Faith & Science (split from "The death of young earth arguments")

[Autodidact]

Which do you believe, God or some scientist in a lab coat?

On matters of Faith - God
On matters of science - the scientific method and its results

both after due consideration of course.

Which is which, and how do you know?

[Gagundathar Inexplicable]

Maybe the scientific method IS 'God'.
Or maybe that is how 'he' wants us to understand the Universe.

Or maybe the whole concept of 'God' is meaningless and only exists as an artifact from our superstitious ancestors.

[David M]

Which do you believe, God or some scientist in a lab coat?

On matters of Faith - God
On matters of science - the scientific method and its results

both after due consideration of course.

Which is which, and how do you know?

One is supernatural and is based on belief, and thus independent of any empirical evidence, leading to a philosophical position on non-material issues such as morality. The other is natural and depends on empirical evidence to lead to a view of the material universe and its current state.

You can decide which is which. There is a reason I capitalised Faith and not science.

[RAFH]

On matters of Faith - God
On matters of science - the scientific method and its results

both after due consideration of course.

Which is which, and how do you know?

OT as its from another thread but I'll answer.

One is supernatural and is based on belief, and thus independent of any empirical evidence, leading to a philosophical position on non-material issues such as morality. The other is natural and depends on empirical evidence to lead to a view of the material universe and its current state.

You can decide which is which. There is a reason I capitalised Faith and not science.

I don't consider morality a non-material issue. The concept of may be a disembodied idea, but its effects are most certainly material. Killing something is definitely a material act with material consequences, even though the decision to do so and the ideals its based upon may seem ethereal. Indeed, the decision is a matter of material synapses in action, and the concepts are held as memories in a material matrix. It's material all right and its consequences are very material.

[David M]

I don't consider morality a non-material issue. The concept of may be a disembodied idea, but its effects are most certainly material. Killing something is definitely a material act with material consequences, even though the decision to do so and the ideals its based upon may seem ethereal. Indeed, the decision is a matter of material synapses in action, and the concepts are held as memories in a material matrix. It's material all right and its consequences are very material.

I'd agree with this as a good example of where morality and what is material meet. But at a conceptual level a view on when it is morally defensible to kill and when it is not would not be connected to the material act or its consequences. I was talking above about conceptual morality rather than its material application.

At one end of the spectrum I would judge it conceptually immoral to kill solely for personal pleasure while at the other end I would consider it moral to painlessly kill to preserve an innocent life from an attacker or to punish someone undoubtedly guilty of killing solely for personal pleasure (and therein lies my problem with death penalties in that justice systems are fallable, a material consideration not a moral one). Other cases fall in a spectrum in between. The material considerations arise in a situation when a decision must be made to act upon such moral judgements.

[Autodidact]

On matters of Faith - God
On matters of science - the scientific method and its results

both after due consideration of course.

Which is which, and how do you know?

One is supernatural and is based on belief, and thus independent of any empirical evidence, leading to a philosophical position on non-material issues such as morality. The other is natural and depends on empirical evidence to lead to a view of the material universe and its current state.

You can decide which is which. There is a reason I capitalised Faith and not science.

What is a non-material issue? How would you have morality without material, such as human beings?

Do people without religion not have morality then?

Why would you believe anything independent of any material evidence?

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE=RAFH;34152]
I don't consider morality a non-material issue. The concept of may be a disembodied idea, but its effects are most certainly material. Killing something is definitely a material act with material consequences, even though the decision to do so and the ideals its based upon may seem ethereal. Indeed, the decision is a matter of material synapses in action, and the concepts are held as memories in a material matrix. It's material all right and its consequences are very material.

I'd agree with this as a good example of where morality and what is material meet. But at a conceptual level a view on when it is morally defensible to kill and when it is not would not be connected to the material act or its consequences. I was talking above about conceptual morality rather than its material application. You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?

At one end of the spectrum I would judge it conceptually immoral to kill solely for personal pleasure while at the other end I would consider it moral to painlessly kill to preserve an innocent life from an attacker or to punish someone undoubtedly guilty of killing solely for personal pleasure (and therein lies my problem with death penalties in that justice systems are fallable, a material consideration not a moral one). Other cases fall in a spectrum in between. The material considerations arise in a situation when a decision must be made to act upon such moral judgements.
Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

[ninewands]

Maybe the scientific method IS 'God'.
Or maybe that is how 'he' wants us to understand the Universe.

Or maybe the whole concept of 'God' is meaningless and only exists as an artifact from our superstitious ancestors.
I choose door #3!

[David M]

Which is which, and how do you know?

One is supernatural and is based on belief, and thus independent of any empirical evidence, leading to a philosophical position on non-material issues such as morality. The other is natural and depends on empirical evidence to lead to a view of the material universe and its current state.

You can decide which is which. There is a reason I capitalised Faith and not science.

What is a non-material issue? How would you have morality without material, such as human beings?

Do people without religion not have morality then?

Why would you believe anything independent of any material evidence?

If I decide its non-material then it is, its a classification within my worldview. Trite answer but thats how I view it. I define conceptual morality as non-material.

Of course people without religion have morality. A persons chosen religion can inform that persons morality but morality does not require religion.

edit - and religion can lead to an immoral stance just as readily as a lack of religious belief.

Because I believe in it, as it has no material evidence all that there can be is belief. If something is based on material evidence than I accept or reject it. I don't "believe" in ToE, I accept it as correct based on the evidence that it is correct.

[David M]

You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?

No, you are missing the point. I separate what is conceptually morally correct as an underlying principle with the practical application of that morality to any decision I would make. Deciding to protect my family would apply a greater emotional imperative, so would affect my decision, when compared to protecting a complete stranger but both would be the moral thing to do.

Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

But not to me when considering what is a moral act on a theoretical basis.

[Autodidact]

If I decide its non-material then it is, its a classification within my worldview. Trite answer but thats how I view it. I define conceptual morality as non-material. Uh, well, yeah. And if a member of a certain tribe differentiates between forest spirits and water spirits it's a classification within her worldview, but of interest only to anthropologists. I thought you were talking about reality. But if you're only talking about what's inside your head, then...frankly, why would we care?


Because I believe in it, as it has no material evidence all that there can be is belief. You believe in it because you believe in it? Did you really just type that? Did you mean it?

It has no material evidence full stop. End of story. No reason to believe in it then, is there?

[RAFH]

[QUOTE=RAFH;34152]
I don't consider morality a non-material issue. The concept of may be a disembodied idea, but its effects are most certainly material. Killing something is definitely a material act with material consequences, even though the decision to do so and the ideals its based upon may seem ethereal. Indeed, the decision is a matter of material synapses in action, and the concepts are held as memories in a material matrix. It's material all right and its consequences are very material.
You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?

At one end of the spectrum I would judge it conceptually immoral to kill solely for personal pleasure while at the other end I would consider it moral to painlessly kill to preserve an innocent life from an attacker or to punish someone undoubtedly guilty of killing solely for personal pleasure (and therein lies my problem with death penalties in that justice systems are fallable, a material consideration not a moral one). Other cases fall in a spectrum in between. The material considerations arise in a situation when a decision must be made to act upon such moral judgements.
Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

And how do you determine that a life is innocent? For one thing, innocent of what?

How do you judge what constitutes personal pleasure? My dad killed deer for out food, but he also loved to hunt. He wasn't really preventing the death of anyone, innocent or not (though I certainly turned out not to be), but he did improve our nutritional intake significantly, otherwise we would have suffered a 30% to 50% decrease in protein, which certainly would have had a deleterious effect on my brothers and I. Plus, because the mountain lions and wolves had been either killed or driven off, there were too many deer so some would have starved anyway and the results of their overgrazing would have had deleterious effects on the forests for years to come. But he sure as hell enjoyed hunting. Not that he liked to kill, but the sport of it, the interplay of finely tuned opponents, prey and predator.

Which brings up another issue, should we then start executing mountain lions and wolves and sharks and other predators because they killed because they liked to eat?


ETA, in any case, this is getting a bit far afield for the OP. We should continue it elsewhere or at least not in this thread.

[Autodidact]

You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?

No, you are missing the point. I separate what is conceptually morally correct as an underlying principle with the practical application of that morality to any decision I would make. Deciding to protect my family would apply a greater emotional imperative, so would affect my decision, when compared to protecting a complete stranger but both would be the moral thing to do.

Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

But not to me when considering what is a moral act on a theoretical basis.

Could you try this again? I didn't get it. That may be because for me the physical world is the only world there is.

[David M]

If I decide its non-material then it is, its a classification within my worldview. Trite answer but thats how I view it. I define conceptual morality as non-material. Uh, well, yeah. And if a member of a certain tribe differentiates between forest spirits and water spirits it's a classification within her worldview, but of interest only to anthropologists. I thought you were talking about reality. But if you're only talking about what's inside your head, then...frankly, why would we care?

And of interest to the member of that tribe of course. What gave you the impression that I was talking about anything other than what is in my head as this discussion was triggered by my use of the term Faith?

Faith by definition is about what is inside people heads not about objective reality.

Because I believe in it, as it has no material evidence all that there can be is belief. You believe in it because you believe in it? Did you really just type that? Did you mean it?

It has no material evidence full stop. End of story. No reason to believe in it then, is there?

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Thats not independent of the consideration of material evidence it is without any material evidence existing.

Do you reason to believe that no deity (including in that any supernatural entity that would satify a reasonable defintion) exists, based on primary material evidence that relates directly to the non-existence of such a deity?

[Fathermithras]

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Thats not independent of the consideration of material evidence it is without any material evidence existing.

Do you reason to believe that no deity (including in that any supernatural entity that would satify a reasonable defintion) exists, based on primary material evidence that relates directly to the non-existence of such a deity?

Can't prove a negative.

[David M]

You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?


Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

And how do you determine that a life is innocent? For one thing, innocent of what?

How do you judge what constitutes personal pleasure? My dad killed deer for out food, but he also loved to hunt. He wasn't really preventing the death of anyone, innocent or not (though I certainly turned out not to be), but he did improve our nutritional intake significantly, otherwise we would have suffered a 30% to 50% decrease in protein, which certainly would have had a deleterious effect on my brothers and I. Plus, because the mountain lions and wolves had been either killed or driven off, there were too many deer so some would have starved anyway and the results of their overgrazing would have had deleterious effects on the forests for years to come. But he sure as hell enjoyed hunting. Not that he liked to kill, but the sport of it, the interplay of finely tuned opponents, prey and predator.

Which brings up another issue, should we then start executing mountain lions and wolves and sharks and other predators because they killed because they liked to eat?


ETA, in any case, this is getting a bit far afield for the OP. We should continue it elsewhere or at least not in this thread.

Perhaps the mods can split the posts to another thread.

At the theoretical level of moral determination the innocence is a given, essentially one postulates "If A then B". At a practical level when a situation actually arises the determination of innocence would need to be judged to lead to a decision as to where it falls in the spectrum I described.

Maybe I wasn't verbose enough, to kill solely for the purpose of self-gratification due to the act of killing itself might be a better description. For the reasons you stated above your father would definitely not fall into this category, I'm fine with hunting and eating what you kill. Apart from that the spectrum I was describing related to human interaction.

A predator-prey interaction has its own spectrum, a predator that kills a human for food is not acting "immorally" as a predator (assuming we would judge such a predator as being capable of moral decisions) however much we may dislike the activity, shooting said predator to stop it killing a human would be moral from the human point of view.

No I don't think its moral for us to shoot predators for killing prey animals for food, it may however be necessary to do so in a given situation because other factors may apply such as population control.

[David M]

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Thats not independent of the consideration of material evidence it is without any material evidence existing.

Do you reason to believe that no deity (including in that any supernatural entity that would satify a reasonable defintion) exists, based on primary material evidence that relates directly to the non-existence of such a deity?

Can't prove a negative.

I was trying to step around that one which is why I said "reason to believe", belief does not require proof. I was just bouncing back the "No reason to believe in it" remark.

Edit - its 4am here, I'll be back later today.

[Fathermithras]

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Thats not independent of the consideration of material evidence it is without any material evidence existing.

Do you reason to believe that no deity (including in that any supernatural entity that would satify a reasonable defintion) exists, based on primary material evidence that relates directly to the non-existence of such a deity?

Can't prove a negative.

I was trying to step around that one which is why I said "reason to believe", belief does not require proof. I was just bouncing back the "No reason to believe in it" remark.

I don't see how that changes anything. Not trying to convert you or anything but it seems your basically saying "When it comes down to belief, you do need to show evidence against the existence of something".

Which is still not possible. Or I'm just confused. Clarify?

[Febble]

Split from here (http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=1328&page=2)

[SAWells]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

[David M]

Can't prove a negative.

I was trying to step around that one which is why I said "reason to believe", belief does not require proof. I was just bouncing back the "No reason to believe in it" remark.

I don't see how that changes anything. Not trying to convert you or anything but it seems your basically saying "When it comes down to belief, you do need to show evidence against the existence of something".

Which is still not possible. Or I'm just confused. Clarify?

No, I'm saying when there is no empirical evidence at all, for or against, all that you can have is a decision based around belief.

[SAWells]

So the claims that "There exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "there do not exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" have equal standing?

How about "I have faith that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "I have no reason to believe that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns?"

[David M]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

[Obd]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

Well I think the position that "There exists a God" is utterly meaningless without further definition of the concept of "God". There is a huge difference between a "First cause" and an antropomorphic concept.

[SAWells]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.


I am perfectly willing to stipulate that any number of unevidenced things might or might not exist; hence the statement that "X certainly does not exist, where there is no evidence for or against X" is logically wrong. However, I see no point in claiming to know anything about any particular such unevidenced thing, for example that it could reasonably be described as a "God." I am also an atheist in the sense that I'm an a-Santa-ist; given the descriptions of a certain entity known as God in the Christian tradition, I feel justified in concluding that that entity doesn't actually exist, in much the same way that the North Pole is devoid of worker elves.

[David M]

So the claims that "There exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "there do not exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" have equal standing?

How about "I have faith that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "I have no reason to believe that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns?"

As invisible intangible magical unicorns do not conform with the definition of what a deity is, being just Unicorns even if magical, the second statement has greater validity in my view. Being invisible or intangible is a property of the natural universe and thus governed by its laws and I don't see how that would be possible.

[SAWells]

So the claims that "There exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "there do not exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" have equal standing?

How about "I have faith that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "I have no reason to believe that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns?"

As invisible intangible magical unicorns do not conform with the definition of what a deity is, being just Unicorns even if magical, the second statement has greater validity in my view. Being invisible or intangible is a property of the natural universe and thus governed by its laws and I don't see how that would be possible.


What exactly is your definition of what a deity is? If I specified that I was talking about Zamindar, the mighty invisible intangible unicorn, creator of all things, who poops planets, would that count as a deity? And does your deity get to be invisible and intangible, even if you can't see how that's possible? I'm genuinely interested.

[David M]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

Well I think the position that "There exists a God" is utterly meaningless without further definition of the concept of "God". There is a huge difference between a "First cause" and an antropomorphic concept.

My position is that God is essentially the "First Cause" and try to minimise any anthropomophism. So to me humanity is not "special" or "God's purpose" but simply a part (and possibly a very tiny part) of God's purpose. Personally I could be completely irrelevant to God's purpose but I still accept the guidance that I understand on how I should live.

[Obd]

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

Well I think the position that "There exists a God" is utterly meaningless without further definition of the concept of "God". There is a huge difference between a "First cause" and an antropomorphic concept.

My position is that God is essentially the "First Cause" and try to minimise any anthropomophism. So to me humanity is not "special" or "God's purpose" but simply a part (and possibly a very tiny part) of God's purpose. Personally I could be completely irrelevant to God's purpose but I still accept the guidance that I understand on how I should live.

Well isn't having a purpose antropomorphic too?

[David M]

What exactly is your definition of what a deity is? If I specified that I was talking about Zamindar, the mighty invisible intangible unicorn, creator of all things, who poops planets, would that count as a deity? And does your deity get to be invisible and intangible, even if you can't see how that's possible? I'm genuinely interested.

I'd prefer non-material as a term, essentially not bound by the natural universe. If we are talking about Zamindar, who does match that, I would want to know what are the precepts and teachings of Zamindar and if that forms a "better" religious position I would consider conversion.

My starting point was that I became certain that there was a "First Cause" and "Purpose" and I chose to follow the religious framework that best matched my understanding of what should be attributed to those by studying religions and looking at what their message was.

[David M]

Well I think the position that "There exists a God" is utterly meaningless without further definition of the concept of "God". There is a huge difference between a "First cause" and an antropomorphic concept.

My position is that God is essentially the "First Cause" and try to minimise any anthropomophism. So to me humanity is not "special" or "God's purpose" but simply a part (and possibly a very tiny part) of God's purpose. Personally I could be completely irrelevant to God's purpose but I still accept the guidance that I understand on how I should live.

Well isn't having a purpose antropomorphic too?

Perhaps, as a human I don't think I can totally escape anthropomorphism. But I'd judge Gods "Purpose" to be greater than any Human being could probably understand and may not match our human definition of purpose. I'd accept that the only "Purpose" God had was that the universe exist but also that it is something inexplicable by us.

[SAWells]

What exactly is your definition of what a deity is? If I specified that I was talking about Zamindar, the mighty invisible intangible unicorn, creator of all things, who poops planets, would that count as a deity? And does your deity get to be invisible and intangible, even if you can't see how that's possible? I'm genuinely interested.

I'd prefer non-material as a term, essentially not bound by the natural universe. If we are talking about Zamindar, who does match that, I would want to know what are the precepts and teachings of Zamindar and if that forms a "better" religious position I would consider conversion.

My starting point was that I became certain that there was a "First Cause" and "Purpose" and I chose to follow the religious framework that best matched my understanding of what should be attributed to those by studying religions and looking at what their message was.

It appears that the only function of the deity here is to give moral authority to a set of precepts which you originally chose as being those which should have moral authority. The deity is an unnecessary step in this process. You're in the Euthyphro dilemma (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma).

Also if you would consider converting to belief in Zamindar, the mighty invisible intangible unicorn, creator of all things, who poops planets, if I tell you that Zamindar tells us all to be good and kind and nice to each other, I think there is a problem with your decision-making process, to put it mildly.

[Obd]

My position is that God is essentially the "First Cause" and try to minimise any anthropomophism. So to me humanity is not "special" or "God's purpose" but simply a part (and possibly a very tiny part) of God's purpose. Personally I could be completely irrelevant to God's purpose but I still accept the guidance that I understand on how I should live.

Well isn't having a purpose antropomorphic too?

Perhaps, as a human I don't think I can totally escape anthropomorphism. But I'd judge Gods "Purpose" to be greater than any Human being could probably understand and may not match our human definition of purpose. I'd accept that the only "Purpose" God had was that the universe exist but also that it is something inexplicable by us.

Ofcourse it is. But there could be other much more mundane "purposes" imaginable i.e. some other species somewhere in the universe being the true "chosen species" and humans just being an accidental byproduct with no particular purpose. Or while some people seem to think the "purpose" of plants and animals is to provide us with food, it might be the case that we're the ones that serve that particular purpose for the "chosen species". The entire notion of "purpose" under it's regular definition is centered around the idea that we're somehow very special as a species.

[SAWells]

Also, if God's purpose doesn't match any human definition of purpose, in what sense is it a purpose, rather than a jabberwock?

[David M]

It appears that the only function of the deity here is to give moral authority to a set of precepts which you originally chose as being those which should have moral authority. The deity is an unnecessary step in this process. You're in the Euthyphro dilemma (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma).

Also if you would consider converting to belief in Zamindar, the mighty invisible intangible unicorn, creator of all things, who poops planets, if I tell you that Zamindar tells us all to be good and kind and nice to each other, I think there is a problem with your decision-making process, to put it mildly.

Not quite, the function of a deity as followed by a person should to provide guidance in the establishment of morality especially in those areas where no explicit guidance is already given. I cannot argue absolute moral authority from God only that my human morality is correct based on my understanding of God and the universe to which that human morality relates. In simple terms the distinction is that correct moral guidance leads towards the correct choice in deity rather than moral authority stemming from a deity leads to correct morality.

So if the moral guidance of my deity matches a "correct" atheistic morality that can mean that either God is an uneccessary step as you postulate or that my God is giving the correct guidance so belief in that God is supported.

I would not consider I am in a Euthyphro dilemma as I find the second statement to be false. The moral is moral irrespective of the source.

I was equating Zamindar with other religions with a breadth of structure and guidance when I made that statement. All religious claims are worthy of some level of consideration even if that is brief and leads to immediate rejection. I don't consider myself possessed of absolute certainty that my beliefs are correct, only sufficient certainty to support them as correct.

[Ian Nerr]

Faith is believing what you know isn't true.

[David M]

Well isn't having a purpose antropomorphic too?

Perhaps, as a human I don't think I can totally escape anthropomorphism. But I'd judge Gods "Purpose" to be greater than any Human being could probably understand and may not match our human definition of purpose. I'd accept that the only "Purpose" God had was that the universe exist but also that it is something inexplicable by us.

Ofcourse it is. But there could be other much more mundane "purposes" imaginable i.e. some other species somewhere in the universe being the true "chosen species" and humans just being an accidental byproduct with no particular purpose. Or while some people seem to think the "purpose" of plants and animals is to provide us with food, it might be the case that we're the ones that serve that particular purpose for the "chosen species". The entire notion of "purpose" under it's regular definition is centered around the idea that we're somehow very special as a species.

Ok, come up with another word, doesn't need to be in english. We are limited by our language after all. I fully accept that purpose is not the best term as it is mired in the human connotations that surround it but I haven't found a better one.

[David M]

Also, if God's purpose doesn't match any human definition of purpose, in what sense is it a purpose, rather than a jabberwock?

Any word will do, I'm ok with using jabberwock from now on if you would prefer, its just semantics.

I believe that there is some underlying jabberwock involved in the existence of the universe.

[David M]

Faith is believing what you know isn't true.

No, Faith is believing what you know to be true but which cannot be proved or disproved empirically.

Faith - A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers.

Belief - Any cognitive content held as true.

Try again when you have more than a snide one-liner. I'll answer further reasonable questions but not weak attempts at point-scoring.

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE=David M;34258]
If I decide its non-material then it is, its a classification within my worldview. Trite answer but thats how I view it. I define conceptual morality as non-material. Uh, well, yeah. And if a member of a certain tribe differentiates between forest spirits and water spirits it's a classification within her worldview, but of interest only to anthropologists. I thought you were talking about reality. But if you're only talking about what's inside your head, then...frankly, why would we care?

And of interest to the member of that tribe of course. Maybe you should be talking to your fellow tribe-members then. What gave you the impression that I was talking about anything other than what is in my head as this discussion was triggered by my use of the term Faith? Because who would possibly care? I mean, people have all kinds of weird things in their heads, and no one can dispute that they exist there, but how would it affect the rest of us? We're trying to figure out what exists outside our heads.

Faith by definition is about what is inside people heads not about objective reality. O.K. Is there no relationship between faith and reality then? Can you have faith in a fictional being? How would you know whether God is real, or don't you care? [aside: talking to theists is so weird. You have to establish the most basic concepts, like whether you're talking about reality or not. Sheesh.]

Because I believe in it, as it has no material evidence all that there can be is belief. You believe in it because you believe in it? Did you really just type that? Did you mean it?

It has no material evidence full stop. End of story. No reason to believe in it then, is there?

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Thats not independent of the consideration of material evidence it is without any material evidence existing. Well yeah, if you're nuts. Isn't that what we call people who believe in things with no material evidence? And btw, how is material evidence different from regular old evidence? Isn't all evidence material? So what you're saying is that you believe in something with no evidence?

Try that sentence with any other noun: "I believe in unicorns because I believe in them." "I believe in giants living in the center of the earth because I believe in them." I mean, can't you see how obviously fallacious and just plain crazy that sentence is?

Do you reason to believe that no deity (including in that any supernatural entity that would satify a reasonable defintion) exists, based on primary material evidence that relates directly to the non-existence of such a deity? "reason to believe"? huh? What? Are you trying to say that I should believe in everything until I get evidence that it doesn't exist? Doesn't your ontology get just a wee bit crowded with all those Gods, demons, angels, fairies, mythical beasts, little green men, tooth fairies, etc.?

[Autodidact]

I was trying to step around that one which is why I said "reason to believe", belief does not require proof. I was just bouncing back the "No reason to believe in it" remark.

I don't see how that changes anything. Not trying to convert you or anything but it seems your basically saying "When it comes down to belief, you do need to show evidence against the existence of something".

Which is still not possible. Or I'm just confused. Clarify?

No, I'm saying when there is no empirical evidence at all, for or against, all that you can have is a decision based around belief.

so your general approach then is to believe everything for which there is no affirmative evidence not to believe, that is, you believe in all imaginary creatures?

[Autodidact]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence. I would, but since such a deity would be utterly irrelevant to my existence, It would have the functional equivalence in my life of not existing, and I can just treat It as not-existing. In other words, if God exists, and has no impact on the world or on me, what difference does it make?

here could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.
1. You just told us you have made your choice based on no evidence whatsoever. That's what you consider informed?
2. The morality you accept is immoral. It is based on the idea that you are guilty for someone else's actions, and that someone else can atone for your sins. That whole concept
(a) is immoral.
(b) is primitive, barbaric.
(c) is based in ancient animal and human sacrifice. I hope we can move beyond that to concepts such as personal responsibility and compassion.

Morality requires a good-faith effort to base your beliefs on truth by asking for evidence, and withholding assent for propositions that are not supported by evidence, that is, honesty.

[Autodidact]

So the claims that "There exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "there do not exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" have equal standing?

How about "I have faith that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns" and "I have no reason to believe that there exist invisible intangible magical unicorns?"

As invisible intangible magical unicorns do not conform with the definition of what a deity is, being just Unicorns even if magical, the second statement has greater validity in my view. Being invisible or intangible is a property of the natural universe and thus governed by its laws and I don't see how that would be possible.

So believing things without evidence is a practice you reserve only for God?
I assume then that you believe in all Gods, though? You wouldn't want to be inconsistent or trapped by your upbringing into believing in a false God.

[Autodidact]

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

Well I think the position that "There exists a God" is utterly meaningless without further definition of the concept of "God". There is a huge difference between a "First cause" and an antropomorphic concept.

My position is that God is essentially the "First Cause" and try to minimise any anthropomophism. So to me humanity is not "special" or "God's purpose" but simply a part (and possibly a very tiny part) of God's purpose. Personally I could be completely irrelevant to God's purpose but I still accept the guidance that I understand on how I should live.

Just as a pebble can be the cause of my tripping, the first cause could be an atom. Large effects do not necessarily require large--or intelligent--causes.
What guidance might that be, and how would you know what it was?

[David M]

1. You just told us you have made your choice based on no evidence whatsoever. That's what you consider informed?
2. The morality you accept is immoral. It is based on the idea that you are guilty for someone else's actions, and that someone else can atone for your sins. That whole concept
(a) is immoral.
(b) is primitive, barbaric.
(c) is based in ancient animal and human sacrifice. I hope we can move beyond that to concepts such as personal responsibility and compassion.

Morality requires a good-faith effort to base your beliefs on truth by asking for evidence, and withholding assent for propositions that are not supported by evidence, that is, honesty.

If the matter under consideration is not based on the material universe there can be no evidence one way or another so a decision must be made without reference to evidence but with reference to concepts such as right or wrong.

You don't know my morality just as you don't know my actual beliefs. Try asking before you argue against a strawman.

As to the rest of the insults and strawmen in your other posts - Fuck off.

I will no longer respond to any questions on the matter of my religious beliefs. I was hopeful for rational conversation while remaining respectful of the position of others but you don't seem to be interested.

My aplogies to the other poster who seemed to have a genuine interest but I'm out of this thread.

[Autodidact]

1. You just told us you have made your choice based on no evidence whatsoever. That's what you consider informed?
2. The morality you accept is immoral. It is based on the idea that you are guilty for someone else's actions, and that someone else can atone for your sins. That whole concept
(a) is immoral.
(b) is primitive, barbaric.
(c) is based in ancient animal and human sacrifice. I hope we can move beyond that to concepts such as personal responsibility and compassion.

Morality requires a good-faith effort to base your beliefs on truth by asking for evidence, and withholding assent for propositions that are not supported by evidence, that is, honesty.

If the matter under consideration is not based on the material universe there can be no evidence one way or another so a decision must be made without reference to evidence but with reference to concepts such as right or wrong. If the matter under consideration is not based on the material universe, what the hell is it and what difference would it make and how would you know?

You don't know my morality just as you don't know my actual beliefs. Try asking before you argue against a strawman. My mistake, I thought you were Christian.

As to the rest of the insults and strawmen in your other posts - Fuck off. I must have been right.

I will no longer respond to any questions on the matter of my religious beliefs. You leave us to speculate on why, with possible explanations including insecurity, defensiveness, and lack of viable argument. I was hopeful for rational conversation while remaining respectful of the position of others but you don't seem to be interested. ON the contrary, I'm fascinated. I leave it to our readers to determine whether my contributions were rational and respectful, as contrasted with yours.

My aplogies to the other poster who seemed to have a genuine interest but I'm out of this thread. And another one bites the dust.

[David M]

If the matter under consideration is not based on the material universe, what the hell is it and what difference would it make and how would you know?

Considering the matter under consideration was about Faith, a belief in a supernatural power, if you consider it makes no difference why join the discussion?

You obviously cared enough to start asking questioins about what was inside my head.

I must have been right.

Nope, you were just offensive.

You leave us to speculate on why, with possible explanations including insecurity, defensiveness, and lack of viable argument.

Speculate away. I didn't see any viable arguments from you against my position other than "you believe in stupid things", I wasn't even arguing that my position was correct, I had already conceded that I could be wrong and other position could be correct.

ON the contrary, I'm fascinated. I leave it to our readers to determine whether my contributions were rational and respectful, as contrasted with yours.

Up until your latest intervention I answered every question put to me in a civil manner, you are the one who introduced terms such a nuts and plain crazy. I'm happy to leave the other readers to determine the facts.

And another one bites the dust.

Yes, hostility and denigration has won you another victory as the other party is no longer interested in responding to you on the subject. Well done.

[Ian Nerr]

Faith is believing what you know isn't true.

No, Faith is believing what you know to be true but which cannot be proved or disproved empirically.

Ok. How do you know? Believing is one thing, but it's dishonest to claim to know what you don't know.

Other people have faith in beliefs that contradict yours.

What if someone says they have Faith that you are wrong?

How do you choose what to arbitrarily believe?

[Autodidact]

Considering the matter under consideration was about Faith, a belief in a supernatural power, if you consider it makes no difference why join the discussion? No, the matter under discussion was Young Earth arguments. You asserted that regarding matters of faith, you relied on God, implying that there is such a thing OUTSIDE YOUR HEAD. Or are you saying that God only exists inside your head?

You obviously cared enough to start asking questioins about what was inside my head. No, my questions were about the relationship between inside your head and reality. What is that relationship, if any?

I must have been right.

Nope, you were just offensive. You're not Christian? What religion are you, if I may ask rather than assume?

Speculate away. I didn't see any viable arguments from you against my position other than "you believe in stupid things", I wasn't even arguing that my position was correct, I had already conceded that I could be wrong and other position could be correct. No, you have misunderstood my argument. It is not that what you believe is stupid (and I don't believe I did call it stupid, actually), I don't really know what you believe. My argument is that in general, believing anything without evidence is considered a symptom of mental illness. What do you call people who believe things without any evidence? I call them crazy.

ON the contrary, I'm fascinated. I leave it to our readers to determine whether my contributions were rational and respectful, as contrasted with yours.

So glad you reconsidered your hasty decision to exit the discussion. Now can we return to my many substantive questions? To summarize: if you believe things without evidence, aren't you extremely likely to be mistaken in your beliefs?

[Febble]

Ah, Autodidact, can I introduce you to David M, one of my favorite posters here?

David, this is Autodidact, one of the most patient explainers of scientific reasoning to the uneducated on the internet. I'm sure you'll find you have a lot in com....

Oops, I see you've already met.

Riiiight.

*backs off to find a large bottle of gin*

Tonic? Ice? Lemon?

OK, I'll leave you to continue your fascinating conversation...."

[SAWells]

I'm worried on two counts. Firstly, you're now appealing to your deity for moral guidance, but that requires your deity to interact with you and impinge on reality; otherwise, what you mean is that you'll consider things moral if you think that's what your deity would want, and again the deity is simply a placeholder with no function in the argument. If your choice in the Euthyphro dilemma is that the moral is moral intrinsically, then your deity doesn't function in deciding what's moral.


Secondly, agreeing that there may be some underlying jabberwock in the universe is the definition of a semantically null statement.

Autodidact is needling you but his questions are valid.

[Febble]

Autodidact is needling you but his questions are valid.

They are, but he's a she.

[ericmurphy]

Deciding to protect my family would apply a greater emotional imperative, so would affect my decision, when compared to protecting a complete stranger but both would be the moral thing to do.

Interestingly enough, such a decision is entirely explicable within the context of evolutionary theory, without the need to refer to any sort of religious or moral framework.

Any organism which places a higher premium on preserving the lives or more closely related individuals compared to less closely related individuals carries a trait which, for that very reason, is more likely to be inherited. Even in the absence of any moral framework whatsoever, a population of organisms will eventually come to be dominated by individuals who protect close relatives more diligently than distant relatives.

[David M]

Febble - G&T, ice and a slice thanks :)

SAWells - No I'd categorise it as being that the correct Deity would "teach" or "show" (poor terms I know) what is morally correct (the first horn of the dilemma) so that is a level of interaction. But that does not disallow the concept of arriving at morality without exposure to the "teachings". Does that answer your concerns.

Not sure I understand your second point.

I don't react well to needling that is true, direct insults I'm ok with.


Considering the matter under consideration was about Faith, a belief in a supernatural power, if you consider it makes no difference why join the discussion? No, the matter under discussion was Young Earth arguments. You asserted that regarding matters of faith, you relied on God, implying that there is such a thing OUTSIDE YOUR HEAD. Or are you saying that God only exists inside your head?

Ok, I'll continue in this thread. These are the sorts of questions that don't lead me to feel insulted so I am happy to answer them. I'll start by admitting that I know I am not as good at expressing philosophical concepts as I am scientific ones (at least I hope I'm good at expressing scientific ones), if I'm unclear I'm happy to have another try, just let me know.

By the definitions I learned at school both Faith and Belief, when used in religious terms, are related to an internal mental position for concepts that are not subject to proof in the material sense. This is different from non-religious usage. To pick an example the sentence "I believe that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow" is expressing a judgement based on logical probability arising from past evidence.

Having clarified the basis for my usage according to my religious beliefs, which are a personal position and thus do exist entirely inside my head, there is a supernatural power that exists outside my head which is well represented by the term God as it is understood by most.

[You obviously cared enough to start asking questioins about what was inside my head. No, my questions were about the relationship between inside your head and reality. What is that relationship, if any?

You're not Christian? What religion are you, if I may ask rather than assume?

I classify myself as Christian, which is a broad definition. Probably the closest comparable established denomination would be Church of England (i.e. Anglican) low church but there are significant differences.

A complete definition of where I stand would be a substantial volume in its own right and I doubt I would have the free time to do it justice in any reasonable timescale so I'll start with generalities.

My position on the Bible is that it contains God's message rather than being a comprehensively accurate record of God's words. Much of it is therefore allegorical, social and mythical narrative written by multiple human authors after the fact and has been edited by authors and translators to fit with viewpoints that were comfortable/approved at the time. This would put me diametrically opposite to any literalist or inerrant denomination.

The Old Testament and especially the early parts are certainly not historically accurate, rather being a framework built around some historic events.

I view Adam and Eve as being the first Humans to "receive" (for want of a better word) an understanding of God and not the first and only human beings. Founders of the lineage that lead to Judaism would be the description. The "Fall" only applied to Adam and Eve and was spiritual, death has existed for as long as life. The whole "Original Sin" idea is a control mechanism added at a later date.

The Flood was catastrophic but local, affecting the extant descendants of this lineage. I tend towards the position that it was a natural disaster that God warned of and that during its oral period it changed to its form of a punishment for wickedness before being written.

Jesus (leaving aside for the moment whether he is a historical figure or not) did not redeem anyone else by dying on the cross, the message is one to show us how we may redeem ourselves. By standing by what is morally correct, even if we have to lay down our lives to do so, we remain moral beings and are thus redeemed.

I'll even go so far as to say that belief in God is not the determining factor, its is being a moral person that is, I consider it anthropomorphism that God wishes us to believe in, or worship, God. An atheist can be just as worthy as a Christian.

The New testament supercedes the Old Testament, the old shows teaches about what was while the New informs us how we should be.

No one is guilty for someone else's actions, and that no-one else can atone for your sins. You are responsible for your own actions.

Heading off another possible question I don't see God as "loving", "good" or "just" in human terms, that bad things happen is a natural consequence of the universe and the human ability to make choices about morality. "Its the will of God" when something good or bad happens is anthropomorphism and wishful thinking. So my God contains more of the impersonal than mainstream Christianity.

[Speculate away. I didn't see any viable arguments from you against my position other than "you believe in stupid things", I wasn't even arguing that my position was correct, I had already conceded that I could be wrong and other position could be correct. No, you have misunderstood my argument. It is not that what you believe is stupid (and I don't believe I did call it stupid, actually), I don't really know what you believe. My argument is that in general, believing anything without evidence is considered a symptom of mental illness. What do you call people who believe things without any evidence? I call them crazy.

There is evidence for what I believe in, the message that I see contained within the Bible is sufficient for me to take a position that the God that it leads to is real and the correct one to heed the teachings of (I definitely don't mean that in the sense of hearing voices).

What I accept is that hard independent evidence outside the Bible and associated Christian writings is totally lacking - circumstantial evidence may infer the existence. That's what I meant in my previous usages of material evidence, that which directly and independently pertains to the matter under consideration rather than physical or non-imaginary.

You obviously don't see the Bible etc as sufficent evidence, or any evidence at all, but in my view that is rejection of its validity rather than rejection that its is a form of evidence per se.


So glad you reconsidered your hasty decision to exit the discussion. Now can we return to my many substantive questions? To summarize: if you believe things without evidence, aren't you extremely likely to be mistaken in your beliefs?

I believe based on evidence that I find sufficiently valid and a lack of refuting evidence that I find in any way valid. I may be mistaken in my appraisal of the validity of the various forms of evidence.

The admission that I know that I could be mistaken is what leads me to accepting that I should give other viewpoints due consideration, if I do not examine the evidence (such a there may be) for other claims it would be hypocritical of me to maintain that my current position is correct as I would be ignoring evidence that could possibly refute it.

So other Gods, demons, angels, fairies, ghosts, little green men, tooth fairies, invisible unicorns, Zamindar, new age crystal stuff, astrology - all woo.

mythical beasts - woo as described but often originally based on a real animal, or its remains, and then altered and enhanced in the retelling. So Narwhal Horn ... dose of magic ... Unicorn is a possible route I would accept as explaining the source of this woo (as would be a horse skull with a horn added and used as a symbol by an ancient tribe).

intelligent alien life forms - probably exist in some form somewhere in the universe but the probability of them arising close enough to visit us is so low I classify sightings as woo.

[David M]

Deciding to protect my family would apply a greater emotional imperative, so would affect my decision, when compared to protecting a complete stranger but both would be the moral thing to do.

Interestingly enough, such a decision is entirely explicable within the context of evolutionary theory, without the need to refer to any sort of religious or moral framework.

Any organism which places a higher premium on preserving the lives or more closely related individuals compared to less closely related individuals carries a trait which, for that very reason, is more likely to be inherited. Even in the absence of any moral framework whatsoever, a population of organisms will eventually come to be dominated by individuals who protect close relatives more diligently than distant relatives.

There you go, evolutionary theory supports my religious position. They align perfectly (Only joking).

Yes I'd fully accept an evolutionary beneficial cause feeding into to the emotional imperative I stated would apply in that interaction between my theoretical level of morality and real decisions when it becomes applied morality.

[ericmurphy]

Deciding to protect my family would apply a greater emotional imperative, so would affect my decision, when compared to protecting a complete stranger but both would be the moral thing to do.

Interestingly enough, such a decision is entirely explicable within the context of evolutionary theory, without the need to refer to any sort of religious or moral framework.

Any organism which places a higher premium on preserving the lives or more closely related individuals compared to less closely related individuals carries a trait which, for that very reason, is more likely to be inherited. Even in the absence of any moral framework whatsoever, a population of organisms will eventually come to be dominated by individuals who protect close relatives more diligently than distant relatives.

There you go, evolutionary theory supports my religious position. They align perfectly (Only joking).

Yes I'd fully accept an evolutionary beneficial cause feeding into to the emotional imperative I stated would apply in that interaction between my theoretical level of morality and real decisions when it becomes applied morality.

And I would argue that morality does not derive from religious convictions. Morality is a result of selection pressures. Populations of individuals who can avoid killing each other and can cooperate together outcompete those who can't. Religion is a result of evolutionary pressures, in other words. I would argue that morality is the source of religion, rather than the other way around.

[RAFH]

You would make a moral decision about when to kill independent of the material act and its consequences? For example, might it not make a difference to you if one of the consequences was that you and your family would live?


Preserving an innocent life sound like a consequence to me.

And how do you determine that a life is innocent? For one thing, innocent of what?

How do you judge what constitutes personal pleasure? My dad killed deer for out food, but he also loved to hunt. He wasn't really preventing the death of anyone, innocent or not (though I certainly turned out not to be), but he did improve our nutritional intake significantly, otherwise we would have suffered a 30% to 50% decrease in protein, which certainly would have had a deleterious effect on my brothers and I. Plus, because the mountain lions and wolves had been either killed or driven off, there were too many deer so some would have starved anyway and the results of their overgrazing would have had deleterious effects on the forests for years to come. But he sure as hell enjoyed hunting. Not that he liked to kill, but the sport of it, the interplay of finely tuned opponents, prey and predator.

Which brings up another issue, should we then start executing mountain lions and wolves and sharks and other predators because they killed because they liked to eat?


ETA, in any case, this is getting a bit far afield for the OP. We should continue it elsewhere or at least not in this thread.

Perhaps the mods can split the posts to another thread.

At the theoretical level of moral determination the innocence is a given, essentially one postulates "If A then B". Huh? Why would innocence be a given? And what does that have to do with "If A then B"? At a practical level when a situation actually arises the determination of innocence would need to be judged to lead to a decision as to where it falls in the spectrum I described.

Maybe I wasn't verbose enough, to kill solely for the purpose of self-gratification due to the act of killing itself might be a better description. Who decides what is self-gratification and what is not? For the reasons you stated above your father would definitely not fall into this category, I'm fine with hunting and eating what you kill. Apart from that the spectrum I was describing related to human interaction.

A predator-prey interaction has its own spectrum, a predator that kills a human for food is not acting "immorally" as a predator (assuming we would judge such a predator as being capable of moral decisions) however much we may dislike the activity, shooting said predator to stop it killing a human would be moral from the human point of view.Then does the kin or other members of that animal's species have a moral right to kill the humans that killed it? If the predatory was moral in its killing of a human for food, how can it be moral to kill the predator? It was acting morally. It did nothing to the others. They have no quarrel with it, and it has not quarrel with them. After all, you said it was okay to kill in order to eat, did you not?

No I don't think its moral for us to shoot predators for killing prey animals for food,Even if we are the prey? Above you say it is moral to kill the predator if it kills a human for food. Which is it? And why? it may however be necessary to do so in a given situation because other factors may apply such as population control. Predators are what control populations of their prey. Why would you have to kill predators to control their population. Excess predators are a very rare thing. The only reason population excesses exist at all is because something else, usually man, has upset the apple cart and depleted their prey. Often by depleting the food source of the prey. Seems to me, we are the ones that act immorally most of the time. And being conscious, supposedly anyway, we have no excuse.

[RAFH]

I was trying to step around that one which is why I said "reason to believe", belief does not require proof. I was just bouncing back the "No reason to believe in it" remark.

I don't see how that changes anything. Not trying to convert you or anything but it seems your basically saying "When it comes down to belief, you do need to show evidence against the existence of something".

Which is still not possible. Or I'm just confused. Clarify?

No, I'm saying when there is no empirical evidence at all, for or against, all that you can have is a decision based around belief.

But no evidence at all, is evidence against. How can you believe something for no reason whatsoever? I mean, did the idea of a gawd just pop into your head? For no reason whatsoever? Just standing around one day and "wop" or "foop" and there it was, this idea there was an invisible, untouchable, unsmellable, untasteable, unhearable being in a different sort of reality from this one that created this one?

Seems to me a very odd thing to have pop unbidden into your mind. But then, I find a lot of things people do to be very odd.

[RAFH]

Absent evidence, how would you know if you were wrong?

I could very well be wrong, I'm human and make mistakes, in the future my beliefs could change - after all I started as an agnostic. Would you accept (assuming you are an atheist) that you might be wrong and that a deity could exist even if we have no evidence.

There could indeed be no God(s), in which case of course my mistake has no real consequence. There could also be God(s) which is not the Christian one that I have chosen, in which case my decision may have many consquences. However I think I have made an informed choice, which I accept is influenced by both emotions and upbringing, so I am willing to accept that outcome because absent of evidence following a morality I accept is more important to me than any promise of an afterlife.

How could you have made an informed choice if there is no evidence either way?

[David M]

Huh? Why would innocence be a given? And what does that have to do with "If A then B"?

Because at a the level of defining morality theoretically you start with a question which defines its parameters and then proceed to the conclusion. Totally separate from the practical application on morality where you have to determine what the parametesr of the situation actually are.

As to the others they all rely on the applicable morality in dealing with other species and ther capability of acting moraly.

So predator-prey relationships include the consideration of preservation of life while taking another life. What may be moral for one species may not be so for another. A point I tried to make clear before.

Predators are what control populations of their prey. Why would you have to kill predators to control their population. Excess predators are a very rare thing. The only reason population excesses exist at all is because something else, usually man, has upset the apple cart and depleted their prey. Often by depleting the food source of the prey. Seems to me, we are the ones that act immorally most of the time. And being conscious, supposedly anyway, we have no excuse.

Rare means it can happen which was the example I was using, generalising from a specific example can lead to error.

Yes, I'd agree we often act immorrally as a species.

[David M]

I don't see how that changes anything. Not trying to convert you or anything but it seems your basically saying "When it comes down to belief, you do need to show evidence against the existence of something".

Which is still not possible. Or I'm just confused. Clarify?

No, I'm saying when there is no empirical evidence at all, for or against, all that you can have is a decision based around belief.

But no evidence at all, is evidence against. How can you believe something for no reason whatsoever? I mean, did the idea of a gawd just pop into your head? For no reason whatsoever? Just standing around one day and "wop" or "foop" and there it was, this idea there was an invisible, untouchable, unsmellable, untasteable, unhearable being in a different sort of reality from this one that created this one?

Seems to me a very odd thing to have pop unbidden into your mind. But then, I find a lot of things people do to be very odd.

When I say no evidence I mean evidence as we would accept in confirmin a scientific hypothesis. Evidence that is subject to the empirical method does not exist but the Bible etc is ecidence. The fact that it is self-confirming testimony does not mean that it cannot be considered as evidence at all, just that it does not meet some evidentiary standards.

The general position of anyone who does nt accept christianity is that the Bible does not fulfil their requirement for evidence of the Christian God's existence.

[Autodidact]

[QUOTE=David M;34957]
Considering the matter under consideration was about Faith, a belief in a supernatural power, if you consider it makes no difference why join the discussion? No, the matter under discussion was Young Earth arguments. You asserted that regarding matters of faith, you relied on God, implying that there is such a thing OUTSIDE YOUR HEAD. Or are you saying that God only exists inside your head?


Having clarified the basis for my usage according to my religious beliefs, which are a personal position and thus do exist entirely inside my head, there is a supernatural power that exists outside my head which is well represented by the term God as it is understood by most.
Without evidence, how would you know whether or not there is a supernatural power that exists outside your head? So far the only thing you have established is that you have faith inside your head. How do you get from your mental concept to an external reality?

I classify myself as Christian, which is a broad definition. So why, when I said you were Christian, did you say that I was wrong? I'm mystified. Were you reluctant to admit it? Did you not understand the rather simple sentence, "My mistake, I thought you were Christian"? Are you deliberately trying to confuse the discussion? I'm just stumped. How can you expect other people to have a reasonable conversation with you when you deny statements that you yourself believe to be true?

O.K., the point of establishing that you are indeed a Christian relates to your moral values. Unless you are a very unusual Christian, I assume that you believe that we are all born in sin as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve, and that the only path to salvation lies in accepting the sacrifice of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice in affect atones for our sins, if we accept it. Right? And my point is that entire scenario is fundamentally immoral, because at its core is the idea that I'm responsible for someone else's actions (Adam and Eve) and that someone else can atone for my actions (Jesus.) Fundamental to any coherent, non-primitive morality is that core idea that I am responsible for my own actions, and if I screw up, I have to do my best to make it right, and only the person I harmed can forgive me, based on my actions, my atonement, and their views. So my point is that at the very core of your religious belief is an anti-moral, immoral concept.
...<snip long boring explication of personal myth-system>

Jesus (leaving aside for the moment whether he is a historical figure or not) did not redeem anyone else by dying on the cross, the message is one to show us how we may redeem ourselves.

By dying?

By standing by what is morally correct, even if we have to lay down our lives to do so, we remain moral beings and are thus redeemed. Are you saying that Jesus had a choice as to whether to be executed or not?

I'll even go so far as to say that belief in God is not the determining factor, its is being a moral person that is, I consider it anthropomorphism that God wishes us to believe in, or worship, God. An atheist can be just as worthy as a Christian. I realize that each Christian invents their own definition of what it means to be Christian, but I gotta tell you that you're pretty far outside any mainstream definition, if you don't believe that faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. If you believe that atheists are saved, well you can call it Christianity, but I'd say at that point you're using the word in your own private sense.

No one is guilty for someone else's actions, and that no-one else can atone for your sins. You are responsible for your own actions. So babies are not born in sin? Faith is not required for salvation? Jesus did not die that we may be saved? God did not so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?

[ No, you have misunderstood my argument. It is not that what you believe is stupid (and I don't believe I did call it stupid, actually), I don't really know what you believe. My argument is that in general, believing anything without evidence is considered a symptom of mental illness. What do you call people who believe things without any evidence? I call them crazy. I thought your belief was based on faith, that is, independent of evidence.

There is evidence for what I believe in, the message that I see contained within the Bible is sufficient for me to take a position that the God that it leads to is real and the correct one to heed the teachings of (I definitely don't mean that in the sense of hearing voices).
Well, I'm not surprised, since it bears very little resemblance to what the Bible actually says, but seems to be your own personal views described in terms of the Bible. In any case, before you get to His teachings, most of which I find reprehensible, let's first try to figure out whether He exists, shall we?

I'm hearing too contradictory things,(1) It is not possible for there to be evidence of the supernatural, including God. (2) There is evidence for your God.
What I accept is that hard independent evidence outside the Bible and associated Christian writings is totally lacking - circumstantial evidence may infer the existence. That's what I meant in my previous usages of material evidence, that which directly and independently pertains to the matter under consideration rather than physical or non-imaginary.

You obviously don't see the Bible etc as sufficent evidence, or any evidence at all, but in my view that is rejection of its validity rather than rejection that its is a form of evidence per se. Dont jump to conclusions. The Bible is evidence. It's approximately 1.3 scintilla of evidence, contradicted by tons of other evidence. It has some evidentiary value, but once you know who wrote it and when, it's very slim, and better explained in many other ways than that God inspired, dictated, or had anything to do with it.

You have described in detail how you yourself do not believe what the Bible says. At the same time, you rely on it to provide the core of your ontology.


So glad you reconsidered your hasty decision to exit the discussion. Now can we return to my many substantive questions? To summarize: if you believe things without evidence, aren't you extremely likely to be mistaken in your beliefs?

I believe based on evidence that I find sufficiently valid and a lack of refuting evidence that I find in any way valid. I may be mistaken in my appraisal of the validity of the various forms of evidence. That's what we're trying to determine. That's the point of the discussion, to determine whether you are mistaken. So let's look at it:
What is your evidence, and what do you conclude from it?

So other Gods, demons, angels, fairies, ghosts, little green men, tooth fairies, invisible unicorns, Zamindar, new age crystal stuff, astrology - all woo. Are you asserting that the Muslim has less evidence for his God than you have for yours?

[VoxRat]

[Moved from Evolution & Origins, where it was split off from a discussion that had something to do with E&O, but became purely about religion. (Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. :D)

-VoxRat, Moderator, Evolution & Origins]

[David M]

Looks like needling is still the prefered method of discourse :D

Without evidence, how would you know whether or not there is a supernatural power that exists outside your head? So far the only thing you have established is that you have faith inside your head. How do you get from your mental concept to an external reality?

Not without evidence, as I thought I made clear I find the bible to contain sufficient evidence. I fully accept that the bible does not satisfy the requirements for evidence under the purview of the scientific method and that you do not find it sufficient evidence. As you say "It has some evidentiary value".

So why, when I said you were Christian, did you say that I was wrong? I'm mystified.

I didn't say that you were wrong. I didn't comment about the fact that you assumed I was a Christian, that's why the sentence did not appear in my reply to your post.

Were you reluctant to admit it? Did you not understand the rather simple sentence, "My mistake, I thought you were Christian"? Are you deliberately trying to confuse the discussion?

No.
I made no response to that sentence having previously stated I would no longer address my beliefs in this thread.
No, are you?

I'm just stumped. How can you expect other people to have a reasonable conversation with you when you deny statements that you yourself believe to be true?

I did not deny that statement was true.

You wrote: "The morality you accept is immoral. It is based on the idea that you are guilty for someone else's actions, and that someone else can atone for your sins."

You assumed that I did accept this morality and I pointed out that you did not know my morality or beliefs as you had not asked about them previously and that it was a strawman and an insult. As I don't agree with that specific idea my morality does not arise from it. You then assumed that I was a Christian and I did not reply because I stated in that post that I would answer no more questions about my beliefs.

O.K., the point of establishing that you are indeed a Christian relates to your moral values. Unless you are a very unusual Christian, I assume that you believe that we are all born in sin as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve, and that the only path to salvation lies in accepting the sacrifice of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, whose sacrifice in affect atones for our sins, if we accept it. Right? And my point is that entire scenario is fundamentally immoral, because at its core is the idea that I'm responsible for someone else's actions (Adam and Eve) and that someone else can atone for my actions (Jesus.) Fundamental to any coherent, non-primitive morality is that core idea that I am responsible for my own actions, and if I screw up, I have to do my best to make it right, and only the person I harmed can forgive me, based on my actions, my atonement, and their views. So my point is that at the very core of your religious belief is an anti-moral, immoral concept.
...<snip long boring explication of personal myth-system>

You are the one who asked what religion I was, considering that "Christian" covers a large number of differing positions that conflict on specific points I thought you might find it useful to get some of the more contentious points clarified so you would have an idea of my beliefs before asking more questions. I apologise that you find long sentences boring, shall I stick to single syllable answers from now on?

Shame you snipped, and apparently ignored, the replies to your very question. For the hard of comprehension I'll repeat the relevant sentences:

The "Fall" only applied to Adam and Eve and was spiritual, death has existed for as long as life. The whole "Original Sin" idea is a control mechanism added at a later date.

Jesus (...) did not redeem anyone else by dying on the cross

No one is guilty for someone else's actions, and that no-one else can atone for your sins. You are responsible for your own actions.

So yes, I am an unusual Christian. Adam and Eve sinned and it only afectted them, thats it, therefore none of us are born in sin, our actions after that determine whether we sin and whether we can atone for our sins.

You are again arguing against a Strawman of my beliefs even after I have made it pretty clear what they are on the issue. I will concede that the scenario as you argue it is indeed immoral and flawed.

By dying?

Are you saying that Jesus had a choice as to whether to be executed or not?

By refusing to compromise his beliefs even if it lead to his death.

Essentially yes, if Jesus had forsaken his beliefs and morality he would almost certainly not ended up being crucified. If he stated that he was not King of the Jews or spoken against the priests accusations would Pilate have come to the same decision?

Is that a poor message, that being moral even if it results in suffering is better than acting immorally out of expedience.

I realize that each Christian invents their own definition of what it means to be Christian, but I gotta tell you that you're pretty far outside any mainstream definition, if you don't believe that faith in Jesus Christ is required for salvation. If you believe that atheists are saved, well you can call it Christianity, but I'd say at that point you're using the word in your own private sense.

That paragraph was unclear, it was addresing redeeming oneself. The point I was trying to make is that belief in God or worship of God is not the determining factor of whether someone can redeem their immoral actions ( sins in my terminology). Everyone is capable of atoning for their own misdeeds irrespective of their religious position.

Faith in the teachings of Jesus is required for salvation so no Atheists are not saved but they should not be considered sinners if they had lead a moral life without accepting God. Being a Christian is not a pre-condition for being moral or good.

So babies are not born in sin? Faith is not required for salvation? Jesus did not die that we may be saved? God did not so love the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life?

No they are not.
Yes it is, but you can be a moral person without faith.
Yes he died while showing us how to be save ourselves.
Yes he did.

I thought your belief was based on faith, that is, independent of evidence.

Independent of evidence as it is used in naturalistic methods, which cannot invoke the supernatural.

Well, I'm not surprised, since it bears very little resemblance to what the Bible actually says, but seems to be your own personal views described in terms of the Bible. In any case, before you get to His teachings, most of which I find reprehensible, let's first try to figure out whether He exists, shall we?

I'm not a biblical literalist. Ok lets see if He exists.

I'm hearing too contradictory things,(1) It is not possible for there to be evidence of the supernatural, including God. (2) There is evidence for your God.

How many ways do I have to re-phrase this before you stop being confused?

It is possible for there to be such evidence. The bible is such evidence.

Science will never provide positive evidence as it excludes the supernatural (which is fine). We have no independent corrobarating evidence so far outside Christian writings. We have no scientific evidence for the existense of God. We have no physical evidence of the existence of God other than what is already in the Christian writings. We have 1 set of evidence which I admit is self-affirming.

Dont jump to conclusions. The Bible is evidence. It's approximately 1.3 scintilla of evidence, contradicted by tons of other evidence. It has some evidentiary value, but once you know who wrote it and when, it's very slim, and better explained in many other ways than that God inspired, dictated, or had anything to do with it.

Ok, I'll drop "any evidence at all" but you obviously don't see it as containing sufficient valid evidence to prove the existence of God.

I'm open to examples of better explanations.

You have described in detail how you yourself do not believe what the Bible says. At the same time, you rely on it to provide the core of your ontology.

No, I believe what the Bible says. I just don't accept it says things in literal terms in many cases.

That's what we're trying to determine. That's the point of the discussion, to determine whether you are mistaken. So let's look at it:
What is your evidence, and what do you conclude from it?

The bible, God exists.

You've already said explications of personal myth-systems are boring and seem to have ignored what I wrote before so is it worth my time to write a very long post that goes into any more detail?

So other Gods, demons, angels, fairies, ghosts, little green men, tooth fairies, invisible unicorns, Zamindar, new age crystal stuff, astrology - all woo. Are you asserting that the Muslim has less evidence for his God than you have for yours?

No valid evidence in the religious writings of Islam to indicate that they describe God correctly or lead to the correct morality.

[Ray Moscow]

No valid evidence in the religious writings of Islam to indicate that they describe God correctly or lead to morality.

Correct. Ditto for the Bible.

[Autodidact]

Without evidence, how would you know whether or not there is a supernatural power that exists outside your head? So far the only thing you have established is that you have faith inside your head. How do you get from your mental concept to an external reality?

Not without evidence, as I thought I made clear I find the bible to contain sufficient evidence. I fully accept that the bible does not satisfy the requirements for evidence under the purview of the scientific method and that you do not find it sufficient evidence. As you say "It has some evidentiary value". Well what confused me is when you said, re: God:

One is supernatural and is based on belief, and thus independent of any empirical evidence, Is your knowledge of God independent of any evidence, or based on the Bible?

Further, in response to my question as to why would you believe in something without evidence, you replied:

Because I believe in it, as it has no material evidence all that there can be is belief.

To me that says that you believe in God because you believe in God, and that there neither is nor can be any evidence for God.

When it was pointed out to you that believing something because you believe it is crazy, you became quite testy, as well as obscene.

You also said:

Yes I meant what I wrote, that the existence of God is something I hold as true. As I stated explicity - because there is no material evidence on the subject of whether God does or does not exist anyone can choose to believe in the existence of God or not to believe. Now you are saying that the Bible is exactly what you were stating does not and cannot exist. Confusing. Well, contradictory, really.
So why, when I said you were Christian, did you say that I was wrong? I'm mystified.

I didn't say that you were wrong. I didn't comment about the fact that you assumed I was a Christian, that's why the sentence did not appear in my reply to your post. Confused again. I said:
My mistake, I thought you were Christian. You said, ...fuck off. I said,
I must have been right.
You said,
Nope, you were just offensive.

That is, as I read it, no, I was not right about you being a Christian, I was just offensive in so calling you.
Oh, I get it, you thought I was saying that I was right about something else? No, what I was saying was that the fact that you told me to fuck off confirmed my suspicion that you were a Christian. O.K., confusion cleared up now, I hope.

[David M]

If you want any actual further discussion try looking up some definitions. I'm not using terms just for lulz.

You've already asked what I mean by the term material evidence, and I've given you an answer. "That's what I meant in my previous usages of material evidence, that which directly and independently pertains to the matter under consideration rather than physical or non-imaginary."

Empirical - "Based on experimental data" (from the dictionary)
Material - "that which directly and independently pertains to the matter under consideration"

For someone who is supposedly good at explaining science, according to Febble, you seem woefuly inept at understanding the qualifications of the word "evidence" might alter its meaning.

You follow with more semantics but the main problem here is that you have got things out of order. Lets try some accuracy rather than re-writing history and doing some quote-mining.

Post #45
You don't know my morality just as you don't know my actual beliefs. Try asking before you argue against a strawman.

As to the rest of the insults and strawmen in your other posts - Fuck off.

Post #46
You don't know my morality just as you don't know my actual beliefs. Try asking before you argue against a strawman.

My mistake, I thought you were Christian.

As to the rest of the insults and strawmen in your other posts - Fuck off.

I must have been right.

Post #47
I must have been right.

Nope, you were just offensive.

So logically what would your claim about being right apply to - what I characterised as strawmen and insults or your new comment about my being christian which was a reply you made to a different quote of mine.

And what does my reply refer to, a sentence unconnected to the comment I quoted? This is apart from the fact that the phrase does not mean that you were not right it means that (right or wrong) you were just being offensive.

Rather than actually replying to a post that I took time to put together all you can do is reiterate points I've already addressed, try to demonstrate that you didn't have a failure in comprehension, quote-mine and re-write the order that things appeared.

This is added to your previous post where you snip and ignore information that directly applies to the question you ask and create strawmen. So Autodidact, where are the viable arguments from you?

So far what I've seen from you is more characteristic of a Yecker's behaviour, or of a Troll. Convince me why I should spend my time conversing with you.

Do you have anything substantive to add to the discussion or will you just rely on semantics, "insecurity, defensiveness, and lack of viable argument"?

[Gaga]

Hi David,
I've been reading your posts so far in this thread, would you mind help me understand better your POV?
Could your worldview be described with the concept of 'non overlapping magistiria', á la Gould?
e.t.a. Could you expand a bit about the kind of evidence you are talking about? I dunno with some practical example, for instance. Apologies if I missed those