opened my mind to some things and I'm thankful my brain secretions allowed me to engage. :)
Peace
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 11:51:17 PM
@Eamonn in fairness you didn't answer anything - you answer was pretty much "no, can you"?
That's a lie. Here were your questions:
Quote from: The Iceman on April 09, 2012, 11:26:52 AM
You can't answer where our conscience comes from. You can't explain where emotions come from. You can't explain where laws of logic and reason come from. You can't explain why all people know what is right and wrong.
Start with the first one and work your way through Eamonn, theres a good boy.
Charming. I even resisted the urge to lower myself to your schoolyard taunts and gave you the following answers:
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 09, 2012, 05:13:47 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 09, 2012, 11:26:52 AM
You can't answer where our conscience comes from.
Can you?
My understanding of the current state of the science is that we're scratching the surface of how the brain works. The core of the brain (which evolved first) takes care of automatic functions like breathing, digestion and keeping the heart going. Higher brain functions, or consciousness, come from the outer part of the brain and the frontal lobes which evolved later.
Quote
You can't explain where emotions come from.
Can you? Emotions are nature's way of ensuring that we take care of each other. Without emotions, the process of evolution would be less efficient. Early ancestors of today's animals did not have emotions and didn't go out of their way to help each other when one of their number got in trouble. When emotions were developed they improved reproductive fitness and hence stayed in the gene pool.
QuoteYou can't explain where laws of logic and reason come from.
Huh? The "laws" of logic and reason are not legislation passed in a parliament. They're a function of their own existence.
QuoteYou can't explain why all people know what is right and wrong.
Can you? Most of us know the difference between right and wrong because it's innate. It's instinctive. If we didn't know the difference between right and wrong then we'd have degenerated into chaos, killed and pillaged all around us, and we wouldn't have survived as a species. Those of us who developed a sense of right and wrong were more fruitful and the instinct stayed in the gene pool. Anyone who didn't develop the instinct didn't survive long enough to reproduce.
And I take issue with your claim that we all know right from wrong. For example most of us know that animal cruelty is wrong, you don't.
So there you go. I didn't say "no, can you?" I answered each one of your questions in turn and in depth. Your response was to go silent, let the thread drop off the front page, and you opened up this new thread picking up where that conversation left off and trying out a new "nice guy" persona. Did you think we wouldn't notice, or something?
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 10:32:10 PM
Quote from: seafoid on April 11, 2012, 10:09:13 PM
I ordered a book on the end times and the book of revelations from the Rose Publishing house in the states and they also sent me a chart refuting evolution.
http://www.rose-publishing.com/Creation-and-Evolution-wall-chart-LAMINATED-P33.aspx
I'll be on to you to discuss later, Iceman.
From the above:
Quoteas well as dozens of quotes from secular scientists who say that we have less evidence for Darwin's Theory of Evolution today, than we did at Darwin's time.
;D ;D ;D ::) ::) ::)
It's nuts. But as you know Muppet there is no scientific proof to deny the fact that god created Man 7000 years ago as explained in the Scriptures.
@ Eamonn, I hardly call that in depth. It reads more as I don't know or we don't know but we will some day. And then you turned it on me for an answer.
I think I am a nice guy on and off the boards. I just don't like you. I never liked bullies and to me anyway you've proven yourself to be nothing but a bully. Si I struggle to be nice with you. I struggle to respond to you like I do with most people because you bring out the worst in me. And what are the chances, I'm now going to be working in San Francisco.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
@ Eamonn, I hardly call that in depth. It reads more as I don't know or we don't know but we will some day. And then you turned it on me for an answer.
I think I am a nice guy on and off the boards. I just don't like you. I never liked bullies and to me anyway you've proven yourself to be nothing but a bully. Si I struggle to be nice with you. I struggle to respond to you like I do with most people because you bring out the worst in me. And what are the chances, I'm now going to be working in San Francisco.
Your self pity is noted.
You asked questions. I answered them. You then claimed I didn't answer. A lie. Calling a liar a liar is not bullying.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 08:37:56 PM
Atheism teaches us that morals are a matter of personal opinion and entirely relative.
No it doesn't. Atheism doesn't teach - it's a lack of belief in deities.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:58:33 PM
You can't decide for the world that God doesn't exist because you don't understand Him - and that is a totally different conversation.
I've decided for
myself that God doesn't exist... because I don't
believe 'he' exists. There's nothing to not 'understand' about the idea of God's 'existance'; it's very basic stuff, just not very logical, rationale or convincing.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
I think I am a nice guy on and off the boards. I just don't like you. I never liked bullies and to me anyway you've proven yourself to be nothing but a bully. Si I struggle to be nice with you. I struggle to respond to you like I do with most people because you bring out the worst in me.
Is it because his avatar is a cat?
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2012, 04:47:52 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 02:22:52 PM
@ Eamonn, I hardly call that in depth. It reads more as I don't know or we don't know but we will some day. And then you turned it on me for an answer.
I think I am a nice guy on and off the boards. I just don't like you. I never liked bullies and to me anyway you've proven yourself to be nothing but a bully. Si I struggle to be nice with you. I struggle to respond to you like I do with most people because you bring out the worst in me. And what are the chances, I'm now going to be working in San Francisco.
Your self pity is noted.
You asked questions. I answered them. You then claimed I didn't answer. A lie. Calling a liar a liar is not bullying.
My dislike for you Eamonn goes way beyond this thread. You can continue to throw your little digs in all you want, I'm adding them all to the bill.
Some very unchristian attitudes on display.
Pointless thread. Most of the points raised are just ignored.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 05:51:26 PM
My dislike for you Eamonn goes way beyond this thread. You can continue to throw your little digs in all you want, I'm adding them all to the bill.
Ooooh you're such a tough guy.
Nothing about being tough Eamonn. You forget its a small world we live and some day you'll bump into one of the many posters on here that you insult and ridicule.....
Quote from: J70 on April 12, 2012, 06:09:25 PM
Pointless thread. Most of the points raised are just ignored.
+1
I don't know what you want Muppet or J70? I posted questions and got answers. Is the person who starts a thread supposed to answer every single point or are you expecting others to answer? I'm sure its not the only thread now where every single point is not addressed?
Should I answer Maguire about the Cats? Should I answer J70 about something nobody on the thread said (which you would know if you read the whole thread)?
I was satisfied with what I got back in return. I can't be expected to answer everything. It's something you tend to hold alone to on the board..... I don't have all the answers for you nor do I have the time to answer all your individual questions or address everyone's points. I have other things to be doing in fairness.
If you are unhappy about a particular question not being addressed by me or anyone else then start a topic and maybe someone will answer, or look it up online I'm sure you're not the first person to have that particular question......
By all means answer the questions that are on topic. But when someone else takes the trouble to answer your questions (and bites his lip rather than react to the obnoxious way you asked), don't come on here spouting lies that your question wasn't answered.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2012, 10:05:43 PM
By all means answer the questions that are on topic. But when someone else takes the trouble to answer your questions (and bites his lip rather than react to the obnoxious way you asked), don't come on here spouting lies that your question wasn't answered.
He choose to ignore (maybe I'm on his ignore list ;D ) my point about animals exhibiting many of the characteristics of a morality, culture, emotions etc.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2012, 10:11:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2012, 10:05:43 PM
By all means answer the questions that are on topic. But when someone else takes the trouble to answer your questions (and bites his lip rather than react to the obnoxious way you asked), don't come on here spouting lies that your question wasn't answered.
He choose to ignore (maybe I'm on his ignore list ;D ) my point about animals exhibiting many of the characteristics of a morality, culture, emotions etc.
Quote from: mayogodhelpus@gmail.com on April 12, 2012, 10:11:11 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 12, 2012, 10:05:43 PM
By all means answer the questions that are on topic. But when someone else takes the trouble to answer your questions (and bites his lip rather than react to the obnoxious way you asked), don't come on here spouting lies that your question wasn't answered.
He choose to ignore (maybe I'm on his ignore list ;D ) my point about animals exhibiting many of the characteristics of a morality, culture, emotions etc.
Others made the point too.
I don't expect answers to each and every question Iceman. I appreciate that you're not getting much support from the numerous people on the board who would sympathize with your views. However, you've stated things like the apparent lack of explanation, from a scientific point of view, for things like emotions and learning. The presence of these types of traits, in various degrees, in animals, is very relevant, in my view. If its not in your's, then you should explain why instead of just ignoring it.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 08:42:04 PM
Should I answer J70 about something nobody on the thread said (which you would know if you read the whole thread)?
Just to address this. I'm assuming you were talking about this?
Quote from: J70 on April 11, 2012, 10:19:07 PM
Who the hell claimed that "all things", logic, reason, emotion etc."are matter"?
If so, I was referring to the following:
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 09:38:28 PM
No Muppet, in a Naturalist world, which is what the topic and thread is about - none of these exist.
They are not made of matter. You can't touch logic, or smell reason or cook up some love in a test tube.
We all love our children or siblings or parents, and nothing of what we do is about pleasing God, unless we choose it to be. I'm not arguing you can't have morals or logic or reason or love or conscience. What I'm arguing is that the Atheist Naturalist world has not explanation for them!
The Atheist declares God doesn't exist while making full use of all the good things God's existence makes possible. The Atheist worldview cannot account for how we come to possess any of these things. Yes, several theories have been posted here but they contradict the Naturalist worldview that all things are matter......
So again, who has said that all things are matter?? Is gravity matter? Electricity?
And again, the rudiments of something like logic is surely problem-solving, is it not? Which is found to varying degrees in other animal species. Parental bonds and emotions are found in other animal species too. Please explain how a god is necessary to explain these things in other animals?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 08:45:22 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 11, 2012, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 11, 2012, 06:27:58 PM
I don't argue that religion provides any of this. I argue that none of it can exist in the Atheist, Naturalist worldview.
If you argue that something that we agree exists cannot exist in an Atheist world, you are de facto arguing that it must thus exist in a Theist world.
Your whole approach to this thread is: polarise the debate, shoot down one side of the argument but absolutely refuse to address the other.
While I have sympathy for you facing loads of questions all of which you couldn't possibly answer, the above approach is bringing it on yourself.
Muppet, the Atheist worldview cannot account for all these things in our human experience because they are not reducible to matter:Thoughts, knowledge, learning, morals, logic, reason, emotions, conscience.
The evidence that the Naturalist worldview is wrong is all around you and within you. In your desire for knowledge, in your ability to think, reason and draw conclusions, in every idea you consider.....every emotion you express. Naturalism cannot explain any of this.....
Neuroscience says differently. For example in painting there is the concept of "grouping" whereby the artist will use the same colour in different places. This triggers a certain reaction in the human brain. The theory is that what passes as an appreciation of art evolved from certain survial instincts. When an animal sees a lion hidden behind leaves his brain can discern the "grouping" of these brown coloured pieces of lion from amid the green foliage and recognize the predator i.e...." lion!...run!". By the use of brain imaging and other techniques scientists can see a similar correlation between brain activity during this "danger" reaction and when a person looks at a painting.
If such an abstract human experience as the appreciation of art are "reducible to matter" then all those other things you mention are quite easy to explain in comparison.
That doesn't mean that you can't appreciate art or beauty or nature any less, just that you don't need to explain it by means of "scripture".
Quote from: Fionntamhnach on April 11, 2012, 12:02:38 PM
I came to the conclusion a while ago that a God in the Christian sense, or that in some other major religions as well, is something that the human mind cannot fully comprehend, cannot see or hear and ultimately cannot prove or disprove - rather that it is a focal point to try and help explain the unexplainable that no human can prove because as intelligent our species are, it still has its limits. In this sense the belief of a divine power exists, but only through faith and whose means of existence has been handed down through thousands of years starting at much more primitive times. For me, man has not got the capacity to prove that God exists, but also that there is no capacity to prove that God does not exist because we will never be able to comprehend every single thing that happens around us, or explain it.
I think you have stated your opinions very well and I must say I share them.
My sense of logic tells me that God as envisaged by Christians and other religious faiths does not, indeed cannot, exist but I'd stop a long way short of saying that there is no superior intellect guiding and controlling reality as we see it today.
The Big Bang theory; the idea that all matter was created in a humongous explosion, the effects of which are still evident billions of years later, remains just a theory for me. So many of the theories and findings of Naturalism are predicated on a Big Bang of a physical nature occurring at a fixed time in the past and I can neither accept nor reject this. I have no way of telling whether one happened or not and I think I share this feeling with all of humanity, past and present.
Given the limitations of my own intelligence and of my resources, I know that I can't accept without proof the answer to the first question in the old green school catechism, "Who Made the World?"
Theism or atheism: religion or naturalism? TBH, I'm not even half-satisfied with the answers put forward by either side where the meaning of life and the nature of the universe is concerned.
I also have problems accepting the Christian concept of God, the creator and lord of everything. God, according to Christians, is a merciful and ever-loving entity who made us all in his image and likeness and he will take us to live with him and share his splendour for eternity when we pass from this life.
Mind you, that only applies to the Good.
The Bad will be cast into Hell where they can suffer torment for ever with no prospect of parole or redemption. There will be everlasting torment for anyone who dies without being in a state of grace. (See, I haven't forgotten my catechism's Q&A.) ;D
However, the idea of forgiveness runs throughout Catholic theology and I think there is a massive contradiction between the Catholic (and other Christian) concepts of God's nature and his directives that they choose to follow as a matter of faith.
I find it hard to accept that this God would be so offended by the actions of the First Parents that he would condemn the rest of humanity to a loss of salvation. Guilty without trial or transgression—hardly the Christian course of action.
Furthermore this deity demanded blood sacrifice to exculpate the sins of untold generation who did nothing whatever wrong-except possibly being born!
He sent his own son to live amongst us and to suffer death and degradation in the most barbaric way possible in order to satisfy his thirst for retribution—hardly the actions of the God we are asked to believe in.
While I admire the sincerity of many practising Catholic whom I have known over the years, I have serious doubts about the nature of God—as they see him. Hence, I can't subscribe to the theory of Creation.
So, accepting the notion of a God who says one thing and practices another or believing that a massive explosion produced both the energy and the matter that lead to the universe as we know it today, leaves me with serious doubts about both theories.
Thank God (?) our ancestors handed down religion in its many forms. Apart from the wars and people dying in their droves in the name of the Jew God or Jesus or Buddha, at least it can bring out a bit of goodness in people whether they're brainwashed or not. Homer Simpson has a neighbour called Flanders and Flanders is a very holy and good man even though Homer takes advantage of him. If Flanders hadn't been religious then he wouldn't have loaned Homer his lawnmower etc and then the show wouldn't that whole narrative strand and the shows would be a lot shorter.
I've often thought about other forms of tradition they could have handed down instead of religion. Like, no one would make up a story in 2012 that there's somebody floating about who owns the whole cosmos. You'd be tied to a lamp post and beaten. Luckily the man who started this was able to tell a few people who had nothing else to do only eat fruit and fight with bears and they told others so now you have about 5 billion people on your side because of tradition. It's a bit like banshees and the like. I just hope the religions don't go the way of the banshees although it might already be going that way. A lot of traditions are now ignored because of their ridiculousness and religion is just taking a bit longer because of its numbers and without religion we'd all be buggering and pillaging our neighbours.
I'm glad we don't have mad traditions instead of religion like licking cliffs or burning raspberries etc. as you couldn't be bothered doing that every Sunday morning.
J70:
QuoteSo again, who has said that all things are matter?? Is gravity matter? Electricity?
And again, the rudiments of something like logic is surely problem-solving, is it not? Which is found to varying degrees in other animal species. Parental bonds and emotions are found in other animal species too. Please explain how a god is necessary to explain these things in other animals?
Gravity and Electricity can be replicated, explained, tested. We know how to produce electricity, create it, right?
You can't recreate love in a lab or break down right and wrong into particles and understand where they come from.
My point from the outset has been that if you
fully subscribe to the Naturalist worldview and read some of the books, opinions and theories put out there by it's champions, that we all just
"are". There is no God and no moral law; if nothing exists but material substances; if man has simply evolved upwardly from the primordial soup of organic matter and is nothing more than an evolutionary accident; why would the notion of reason or anything I have brought up even bind such a creature?
In the world of nature, whatever
exists is natural. To claim we are better than any other animal is specie-ism. Humans are nothing special, we just
are.
How does anything we have discussed arise from the infinite sea of ever changing material?
How can you teach people they have evolved from slime and then tell them there is a moral law by which they should abide?
@Eamonn, let me rephrase my response to your response and maybe then you'll pick your dummy up off the floor. I do not believe the responses you provided to the questions I asked on the Lent thread were adequate nor do I believe they answered the questions. What I got from your responses was a push back on each item and a half attempt at an answer wrapped up in an "we don't know yet"....
Why can't you just engage in the conversation like everyone else.
@MOG, I don't know when to take you serious, but I have not ignored you as a poster, but with your track record for windups and insults I chose not to respond. Like you can too....
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 08:42:04 PM
Should I answer Maguire about the Cats?
Only if you really want to.
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 13, 2012, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 08:42:04 PM
Should I answer Maguire about the Cats?
Only if you really want to.
In a Naturalist world there is no right or wrong. Survival of the fittest. Evolution of the species.
Most neo protestant cults in the u.s. are the same iceman. You won't see many televangelists or indeed santorum making any noise about social justice. Modern us christianity is in large part neoliberal. Northern sun have a great t shirt
'The revised christo fascist sermon on the mount 'with jesus saying 'get a job you losers. Your poverty disgusts me'
Quote from: seafoid on April 13, 2012, 05:49:51 PM
Most neo protestant cults in the u.s. are the same iceman. You won't see many televangelists or indeed santorum making any noise about social justice. Modern us christianity is in large part neoliberal. Northern sun have a great t shirt
'The revised christo fascist sermon on the mount 'with jesus saying 'get a job you losers. Your poverty disgusts me'
Thats fair enough seafoid. But this debate is about whether Naturalism or Atheism can provide explanations of our human experience of emotions, virtues, reason, logic, right or wrong......
What a sect or cult do has no relevance....
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 05:26:08 PM
In a Naturalist world there is no right or wrong. Survival of the fittest. Evolution of the species.
The species has a better chance of survival if the individuals in it develop a sense of community, cooperation, and what you would describe as a sense of right and wrong.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
I do not believe the responses you provided to the questions I asked on the Lent thread were adequate nor do I believe they answered the questions. What I got from your responses was a push back on each item and a half attempt at an answer wrapped up in an "we don't know yet"....
So I didn't answer the questions to your satisfaction then. OK, fine.
God did it.
There, happy now?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 05:26:08 PM
Quote from: Maguire01 on April 13, 2012, 05:24:20 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 12, 2012, 08:42:04 PM
Should I answer Maguire about the Cats?
Only if you really want to.
In a Naturalist world there is no right or wrong. Survival of the fittest. Evolution of the species.
But you're not a Naturalist. And killing cats has nothing to do with your survival.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2012, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 05:26:08 PM
In a Naturalist world there is no right or wrong. Survival of the fittest. Evolution of the species.
The species has a better chance of survival if the individuals in it develop a sense of community, cooperation, and what you would describe as a sense of right and wrong.
But where would the measuring stick to determine right or wrong come from as you describe?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 06:05:56 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 13, 2012, 05:54:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 05:26:08 PM
In a Naturalist world there is no right or wrong. Survival of the fittest. Evolution of the species.
The species has a better chance of survival if the individuals in it develop a sense of community, cooperation, and what you would describe as a sense of right and wrong.
But where would the measuring stick to determine right or wrong come from as you describe?
From experience of what works and what doesn't. From debate. Discussion. Consideration. Thought. That's why opinions about what's right and wrong evolve over time.
Things that were considered acceptable a few centuries ago (absolute monarchism with no democratic control, slavery, hard child labour, dangerous working conditions) are no longer considered acceptable.
Things that were considered acceptable decades ago (sex discrimination in employment, sexist working environments, age discrimination, smoking indoors in the company of non smokers) are no longer considered acceptable.
Things that were considered taboo a few years ago (homosexuality, atheism) are now becoming increasingly more accepted as people come to realize that these things are not harmful.
Once in a while harmless things fall out of favor. Homosexuality and bisexuality was no big deal in Ancient Greece and Rome, opposition to such things came with Christianity and Islam, but in recent time that has waned and non mainstream sexual practices are coming back into the realm of acceptability. And not everyone gets with the program; slavery still exists in some places as does dangerous working conditions and child labour. But in general the path has been leading towards a better society for everyone. For example, we all know about poor working conditions in China, but thanks in part to pressure from the developed world things are slowly improving there too.
Society has a way of making things better one issue at a time.
How do you define what is harmless and not, what is acceptable or not? Majority consensus? Societal standards?
And this experience of what works and what doesn't - how do you define or measure whether something works or doesn't from the perspective of right and wrong? In the Naturalist world right and wrong do not exist I thought. There are merely cultural conventions, words to describe what different societies approve and disapprove of. Proof of this is that morals differ from culture to culture. Morals are simply individuals or societies way of looking at things. In the Naturalist World who are we to judge?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
How do you define what is harmless and not, what is acceptable or not? Majority consensus? Societal standards?
And this experience of what works and what doesn't - how do you define or measure whether something works or doesn't from the perspective of right and wrong? In the Naturalist world right and wrong do not exist I thought. There are merely cultural conventions, words to describe what different societies approve and disapprove of. Proof of this is that morals differ from culture to culture. Morals are simply individuals or societies way of looking at things. In the Naturalist World who are we to judge?
Let's assume Naturalism is completely incorrect.
That leaves us looking at God.
He has to be a constant unchanging God, as you can't be all-powerful forever and be something else at the same time. Presumably his morals and his views of right and wrong don't change either.
Yet we are always changing. We don't have an agreed set of morals and our views of right and wrong are as objective as the Liverpool/Man United threads. Even the Church's views of right and wrong have evolved. Copernicus was afraid (rightly) to publish his brilliant work while Galileo lived under house arrest for his last years thanks to Church teachings that are now completely obsolete. The Church's treatment of single mothers has changed dramatically in the last few decades. Why is that?
The problem here for me is not the concept of a God. He, for me, almost certainly exists, but in some incomprehensible capacity. The problem is the Church and what it always was, is and will become. If the Church is right, it shouldn't be evolving. That fact that it does, or more pertinently that it has to, suggests there might be something to the idea of Evolution.
Muppet I believe there is undoubtedly a God too. As a result of this truth I have to live my life differently. I have to follow his teachings (imprinted on the heart) and search for meaning and guidance within the Church.
I read somewhere and this quote is probably not correct but it went something like "Christianity has been tried, and found difficult"
also I remember reading something from Gandhi who actually read the Gospels everyday. He was asked why he hadn't become a Christian and he said he would if he ever met one.
What I'm trying to get at is people mess up. We've always messed up and will always mess up. We don't come anywhere close to the life we're called to. Some people standout throughout history like Mother Theresa and the Saints - these were people who embraced and really followed Jesus. But I think what happens, as in Gandhi's case, is we see what is expected of us and because we believe we can never be that person or live that life we don't even try. But I would rather try than give up. I would rather stumble and keep going, than lay down.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 01:53:43 PM
Muppet I believe there is undoubtedly a God too. As a result of this truth I have to live my life differently. I have to follow his teachings (imprinted on the heart) and search for meaning and guidance within the Church.
I read somewhere and this quote is probably not correct but it went something like "Christianity has been tried, and found difficult"
also I remember reading something from Gandhi who actually read the Gospels everyday. He was asked why he hadn't become a Christian and he said he would if he ever met one.
What I'm trying to get at is people mess up. We've always messed up and will always mess up. We don't come anywhere close to the life we're called to. Some people standout throughout history like Mother Theresa and the Saints - these were people who embraced and really followed Jesus. But I think what happens, as in Gandhi's case, is we see what is expected of us and because we believe we can never be that person or live that life we don't even try. But I would rather try than give up. I would rather stumble and keep going, than lay down.
Muppet I believe there is undoubtedly a God too. Fine
As a result of this truth I have to live my life differently. Ok if you say so, no harm there.
I have to follow his teachings (imprinted on the heart) and search for meaning and guidance within the Church. This is not a logical step from the previous two statements. We are all free to search wherever we choose and I have no problem with that, but where did the Church replace God? Which Church? Which teachings?
The Church you point to is as guilty of evil and wrong-doing as the next person and far, far worse in some cases. Looking to Rome for guidance is to my mind blinkered in the extreme. Many people (in Ireland these days this would be mainly older people) ignore the terrible acts of the Church for selfish reasons, i.e. 'I don't care because I need to be saved'.
Would the God of the Old Testament, or the Jesus of the New Testament, encourage the cover up and denial of accountability of the abuse of vulnerable children? Remember Rome is the Church in the Creed:
'I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints,' , it is there after the Holy Spirit and before the Saints. I don't believe in a Holy Spirit that would hide the suffering of children for His own benefit and it is not my idea of what Saints are either. But it is exactly what the Church has done.
What if there is a god but that he put an ant messiah to save the world and become part of the oneness of god but the ant was killed via a dose of bleach at iceman's house?
I am not putting you in the same category but you are in some way doing what you say the Church has done and "created" the Holy Spirit or God as you think He should be. You don't believe in a Holy Spirit who would do X..... or a God who would say Y......
Looking to yourself to figure it all out is much more blinkered than looking to the Church surely?
The Church is guilty of cover ups, people within the church are guilty of abuse - we've had threads after threads on this.
What I'm talking about is belief in God's existence and how we respond.
Iceman, I have yet to get an answer to this question: what is the logic behind the conclusion that since (in your estimation) the laws of nature do not at present sufficiently account for the behaviour of the universe or for concepts like morality, altruism, right and wrong, this is a sufficient condition belief in a deity?
You have provided lots of opinion OPPOSING the assertion that the laws of physics and science actually or potentially account in full for the behaviour of the universe. Fine - I disagree with most of it, but at least it's a case presented. However, I have not seen one item of evidence (unless I've missed it) SUPPORTING (a) your proposition of the existence of a deity or (b) your proposition that the deity you subscribe to is the only and correct one, in opposition to all the other deities proposed by others.
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
1. Sorry, Iceman, but if you're deploying logic in support of the existence of God, I think you're torpedoing your position by starting from a logical fallacy. Atheism cannot be shown to be false. You cannot prove a negative.
I claim to have a little leprechaun in my desk drawer who plays the mouth organ. You can even come to my house and you will hear mouth organ music coming out of the drawer. But I won't let you physically touch the desk. There are two possibilities as regards the existence of the leprechaun - he exists or he doesn't. There are many possibilities as regards the source of the music, of course, but I have decided that unless you can prove there is no leprechaun, that's the reality. Prove there's no leprechaun.
2. Even if we accept the reasoning that to demonstrate that "the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice" proves Atheism to be false, do you think you've done that? I would submit that no example of a phenomenon incontrovertibly inconsistent with the laws of nature has been presented.
3. Even if we accept your claim to have proven the existence of God by debunking atheism, you haven't addressed part (b) of my question: how do you support your proposition that the deity you subscribe to is the only and correct one, in opposition to all the other deities proposed by others?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
Scientists haven't yet come up with answers to every argument. That doesn't mean that you fill in the gaps with the supernatural, just because in provides
one possible answer. I don't have the answers to some of the big questions - maybe I never will - but I don't feel the need to accept an alternative that is unsupported by any convincing evidence.
People used to think that mental illness was possession by demons and that thunder and lightening were acts of a god. Science later explained these... and convinced theists of their explanations.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
How do you define what is harmless and not, what is acceptable or not? Majority consensus? Societal standards?
And this experience of what works and what doesn't - how do you define or measure whether something works or doesn't from the perspective of right and wrong? In the Naturalist world right and wrong do not exist I thought. There are merely cultural conventions, words to describe what different societies approve and disapprove of. Proof of this is that morals differ from culture to culture. Morals are simply individuals or societies way of looking at things. In the Naturalist World who are we to judge?
How do I personally define what is harmless or acceptable? I go with the Sam Harris definition of going by the wellbeing of others. My personal ideas contribute to a society, I participate in the "marketplace of ideas". In a civil society we talk, write, discuss, debate in a multitude of ways about these issues, society spectates and takes part in the discussion, and collectively a set of common values emerges with a few people dissenting. Now what you define as "wellbeing" can vary over time, as I've mentioned before when talking about evolving values and changing ideas about what is considered acceptable and what is not. The debate over what is right and what is wrong, or "yardstick" if you will, will never be 100% settled. People who are getting a raw deal at the hands of current prevailing attitudes have a tendency to speak up and do something about it until the rest of society hears their concerns and modifies its behavior accordingly.
Examples: Blacks in the US south were once considered unworthy of consideration as human beings. Attitudes changed in the 20th century largely as a result of the civil rights movement and sympathetic legislators forced the issue over the heads of local politicians who had not yet caught up with the new attitude.
Gays were once considered pariahs in the US, but the AIDS crisis and a series of hate crimes prompted that community to start getting organized and speaking up for its rights. The prevailing attitude to gays now is now a lot more tolerant, but some attitudes are still a little behind as the push for full equal rights (including the right to marry) go on.
American attitudes to atheists are still marked by prejudice, but as atheists are now beginning to get organized and speak up for ourselves we are seeking to change public attitudes and misperceptions towards us.
And yes these ideas vary from society to society. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the naturalist worldview or a religious worldview is held. People shape their values based on an innate sense of right and wrong whether they are religious or not. The only difference with religious people is that they are able to back-annotate their worldview to scripture. They come up with a set of values using the same yardstick that the rest of us uses, and they go back and find the relevant piece of scripture to justify it. Like the two religious fellas I was debating with in the street in the city a while ago. Both were evangelicals, but one was homophobic and the other didn't have a problem with gays. Both were able to find scripture to justify their belief systems, because as you know the devil can quote scripture.
Who are we to judge, you ask? I say who else is there to judge?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
J70:
QuoteSo again, who has said that all things are matter?? Is gravity matter? Electricity?
And again, the rudiments of something like logic is surely problem-solving, is it not? Which is found to varying degrees in other animal species. Parental bonds and emotions are found in other animal species too. Please explain how a god is necessary to explain these things in other animals?
Gravity and Electricity can be replicated, explained, tested. We know how to produce electricity, create it, right?
You can't recreate love in a lab or break down right and wrong into particles and understand where they come from.
By that standard, we know how to create love as well. Throw enough men and women together, and there is pretty much a probability of one that a loving relationship will develop between some couple. Lust and longing, which is not confined to humans, will even far more rampant.
Electricity and gravity are forces, not matter. They're effects of matter. Are as emotions, learning, etc. Just because we don't understand everything about them, doesn't mean you need a god to explain them.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
My point from the outset has been that if you fully subscribe to the Naturalist worldview and read some of the books, opinions and theories put out there by it's champions, that we all just "are". There is no God and no moral law; if nothing exists but material substances; if man has simply evolved upwardly from the primordial soup of organic matter and is nothing more than an evolutionary accident; why would the notion of reason or anything I have brought up even bind such a creature?
What do you mean by "bind"? Reason is just a process to evaluate your surroundings. The rudiments of it are found in non-human animals.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
In the world of nature, whatever exists is natural. To claim we are better than any other animal is specie-ism. Humans are nothing special, we just are.
If by nothing special, you mean we're not here, made in the image of a god, taking a step towards some supposed greater reward, then, yes, I agree.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
How does anything we have discussed arise from the infinite sea of ever changing material?
Its not a state of constant flux. Its a rachet. Currently advantageous traits (and some associated neutral traits) are preserved in the gene pool. They don't disappear next week if they're still beneficial. But I'm assuming you understand the processes of evolution and thus your objection is that these traits we speak of CANNOT evolve. If so, why not? Because if so, did your god at some point a long the line install various primitive forms of these traits into non-human species?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
How can you teach people they have evolved from slime and then tell them there is a moral law by which they should abide?
Apart from the fact that societal responsibilities and a system of checks and balances require their adherence?
Humans have been on this earth in their present form for 200,000 years. Are you saying that the proper moral code was only revealed 2000 years ago and then finessed up to the present day to leave us with the current, perfected code which is not even followed by a majority of people currently living on the planet? What makes the christian one so special in comparison to all the various contemporary ones today and in the past? Moral codes, which have pretty much been religious over the past couple of milleniums, evolve too.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
Or maybe some deist-type intelligent force started the whole thing and left it to its own devices, to unfold as it might. In which case your moral code argument for the existence of a god still fails.
Iceman you are arguing two points as if they are the same thing:
1) God exists;
2) We must all follow the Church and that is the only route to God;
I am inclined towards the first, but disagree completely with the second.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 14, 2012, 10:19:36 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 10:04:59 PM
How do you define what is harmless and not, what is acceptable or not? Majority consensus? Societal standards?
And this experience of what works and what doesn't - how do you define or measure whether something works or doesn't from the perspective of right and wrong? In the Naturalist world right and wrong do not exist I thought. There are merely cultural conventions, words to describe what different societies approve and disapprove of. Proof of this is that morals differ from culture to culture. Morals are simply individuals or societies way of looking at things. In the Naturalist World who are we to judge?
How do I personally define what is harmless or acceptable? I go with the Sam Harris definition of going by the wellbeing of others. My personal ideas contribute to a society, I participate in the "marketplace of ideas". In a civil society we talk, write, discuss, debate in a multitude of ways about these issues, society spectates and takes part in the discussion, and collectively a set of common values emerges with a few people dissenting. Now what you define as "wellbeing" can vary over time, as I've mentioned before when talking about evolving values and changing ideas about what is considered acceptable and what is not. The debate over what is right and what is wrong, or "yardstick" if you will, will never be 100% settled. People who are getting a raw deal at the hands of current prevailing attitudes have a tendency to speak up and do something about it until the rest of society hears their concerns and modifies its behavior accordingly.
Examples: Blacks in the US south were once considered unworthy of consideration as human beings. Attitudes changed in the 20th century largely as a result of the civil rights movement and sympathetic legislators forced the issue over the heads of local politicians who had not yet caught up with the new attitude.
Gays were once considered pariahs in the US, but the AIDS crisis and a series of hate crimes prompted that community to start getting organized and speaking up for its rights. The prevailing attitude to gays now is now a lot more tolerant, but some attitudes are still a little behind as the push for full equal rights (including the right to marry) go on.
American attitudes to atheists are still marked by prejudice, but as atheists are now beginning to get organized and speak up for ourselves we are seeking to change public attitudes and misperceptions towards us.
And yes these ideas vary from society to society. I don't see how it makes any difference whether the naturalist worldview or a religious worldview is held. People shape their values based on an innate sense of right and wrong whether they are religious or not. The only difference with religious people is that they are able to back-annotate their worldview to scripture. They come up with a set of values using the same yardstick that the rest of us uses, and they go back and find the relevant piece of scripture to justify it. Like the two religious fellas I was debating with in the street in the city a while ago. Both were evangelicals, but one was homophobic and the other didn't have a problem with gays. Both were able to find scripture to justify their belief systems, because as you know the devil can quote scripture.
Who are we to judge, you ask? I say who else is there to judge?
But isn't "going by the well-being of others" contrary to the Naturalist Worldview? If there is no God and no moral law; if we are all just the mere products of natural processes, accidents of chance and time who have come from nowhere and are going nowhere; and if we all just have a few fleeting years of existence and thats it, forever and ever; then why should we care about results in the greatest amount of happiness or the well-being of others? Why should we choose to allow this arbitrary standard to limit us in our freedom? Why shouldn't we do what we want? Why can't we pick our own arbitrary standard like "right will be whatever makes me happy"?
The way of nature is for the strong to survive. If the survival of the fittest is what drives evolution forward then why would we hinder that by limiting our options through the concern for the well-being of others?
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 01:45:38 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
Or maybe some deist-type intelligent force started the whole thing and left it to its own devices, to unfold as it might. In which case your moral code argument for the existence of a god still fails.
This is exactly what the most famous thinkers put forward today J70. But more worded like: We were most likely seeded by Aliens...... But that's much more believable than the Theist worldview..........
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2012, 12:35:32 PM
Iceman you are arguing two points as if they are the same thing:
1) God exists;
2) We must all follow the Church and that is the only route to God;
I am inclined towards the first, but disagree completely with the second.
A whole seperate thread I believe and I'm happy to discuss. I wish others would contribute too.....
***side note: I am slammed in work here so don't have time to answer everything in detail but I will circle back when I can....***
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 02:34:15 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 01:45:38 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 14, 2012, 07:08:57 PM
The debate over God's existence allows only two possibilities Hardy. He exists or He doesn't. There is no middle ground. My argument throughout is that if it can be demonstrated that the logical conclusions entailed by atheist-naturalist position are inconsistent with reality and impossible in practice - then Atheism is shown to be false. Therefore God must exist.
The Atheist position is in practice a self refuting position.
Or maybe some deist-type intelligent force started the whole thing and left it to its own devices, to unfold as it might. In which case your moral code argument for the existence of a god still fails.
This is exactly what the most famous thinkers put forward today J70. But more worded like: We were most likely seeded by Aliens...... But that's much more believable than the Theist worldview..........
As with the theist view, I wouldn't give much credence to the alien seeding view without some kind of positive evidence. And if it was aliens that seeded life on earth, then that just shifts the origin argument to a different location. Which is not to say that some intelligent advanced species could not deposit life on some barren but otherwise suitable planet and allow it to evolve. But I was referring to the traditional deist argument.
To touch on a point you raised in another post (to Eamonica?)... why do you not allow for the fact that the well-being of others can positively affect individuals in a survival sense? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the most lethal or physically overpowering.
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
To touch on a point you raised in another post (to Eamonica?)... why do you not allow for the fact that the well-being of others can positively affect individuals in a survival sense? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the most lethal or physically overpowering.
You beat me to it. Altruism does contribute to improving the species. In any case, Iceman asks why we can't just "do what makes me happy" as if harming others or failing to help other would make us happy. But we (or at least most os us) have an instinctive aversion to harming others. It's in our nature to co-operate. We get pleasure from it.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2012, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
To touch on a point you raised in another post (to Eamonica?)... why do you not allow for the fact that the well-being of others can positively affect individuals in a survival sense? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the most lethal or physically overpowering.
You beat me to it. Altruism does contribute to improving the species. In any case, Iceman asks why we can't just "do what makes me happy" as if harming others or failing to help other would make us happy. But we (or at least most os us) have an instinctive aversion to harming others. It's in our nature to co-operate. We get pleasure from it.
But that has been my question from the outset Eamonn. Explain where it comes from? Where does the intrinsic aversion to harming others come from? Or the sense of right and wrong? Is it enough to answer "Science doesn't have the answers yet, but we'll know some day, so I'm happy enough for now"?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2012, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
To touch on a point you raised in another post (to Eamonica?)... why do you not allow for the fact that the well-being of others can positively affect individuals in a survival sense? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the most lethal or physically overpowering.
You beat me to it. Altruism does contribute to improving the species. In any case, Iceman asks why we can't just "do what makes me happy" as if harming others or failing to help other would make us happy. But we (or at least most os us) have an instinctive aversion to harming others. It's in our nature to co-operate. We get pleasure from it.
But that has been my question from the outset Eamonn. Explain where it comes from? Where does the intrinsic aversion to harming others come from? Or the sense of right and wrong? Is it enough to answer "Science doesn't have the answers yet, but we'll know some day, so I'm happy enough for now"?
If its intrinsic, then a moral code is unnecessary, is it not? The default position is to do no harm!
But anyway, cooperation has obvious benefits for social species. Do you really need the arguments for how they might lead to increased survival spelled out? A pride of lions has a much better chance of bringing down a cape buffalo than a solitary one. A band of primitive humans might have a much better chance of defending a patch of savannah or forest and the resources therein if they cooperate and nurture rather than slam each other over the back of the head with an antelope femur the moment someone's back is turned. If you do that and your group is down a few men, then the gang across the valley will much more easily roust you.
I think this has become a circular argument.
No matter what point is raised it seems the debate will be pared back down to this fundamental root:
QuoteTheist: You can't prove there is no god.
Atheist: You can't prove there is.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2012, 04:15:31 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 03:19:18 PM
To touch on a point you raised in another post (to Eamonica?)... why do you not allow for the fact that the well-being of others can positively affect individuals in a survival sense? Survival of the fittest does not necessarily mean the most lethal or physically overpowering.
You beat me to it. Altruism does contribute to improving the species. In any case, Iceman asks why we can't just "do what makes me happy" as if harming others or failing to help other would make us happy. But we (or at least most os us) have an instinctive aversion to harming others. It's in our nature to co-operate. We get pleasure from it.
But that has been my question from the outset Eamonn. Explain where it comes from? Where does the intrinsic aversion to harming others come from? Or the sense of right and wrong? Is it enough to answer "Science doesn't have the answers yet, but we'll know some day, so I'm happy enough for now"?
I understand that this may be difficult to grasp, but bear with me.
You're walking along the street. You're on a collision course with a total stranger that you've never met before and you're unlikely to ever see him again. You go to your left, he goes to his right, you both do a little dance as you don't know which way to go but eventually you sort it out, you miss each other, you have a good laugh and you say "sorry" or "excuse me" to each other. You don't have to think about it, it just comes out. It's instinctive.
You're in the lift and the doors are closing. You see someone running towards the lift, you immediately hit the button to hold the doors open. He or she gets into the lift and thanks you. You didn't have to think about it, it was just instinctive.
Most of us have been in situations like that at one time or another. Cooperation is instinctive. We're conditioned to cooperate. We're a social species.
As for where it comes from, I say again that it comes from natural selection. Those who didn't have the tendency to cooperate found it difficult to get by in society, found it more difficult to reproduce, hence the cooperative instinct remained in the gene pool and the non-cooperative folks were less fruitful. Of course less cooperative people are still around, but they are fewer in number, the human race is overwhelmingly cooperative.
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
But anyway, cooperation has obvious benefits for social species. Do you really need the arguments for how they might lead to increased survival spelled out? A pride of lions has a much better chance of bringing down a cape buffalo than a solitary one. A band of primitive humans might have a much better chance of defending a patch of savannah or forest and the resources therein if they cooperate and nurture rather than slam each other over the back of the head with an antelope femur the moment someone's back is turned. If you do that and your group is down a few men, then the gang across the valley will much more easily roust you.
Spot on. Early humans were hunter-gatherers. Very much a team sport. One man on his own had less of a chance of taking down that elk than the crew that had it surrounded.
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
But anyway, cooperation has obvious benefits for social species. Do you really need the arguments for how they might lead to increased survival spelled out? A pride of lions has a much better chance of bringing down a cape buffalo than a solitary one. A band of primitive humans might have a much better chance of defending a patch of savannah or forest and the resources therein if they cooperate and nurture rather than slam each other over the back of the head with an antelope femur the moment someone's back is turned. If you do that and your group is down a few men, then the gang across the valley will much more easily roust you.
Spot on. Early humans were hunter-gatherers. Very much a team sport. One man on his own had less of a chance of taking down that elk than the crew that had it surrounded.
Evolution is the answer ironically.
Those who operated on their own didn't do as well as those who co-operated with others. Simples. ;D
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2012, 05:27:41 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2012, 05:15:07 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 16, 2012, 04:53:39 PM
But anyway, cooperation has obvious benefits for social species. Do you really need the arguments for how they might lead to increased survival spelled out? A pride of lions has a much better chance of bringing down a cape buffalo than a solitary one. A band of primitive humans might have a much better chance of defending a patch of savannah or forest and the resources therein if they cooperate and nurture rather than slam each other over the back of the head with an antelope femur the moment someone's back is turned. If you do that and your group is down a few men, then the gang across the valley will much more easily roust you.
Spot on. Early humans were hunter-gatherers. Very much a team sport. One man on his own had less of a chance of taking down that elk than the crew that had it surrounded.
Evolution is the answer ironically.
Those who operated on their own didn't do as well as those who co-operated with others. Simples. ;D
Muppet
There is no proof that evolution ever happened
http://www.vananne.com/evolutionvscreation/Answers%20to%20Evolution.PDF
God created Galway football and there is no point in fighting it ;D ;D
Reliable evolution as Eamonn and Muppet and some others have described on purely materialist grounds has to be a circular argument though?
In a universe where nothing exists but matter, our minds would be reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, our ideas and even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes like the physical processes by which say the liver filters bile or the stomach digests. So when you all appeal to the theories of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability as humans to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, you essentially appeal to a theory that is itself the result of physical processes. But how can you possibly know if these ideas on random mutation or natural selection are true?
If the mind is seen as independent of the world of strict material cause and effect then we can all celebrate the stories of the great scientific minds of history and our time. But if it turns out that their brilliant ideas are nothing but the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatever else you want to call them, then what is there to admire? Surely that takes away the importance or "magic" if you will of all of that?
I remember listening to this debate at the time and enjoying it
http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm (http://catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0086.htm)
Another guy who I don't always agree with but who I always like to read had an interesting column last week not directly connected to this particular debate -Waters http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0413/1224314681378.html (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0413/1224314681378.html)
I like to think I'm still on a personal journey of discovery myself - Will let you know if I get the answer
Sorry Iceman, are you saying evolution is circular because we use our brains which arose by evolutionary processes to recognize it? That makes no sense if so.
As for how we know if something is true, well don't questions regarding perception apply regardless of how our minds arose?
On your final point, Darwin said it best in his "there is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers..." quote. That physics, chemistry and evolution could lead to the magnificence of our planet and universe is nothing short of wondrous and awe inspiring.
Iceman seems to be saying that it is only the religious who can have morality since morality comes from God.
And it reminded me of this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAYdc2_Y82w
Indians are Jesus
hanging from the cross
We weren't lost
and we didn't need any book !
Here is a quote from Phillip Johnson who explains it much better than me:
The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.
How can you be rational and hold an irrational view of the universe? Or pursue knowledge while denying the possibility of true knowledge?
You want to be rational enough to say that I am wrong but irrational enough to say "I don't have to give you a foundation for my knowledge"......
Quote from: seafoid on April 16, 2012, 08:45:59 PM
Iceman seems to be saying that it is only the religious who can have morality since morality comes from God.
And it reminded me of this song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAYdc2_Y82w
Indians are Jesus
hanging from the cross
We weren't lost
and we didn't need any book !
NO, no NOOOOO (how many times do I need to write this before you read it?)
That's not what I am saying at all.
I never mentioned anything about having to be religious. My point has been that the naturalist world cannot account for or has no foundation for morality. Take some time to read the posts please.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 04:27:57 PM
Is it enough to answer "Science doesn't have the answers yet, but we'll know some day, so I'm happy enough for now"?
Yes. It's preferable to believing in the idea of a god for which there is no evidence, in my opinion.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 08:48:49 PM
Here is a quote from Phillip Johnson who explains it much better than me:
The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.
How can you be rational and hold an irrational view of the universe? Or pursue knowledge while denying the possibility of true knowledge?
You want to be rational enough to say that I am wrong but irrational enough to say "I don't have to give you a foundation for my knowledge"......
Is the Bible the source of true knowledge?
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2012, 09:01:33 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 08:48:49 PM
Here is a quote from Phillip Johnson who explains it much better than me:
The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.
How can you be rational and hold an irrational view of the universe? Or pursue knowledge while denying the possibility of true knowledge?
You want to be rational enough to say that I am wrong but irrational enough to say "I don't have to give you a foundation for my knowledge"......
Is the Bible the source of true knowledge?
Are you asking a question or putting words in my mouth?
This thread has nothing to do with the Bible or religion or Catholics or Protestants. Its about can Naturalism explain what I have asked.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
Are you asking a question or putting words in my mouth?
This thread has nothing to do with the Bible or religion or Catholics or Protestants. Its about can Naturalism explain what I have asked.
If you are afraid of a discussion on religion or the Bible be man enough to admit it and stop the excuses, accusations and evasion.
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
Are you asking a question or putting words in my mouth?
This thread has nothing to do with the Bible or religion or Catholics or Protestants. Its about can Naturalism explain what I have asked.
If you are afraid of a discussion on religion or the Bible be man enough to admit it and stop the excuses, accusations and evasion.
I think out of all the "catholics" or religous on the board you can't point the finger and say I'm afraid of discussion on the topic.
But why don't you stick to the topic and less of your own excuses, accusations and evasion....
I thought for a second you were actually engaged in the conversation and not up to your old tricks....
Iceman- can we have a discussion on the book of revelations once this topic is flogged to death (and before it is resurrected) ?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 09:34:11 PM
Quote from: muppet on April 16, 2012, 09:11:07 PM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 09:07:31 PM
Are you asking a question or putting words in my mouth?
This thread has nothing to do with the Bible or religion or Catholics or Protestants. Its about can Naturalism explain what I have asked.
If you are afraid of a discussion on religion or the Bible be man enough to admit it and stop the excuses, accusations and evasion.
I think out of all the "catholics" or religous on the board you can't point the finger and say I'm afraid of discussion on the topic.
But why don't you stick to the topic and less of your own excuses, accusations and evasion....
I thought for a second you were actually engaged in the conversation and not up to your old tricks....
If you want to analyse Celtic it is absolutely absurd to refuse to discuss Rangers.
If you want to discuss Naturalism you are being completely disingenuous by refusing to discuss Religion in any form. You are the one drawing the lines, not me. You are the one refusing to answer certain questions, not me. You are the one claiming certain questions are off topic, not me.
Like I said earlier, you have no interest in having this discussion in good faith.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 08:48:49 PM
Here is a quote from Phillip Johnson who explains it much better than me:
The story of the great scientific mind that discovers absolute truth is satisfying only so long as we accept the mind itself as a given. Once we try to explain the mind as a product of its own discoveries, we are in a hall of mirrors with no exit.
I am no philosopher (or law academic like Johnson), so let me see if I have this straight: if the mind evolved through natural processes, we would not be expected to be able detect that it evolved?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 08:48:49 PM
How can you be rational and hold an irrational view of the universe? Or pursue knowledge while denying the possibility of true knowledge?
What is this "irrational view of the universe"? That it unfolded naturally? If so, how is that irrational?
And what is "true knowledge"? Naturalism doesn't deny the possibility of the existence of gods, assuming that is what you mean. It simply says that there is no existing evidence to suggest it and there is no need to say anything more about it. Whereas theism deals with unsupported certainties.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 08:48:49 PM
You want to be rational enough to say that I am wrong but irrational enough to say "I don't have to give you a foundation for my knowledge"......
What's irrational about asking for evidence? Naturalism provides evidence for its positive statements. It acknowledges were evidence is lacking or incomplete. Whereas theism just cedes ground to naturalism once it no longer has the choice, but points to the inevitable, but ever shrinking gaps in knowledge as "evidence" for the existence of gods. Basically, if its currently unexplained, some god did it.
There's only one irrational side here.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 16, 2012, 07:37:04 PM
Reliable evolution as Eamonn and Muppet and some others have described on purely materialist grounds has to be a circular argument though?
In a universe where nothing exists but matter, our minds would be reducible to brain chemistry. Our thoughts, our ideas and even our reasoning would be reducible to deterministic physical processes like the physical processes by which say the liver filters bile or the stomach digests. So when you all appeal to the theories of evolution, random mutation and natural selection to explain our ability as humans to think, reason and draw accurate conclusions, you essentially appeal to a theory that is itself the result of physical processes. But how can you possibly know if these ideas on random mutation or natural selection are true?
Irrelevant. The way in which our minds came to be has no bearing on what we have learned about the universe using our minds.
Quote
If the mind is seen as independent of the world of strict material cause and effect then we can all celebrate the stories of the great scientific minds of history and our time. But if it turns out that their brilliant ideas are nothing but the biological product of deterministic material laws and natural processes, biochemical excretions and whatever else you want to call them, then what is there to admire? Surely that takes away the importance or "magic" if you will of all of that?
Quite the contrary.
All of the matter in your body was once created inside a star, or probably multiple stars. This is a scientific fact. We know this because at the beginning of the universe there was only hydrogen. The heavier elements were formed later by the process of nuclear fusion inside stars, and the material was ejected into space when those stars became supernovae. Some of that material formed around a fairly nondescript star in a fairly nondescript corner of a pretty average galaxy, but did so in such a way that the conditions were just right for a molecule to arise that could make crude copies of itself. (Given the size of the universe and the amount of time available, it was bound to happen somewhere eventually.)
With no other living predators to get in the way, those molecules which could do a better job of replicating themselves did a better job of surviving, and natural selection got underway. Those molecules developed survival machines that protected them, becoming the first cells and first single-cell organisms. Random mutations caused changes from one generation to the next, and different specimens mutated off in different directions. Those mutations which happened to improve reproductive fitness were passed along to the next generation and retained, those that hindered or did not help reproductive fitness tended to disappear.
Early life was anchored to the ocean floor, but some broke away from the floor and began to move with the currents. Some developed locomotion that gave them the ability to move to more fruitful feeding grounds. Light-sensitive cells developed into eyes, and the universe was able to see itself. Thanks to the tidal action of the moon, some areas became dependably dry for long periods and dependably flooded for others. Creatures that could survive both conditions developed the ability to move on land as well as water. Later, small mammals adapted to life in trees where they mastered dexterity and curiosity. Climate change in what we now call Africa thinned out the number of trees, forcing some of these primates to come down to ground level to get between trees. Those which stood more upright could see any potential predators and had an advantage over those that remained crouched over. These early humans were beginning to stand up.
And the rest is history.
There's a continuous unbroken line of inheritance going all the way back from you (yes, you personally) to a common ancestor that we had with modern chimpanzees. There's a continuous line of inheritance going all the way back to the first mammal, making us cousins with every whale, horse, tiger and Yorkshire Terrier on the planet.
We are the starstuff pondering the stars. We are the universe risen to consciousness, to the point where the matter of the universe has become self aware and has the cognitive power to figure all of this out.
The universe doesn't owe us anything. It doesn't owe us our existence, it's a stroke of incredible good luck that it has come about, and we had better make sure we don't squander this miracle of nature called life.
I consider that pretty stirring stuff. And if you don't mind me saying so, it's a much more profound and deeper concept than "God did it."
The late great Carl Sagan explained this better than I ever could. I actually posted the following here a few weeks ago on a thread of its own, but alas it fell on deaf ears, maybe the people posting here will appreciate it better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjwF_-ydcM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDjwF_-ydcM)
you have to love Carl Sagan. this is my favourite piece by him and well worth a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M)
Well if it is a scientific fact that we all are made from stars then whats the point in talking about it anymore?
You can't come in here and label things as facts unless they are. Let me try:
It's a fact that the Naturalist World says "nothing can be known and all truth is relative" (Hawking)
It's a fact that the Naturalist World cannot account for emotion or the mind (not the brain) or virtues or conscience or anything that I have discussed. Siting other examples of it in the behaviour of animals isn't accounting for it - it's just pointing out similarities - show me physical, material evidence.
It is a fact that Science cannot explain love.
All of us are more than the sum of the parts that make us. More than just a collection of atoms. We have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
Well if it is a scientific fact that we all are made from stars then whats the point in talking about it anymore?
You can't come in here and label things as facts unless they are. Let me try:
It's a fact that the Naturalist World says "nothing can be known and all truth is relative" (Hawking)
It's a fact that the Naturalist World cannot account for emotion or the mind (not the brain) or virtues or conscience or anything that I have discussed. Siting other examples of it in the behaviour of animals isn't accounting for it - it's just pointing out similarities - show me physical, material evidence.
It is a fact that Science cannot explain love.
All of us are more than the sum of the parts that make us. More than just a collection of atoms. We have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
How are rundimentary and less developed forms of emotions and learning and reasoning in animals not relevant? You're the one asking how naturalism can account for all of this. Well, if it evolved, then at some point more primitive forms would be expected in other species, especially those that with whom we share common ancestors. If you choose to dismiss such examples with a wave of your hand, fine, but that says nothing about the evidence except that you refuse to see or acknowledge it.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
Well if it is a scientific fact that we all are made from stars then whats the point in talking about it anymore?
You can't come in here and label things as facts unless they are. Let me try:
It's a fact that the Naturalist World says "nothing can be known and all truth is relative" (Hawking)
It's a fact that the Naturalist World cannot account for emotion or the mind (not the brain) or virtues or conscience or anything that I have discussed. Siting other examples of it in the behaviour of animals isn't accounting for it - it's just pointing out similarities - show me physical, material evidence.
It is a fact that Science cannot explain love.
All of us are more than the sum of the parts that make us. More than just a collection of atoms. We have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
No we dont, there all just past conditioning not spiritual, infact all those are the anti spiritual. The reality is Iceman based on your past conditioning, life experience your a staunch believer in God and nothing will change that till the day you die. A strong mind has an ability to chnage. Self awareness from the point of the mind is just past conditioning. Science can explain love, love is getting our needs met, and that is evolution to survive.
Have you ever considered that your beliefs are wrong? Ever questioned your faith???
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
Well if it is a scientific fact that we all are made from stars then whats the point in talking about it anymore?
You can't come in here and label things as facts unless they are. Let me try:
It's a fact that the Naturalist World says "nothing can be known and all truth is relative" (Hawking)
It's a fact that the Naturalist World cannot account for emotion or the mind (not the brain) or virtues or conscience or anything that I have discussed. Siting other examples of it in the behaviour of animals isn't accounting for it - it's just pointing out similarities - show me physical, material evidence.
It is a fact that Science cannot explain love.
All of us are more than the sum of the parts that make us. More than just a collection of atoms. We have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
Iceman, all your statements about the perceived inability of science/naturalism to account for the mind, virtue, conscience, etc. (despite the evidence presented that you don't seem to acknowledge at all) carry the implication that religion/God/theism or some sort of supernatural phenomenon DOES account for them.
Is this your position? If so, could you do us the courtesy, as many here have done to you, of offering the evidence in support of this statement or, in the event of absence of evidence, the process by which you arrived at this conclusion?
Iceman's the one in the 'sweeping purple cassock and chunky cross'...
www.youtube.com/watch?v=Od59OT5AM9o
;)
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
Well if it is a scientific fact that we all are made from stars then whats the point in talking about it anymore?
Science is all about answering questions, and the answers produce more questions. If science had all the answers then there wouldn't be any such thing as science. It'd be be a sad day if the last fact were known and the last question answered.
QuoteYou can't come in here and label things as facts unless they are.
Sorry, but when something has been proven beyond all reasonable scientific doubt then it's customary to refer to it as a scientific fact. The process by which stars produce heavier elements from the lighter elements is well understood. Even the catholic church doesn't dispute it. If you have an alternative explanation for how the heavier elements came about after the Big Bang (which the catholic church also doesn't dispute) then that would be an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence.
QuoteIt's a fact that the Naturalist World says "nothing can be known and all truth is relative" (Hawking)
It's a fact that the Naturalist World cannot account for emotion or the mind (not the brain) or virtues or conscience or anything that I have discussed.
This is actually incorrect. Emotions and their role in natural selection are well understood. Emotions like love are nature's way of ensuring that a couple sticks together for long enough to jointly raise their offspring. The physical process by which we feel these sensations is also reasonably well understood.
QuoteSiting (sic) other examples of it in the behaviour of animals isn't accounting for it
Actually it is. We have common ancestors with all modern animals, so it should come as no surprise to see them sharing some of our behavioral traits as well as physical traits.
Quote- it's just pointing out similarities
Ah, the magic "just".
Quote- show me physical, material evidence.
Could you be more specific?
QuoteIt is a fact that Science cannot explain love.
Incorrect. See above.
Quote
All of us are more than the sum of the parts that make us. More than just a collection of atoms. We have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
We might be more than the sum of our parts, but there's no need to invoke the supernatural when more logical and evidence-based explanations are available.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 17, 2012, 01:26:02 PM
We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
Love, like person-hood and self-awareness cannot be reducible to atoms.
What about fear? It's an emotion. It's not material. Is it spiritual?
QuoteWe have minds, personality, knowledge, dreams and memories. We have the capacity to love and be loved. None of these are material, they are all spiritual.
That all these can be affected by for example drugs, or violence, or physical degeneration - does that mean that the spiritual can be affected by physical stimuli?
Quote from: The Iceman on April 13, 2012, 04:51:25 PM
J70:
QuoteSo again, who has said that all things are matter?? Is gravity matter? Electricity?
And again, the rudiments of something like logic is surely problem-solving, is it not? Which is found to varying degrees in other animal species. Parental bonds and emotions are found in other animal species too. Please explain how a god is necessary to explain these things in other animals?
Gravity and Electricity can be replicated, explained, tested. We know how to produce electricity, create it, right?
You can't recreate love in a lab or break down right and wrong into particles and understand where they come from.
My point from the outset has been that if you fully subscribe to the Naturalist worldview and read some of the books, opinions and theories put out there by it's champions, that we all just "are". There is no God and no moral law; if nothing exists but material substances; if man has simply evolved upwardly from the primordial soup of organic matter and is nothing more than an evolutionary accident; why would the notion of reason or anything I have brought up even bind such a creature?
In the world of nature, whatever exists is natural. To claim we are better than any other animal is specie-ism. Humans are nothing special, we just are.
How does anything we have discussed arise from the infinite sea of ever changing material?
How can you teach people they have evolved from slime and then tell them there is a moral law by which they should abide?
@Eamonn, let me rephrase my response to your response and maybe then you'll pick your dummy up off the floor. I do not believe the responses you provided to the questions I asked on the Lent thread were adequate nor do I believe they answered the questions. What I got from your responses was a push back on each item and a half attempt at an answer wrapped up in an "we don't know yet"....
Why can't you just engage in the conversation like everyone else.
@MOG, I don't know when to take you serious, but I have not ignored you as a poster, but with your track record for windups and insults I chose not to respond. Like you can too....
It's not that big a mystery the match-makers of old at the likes of Lisdoonvarna would have had a fair idea of the factors involved. If you look at the billion dollar on-line dating industry and the success of sites like match.com I would say they have gone a fair way to reducing 'love' to a complex flow-chart.
All about survival and reproduction.
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?
I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.
Account for these things.
If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?
I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.
Account for these things.
If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.
You are not in agreement with the Naturalist world view and you have plenty to say, why do you get to rule out everyone else?
You lost this debate a long time ago.
I think he's saying:
he wants to know what love is, he wants you to show him.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
How can science not giving you the physical, material evidence you demand possibly mean that a god who created us in his own image makes sense?
You demand a lot more from one argument than you do for the other there. Evolutionary biology and neroscience can be easily written off unless they can provide you the entire picture, but for the god side it just makes sense?
Even if there is some form of deity that exists, how could you make the jump to "created us in his image" - how could we possibly know that.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?
I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.
Account for these things.
If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.
How can someone show you a law of mathematics in nature or the touch or smell of morality? And will you honestly be satisfied if someone gives you a "breakdown" of love, explaining the biochemical processes in the brain that occur when you see your woman or eat some chocolate. Or will you just ignore it and say we're not anwering your questions and that's not what you're looking for?
I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.
Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......
I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.
My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.
Peace
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do.
Did I say that?
Iceman, I've been as honest as I can in answering every question you posed. Can I ask you to give me your thoughts on the questions I asked about your reasoning process in reaching the conclusion that (1) the inability of nature, as you perceive it, to account for some phenomena means that a god exists and (2) that this god is the only god and the correct god and therefore all gods proposed by others are wrong and how you know this?
Or, if you maintain that these questions are irrelevant to the thread, can you tell me, if your perception is that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomena you mention, what does account for them?
Quote from: Hardy on April 18, 2012, 12:04:18 PM
Or, if you maintain that these questions are irrelevant to the thread, can you tell me, if your perception is that Naturalism cannot account for the phenomena you mention, what does account for them?
I think Icemans already said what he believes accounts for them - the question is more how there is how this can be proven in any way - can it be analyzed with even a fraction of the criteria he is applying to naturalism.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.
Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......
I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.
My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.
Peace
No cats were killed in the formulation of arguments expressed in any of the posts.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.
Correct J70 you can't show me any of these things in nature. Just like I can't physically show you God. How I get to God in all of this is surely irrelevant in the conversation of where or how the Naturalist World accounts for any of these things we know to exist in our human experience......
I think this boils down to what Hardy said early in the thread. A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do. If you're throwing your hat in with the Naturalist worldview perhaps you should understand what the "thinkers" say about love and emotions, about our conscience, about virtues and person-hood. Things we all know make up our human experience.
My goal in all of this was to have people think about things - just as I have been challenged countless times to think about my own faith, to question my beliefs and see what answers I get.
Peace
Sorry Iceman, but you're just falling back on the god of the gaps. If that satisfies you, fine, although I don't know how your faith will be sustainable as science inevitably provides answers, at least to answerable questions. Questions about the smell of morality or whatever are just irrelevant philosophical nonsense (but an interesting academic exercise I guess), but if that provides a refuge and honest rationale for continued faith, then good for you if it makes you happy. It all seems intellectually dishonest to me however, a willful refusal to connect the dots.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
I thought this was a discussion forum. If you have to "win" every conversation you are involved in muppet then fair enough.
You are the one hiding behind restricting the discussion.
And no you don't have to win, but you can sure lose heavily.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
A lot of people know more what they don't believe and don't spend enough time considering what they do.
You don't have to have thought out all of the alternatives to dismiss the theist theory.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
A chemical reaction in the brain causing heightened senses of pleasure in the company of a specific person, and closeness to that person in the form of a bond. It arose in the process of natural selection as a means of keeping people together long enough to raise offspring, a job that is better and easier done as a team, particularly considering the long childhoods that humans have. There's a good Ted talk about it here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfoGTIG7pY).
QuoteWhat is conscience?
What is the mind?
Trickier one to answer. I'll have to get back to you on that one because I don't have time right now.
QuoteDoes only the brain exist?
I don't understand this question.
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
But what is love according to the Naturalist Worldview?
What is conscience?
What is the mind?
Does only the brain exist?
I'd still like to hear about or see the physical, material evidence I asked for from the beginning of this thread. I am not as Hardy said simply waving my hand and rubbishing your responses. I asked where these all came from. I asked someone to show me them in the natural world like you were able to show atoms, stars, hydrogen.......
Show me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.
Account for these things.
If you are not in agreement with the Naturalist worldview then don't respond.
Try stopping a speeding train. I predict you will "feel" some fundamental "laws of mathematics in nature" kick in. Maybe you can then ask your maker about them when you meet him shortly thereafter !
As for Morality that you can touch or feel......well, morality itself is not a sensation so you can't experience it physically...however, you could do a simple experiment to highlight its "physical" root in brain behavior
normally moral person + alcohol + car keys + 5 miles to walk = immoral behavior
so a simple chemical reaction in the brain explains how someones moral behavior can be modified.
QuoteShow me the laws of mathematics in nature, show me morality that I can feel, touch, smell, see or hear.
Ive said to you about this before.
Physics/mathematics go hand in hand and there are innumerable examples you can see all around you if you'd choose to acknowledge them.
Do you acknowledge that if i drop a bowling ball from a height of 100 m you can predict accurately how long its going to take to hit the ground, and this will be the case irreproachably, and if someone else does it?
What if not mathematics in nature is that?
(http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/s720x720/403525_10150702384916773_1294389938_n.jpg)
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2012/0501/1224315408779.html
Good news.
QuoteTHE GOVERNMENT is expected to agree today to back legislation giving humanists the same status as organised religions and civil registrars in conducting marriage ceremonies.
Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton is due to ask her ministerial colleagues to support the Civil Registration (Amendment) Bill at this morning's Cabinet meeting.
The legislation was introduced in the Seanad as a Private Members' Bill by Trinity College Senator Ivana Bacik and is due to pass final stages in the Upper House tomorrow.
The Bill proposes to amend the Civil Registration Act 2004, which regulates the registration of civil marriages.
The 2004 Act stipulates that, apart from Health Service Executive registrars, only a member of a "religious body" may celebrate legal marriages.
This is defined as "an organised group of people, members of which meet regularly for common religious worship".
This includes organisations such as the Pagan Federation Ireland and the Spiritualist Union of Ireland, which have obtained registration under the Act.
But the definition excludes members of the Humanist Association of Ireland, who currently conduct humanist wedding ceremonies even though these are not legally recognised.
The Bill proposes to extend the right to conduct civil marriages to nonreligious groups such as the HAI. A group of this nature must be a "philosophical and nonconfessional body", have been performing marriage ceremonies for at least five years, and at least 20 couples must have participated in the ceremony.
Once the Bill has passed through the Seanad tomorrow, it will proceed to the Dáil, where it is expected to be introduced by Ms Burton.
Brian Whiteside of the HAI said that, in the past, it had been "left out in the cold" but persisted in its efforts to obtain the right to solemnise marriages and have "parity of esteem" with religious bodies.
There had been "no real progress" until the change of government last year, when Ms Bacik agreed to take up their cause.
"As the law stands presently a couple cannot have a legally binding, nonreligious marriage ceremony on a Saturday, as the State registrars work only Monday to Friday," he added.
The proportion of couples choosing a non-religious, civil wedding ceremony in Ireland has increased from 6 per cent in 1996 to more than 23 per cent in 2006, according to the Central Statistics Office.
Humanism is defined as "an ethical philosophy of life, based on a concern for humanity, which combines reason with compassion".
The HAI has nine accredited celebrants who conducted 153 marriage ceremonies last year.
So why are Humanists excluded and Pagans included? Mental.
Because pagans are part of a religious body. Humanism is not a religion but a philosophy.
Then the adherents of the blanket defence should also be allowed to conduct marriages.
Quote from: thejuice on May 03, 2012, 12:32:00 PM
Because pagans are part of a religious body. Humanism is not a religion but a philosophy.
But marriage is a civil construct!
yes, what's your point?
Why is a civil construct confined to religious bodies?
QuoteBut marriage is a civil construct!
Interesting stuff here
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)
Why? Well Billy I assume you've been living in Ireland as long as I have. Do I need to answer that for you.
There are civil registries and religious ceremonies both recognised by the state. Humanist weddings will be the first non-religious ceremony to be recognised by the state.
Sorry Juice, I wasn't reading it right - I must still be frustrated by the fact that us Larries will not get to kick the Royal holes in next year's League D2! :P
Quote from: nifan on April 18, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
How can science not giving you the physical, material evidence you demand possibly mean that a god who created us in his own image makes sense?
You demand a lot more from one argument than you do for the other there. Evolutionary biology and neroscience can be easily written off unless they can provide you the entire picture, but for the god side it just makes sense?
Even if there is some form of deity that exists, how could you make the jump to "created us in his image" - how could we possibly know that.
Just because we don't 'know things' (the cause), doesn't disprove the concept that there must be a cause. There are limits to what we now know, there is still a way to go.
I don't know about the 'creating in His image' bit but a simple observation of life shows us that it takes an act to create. The working premises is that every effect must have both a material and an efficient cause.
In this universe we find that every effect has a cause. Without parents, there are no children.
The very existence of the universe implies that there must be a creator.
On the premise that "there is little evidence for a creator god" is argued that there is very little evidence for a creator God, but very little is analysed re the trouble with arguing about evidence for the non-existence
of God. The contrary view is no less problematic, probably more so.
Does anyone know the options that exist in Ireland for people who wish to be buried (not cremated) in Ireland but not in a graveyard or cemetery of a church or religious organiation?
Quote from: Main Street on May 03, 2012, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: nifan on April 18, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
How can science not giving you the physical, material evidence you demand possibly mean that a god who created us in his own image makes sense?
You demand a lot more from one argument than you do for the other there. Evolutionary biology and neroscience can be easily written off unless they can provide you the entire picture, but for the god side it just makes sense?
Even if there is some form of deity that exists, how could you make the jump to "created us in his image" - how could we possibly know that.
Just because we don't 'know things' (the cause), doesn't disprove the concept that there must be a cause. There are limits to what we now know, there is still a way to go.
I don't know about the 'creating in His image' bit but a simple observation of life shows us that it takes an act to create. The working premises is that every effect must have both a material and an efficient cause.
In this universe we find that every effect has a cause. Without parents, there are no children.
The very existence of the universe implies that there must be a creator.
On the premise that "there is little evidence for a creator god" is argued that there is very little evidence for a creator God, but very little is analysed re the trouble with arguing about evidence for the non-existence
of God. The contrary view is no less problematic, probably more so.
The key question for me is where does the "cause" argument end? If the universe must have a creator, then what caused or created the creator, an entity that presumably would be even more complex. And what caused that particular creator? What must the creator of a god be like? And the god's creator's creator?! And on and on...
Quote from: J70 on May 03, 2012, 07:42:39 PM
Quote from: Main Street on May 03, 2012, 05:11:09 PM
Quote from: nifan on April 18, 2012, 11:02:39 AM
Quote from: The Iceman on April 18, 2012, 12:45:18 AM
I don't believe showing examples of love existing is accounting for its existence. Show me what it is, break it down, give me real physical, material explanations.
I know it exists, that's not what I am questioning. You call my accounting for Love as "God of the gaps" but for me and millions of others, God is love. Therefore created in His image we are all capable of loving and being loved. That makes sense to me.
How can science not giving you the physical, material evidence you demand possibly mean that a god who created us in his own image makes sense?
You demand a lot more from one argument than you do for the other there. Evolutionary biology and neroscience can be easily written off unless they can provide you the entire picture, but for the god side it just makes sense?
Even if there is some form of deity that exists, how could you make the jump to "created us in his image" - how could we possibly know that.
Just because we don't 'know things' (the cause), doesn't disprove the concept that there must be a cause. There are limits to what we now know, there is still a way to go.
I don't know about the 'creating in His image' bit but a simple observation of life shows us that it takes an act to create. The working premises is that every effect must have both a material and an efficient cause.
In this universe we find that every effect has a cause. Without parents, there are no children.
The very existence of the universe implies that there must be a creator.
On the premise that "there is little evidence for a creator god" is argued that there is very little evidence for a creator God, but very little is analysed re the trouble with arguing about evidence for the non-existence
of God. The contrary view is no less problematic, probably more so.
The key question for me is where does the "cause" argument end? If the universe must have a creator, then what caused or created the creator, an entity that presumably would be even more complex. And what caused that particular creator? What must the creator of a god be like? And the god's creator's creator?! And on and on...
Good questions, does a creator have an uber-creator?
or "Causa sui" perhaps? :)
As a child you can accept your parents as being your 'creator' but do you fully understand your 'creators' before you start to have your own children? A created being may recognise the existence of its creator, but it can only fully know its creator by
becoming the creator. So maybe God also has a God, an 'uber-God'. And maybe that uber-God also has an uber-uber-God. But before we can make a meaningful speculation on whether God has an uber-God, we must first know God.
Also, because we don't 'know' the causes for creation doesn't mean there isn't one, an unknown cause is not the same as no cause.
The first person (afaia) who propounded the cause and effect theory is Maharishi Kanada some 2,400 years ago. He wrote that there are 2 causes, namely material and efficient.
If you consider a chair, there are 2 causes, the 'material' cause - the wood from a tree and the 'efficient' cause - the process of construction, the carpenter :), the tools etc. Basically one material cause, but a number of efficient causes. For the most part, western religious tradition considers an efficient cause (the supernatural) and not the material cause, therefore the conflict with science.
Hawking makes the same error as western religious tradition by only considering an 'efficient' cause, neglecting 'material' cause.
Hawking wrote
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will
create itself from nothing," "Spontaneous creation is the
reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe
exists, why we exist."Bertrand Russell was truly a brilliant humorous man, however he ('On The Notion Of Cause') also only argues for efficient cause
http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/22891/ (http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/22891/)
The foundation for the question of creation is studying the effect (the universe), the question is, how is it caused?
An analytical approach is limited, I'd subscribe to the opinion that one needs a more total approach, analytic and intuitional.
Using Kanada's method of looking at the effect first, and using his theory of the material and the efficient causes, we can see that God is not an effect and God may or may not have a cause. Either way (the escape clause) God is ultimately beyond description :)