Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Options
1…6791112…327

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Nonsense you are just moving the goal posts. It just has to explain human morality, which it does. Simple proto-cells 3 billion years ago didn't have any morality so what caused them to exist is irrelevant to the question of where human morality came from.

    I'm not going to take any heed of empty accusations.

    It's a valid point ultimately both arguments converge if we go far enough back.

    I would hold that the brain gives us the potential to determine what is right from wrong, but biological evolution itself doesn't inform the content of what is actually determined from the conscience. Unless you are saying that evolution itself forms a moral philosophy leading us into Sam Harris territory which is far from agreed to by most scientists.

    It follows logically (in respect to the other argument) that finite things must have an ultimate cause because we say that things came into existence X years ago. Saying that suggests that there must have been something which happened to bring this into existence X years ago to begin with.


  • Options
    #243
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    @philologos, I'd just like to bump my who/how point in case you missed it.

    EDIT: OPS, wrong link, corrected now


  • Options
    #244
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm not going to take any heed of empty accusations.

    It's a valid point ultimately both arguments converge if we go far enough back.

    If we go "far enough back" life forms don't have morality (or brains for that matter).

    So the cause of evolution is irrelevant to the question of how morality originated, since it happened billions of years later. Unless you want to propose that the entire system was started in a particular way as to produce human morality. In which case I would be very interested in see the evidence for that.
    philologos wrote: »
    I would hold that the brain gives us the potential to determine what is right from wrong, but biological evolution itself doesn't inform the content of what is actually determined from the conscience.

    You can hold that all you like, but there is no evidence to support such a position, and as such it is illogical to use such a position in support of the idea that the universe has a creator, even if you ignore the point above, since this position itself requires a God to make sense. Circular reasoning.
    philologos wrote: »
    Unless you are saying that evolution itself forms a moral philosophy leading us into Sam Harris territory which is far from agreed to by most scientists.

    Evolution is the only workable explanation so far for human morality. It is certainly not universally agreed by all scientists. But since when did that matter in the context of this discussion, you think all scientists agree that God exists and created the universe?

    You are supposing what is likely. It is far from likely that we base our notions of morality off some objective scale that was implanted in us through some unknown and undescribed process.

    Compared to that evolutionary morality is the bee's knees of a theory.
    philologos wrote: »
    It follows logically (in respect to the other argument) that finite things must have an ultimate cause because we say that things came into existence X years ago.

    Yes. And why can't the creator of the universe itself have a cause, which itself may or may not be ultimate.

    Or to put it another way, why assume that there is just the creator and our universe, and thus the creator must be the ultimate cause?


  • Options
    #245
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    Because I can bet you anything that if we discuss the God as defined in the Bible immediately we will go back to the discussion of whether or not all things were created.

    We need to sort out the prerequisites before we can get into any thorough investigation of the Bible.

    "Is there a Creator?" is the question we need to ask before we can ask "Is that Creator the God of Christianity?". You will have to be patient if we are going to do this thoroughly.

    You see this is what I've been trying to do but you're not biting your doing the same thing at the level of the Christian God as you are at Creator God. You keep ignoring evidence and appealing to ignorance or fallacy.

    I was trying to show you that a belief is only as good as the results it predicts. Christianity fails here especially when observing the universe. The questions about dualism were an attempt to get you there. Unfortunately you retreated to "I'm not sure but I'll find out when I die", instead of engaging with the trouble inherent in causality and person-hood, essentially free will(or lack thereof) which Christianity fails to reconcile itself with.


  • Options
    #246
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Wicknight: For the sake of argument I'm going to cut this short. I'm not denying that the reason that we do philosophy is because of how we are created as human beings (This doesn't actually preclude God).

    However, if the morality we hold to is a product of evolution itself (which is dubious), I don't see how this would guarantee that humans have the same base moral structure. It seems that when we say that someone is wrong, we are making a claim about moral reality rather than anything else.

    CerebralCortex: all I am saying is from what we can observe in the universe what is the most reasonable conclusion as to how we got here. You're saying that we should just give up and not bother asking.

    I can say that I don't know everything and I can still probe into what is rather than throwing in the towel. That's entirely valid.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Unfortunately you retreated to "I'm not sure but I'll find out when I die"

    Yes this is getting rather annoying.

    If there is a rational argument for God in there some where constantly retreating to the "Well thats what I believe and you can't prove me wrong" position every time an argument for God goes no where or runs into problems is not a good way of demonstrating how rational that belief is.


  • Options
    #248
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    philologos wrote: »
    You're saying that we should just give up and not bother asking.

    I think the point being made is that we don't need to fill gaps in our knowledge with "god did it" as this "explanation" doesn't explain anything (how did god do it?).


  • Options
    #249
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    ...However, if the morality we hold to is a product of evolution itself (which is dubious).

    Dude! All the evidence is pointing towards evolution or naturalistic explanation, it's hard to be doubtful about that when there are no other competing theories/hypothesis that fit with what we know about nature. I'd love know to what does it matter to you if morals where evolved or not? It's intellectually dishonest to want something to be true contrary to the evidence.

    Just for the dig :P Mentioning Sam Harris is so transparently a straw-man.


  • Options
    #250
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pts wrote: »
    I think the point being made is that we don't need to fill gaps in our knowledge with "god did it" as this "explanation" doesn't explain anything (how did god do it?).

    This still doesn't make your position any more tenable. It is reasonable to believe that there is an ultimate cause to all things other than just that the universe created itself. Therefore I believe in what is more reasonable. All I need to do is find some rationale to believe what I do. It is up to others to decide whether they want to do the same or if they don't. There is more to this than mere arguments, but arguments can help people see why I believe what I do and I do have reason for my point of view rather than giving up and saying on a very tenable basis that all we can know is material, and that science is the only valid means of inquiry.


  • Options
    #251
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    CerebralCortex: all I am saying is from what we can observe in the universe what is the most reasonable conclusion as to how we got here. You're saying that we should just give up and not bother asking..

    I'm nor saying that. I'm saying we shouldn't jump to illogical conclusions. The Kalam Cosmological argument is widely accepted as being fallacious and that's all you've got.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    Wicknight: For the sake of argument I'm going to cut this short. I'm not denying that the reason that we do philosophy is because of how we are created as human beings (This doesn't actually preclude God).

    However, if the morality we hold to is a product of evolution itself (which is dubious), I don't see how this would guarantee that humans have the same base moral structure.

    In the same way it guarantees we all have 10 fingers and 10 toes (ie most of us do and some of us don't)

    The brain is another organ, it is grown based on the genetic pattern in your DNA, and the functionality that is part of it is shaped by this genetic pattern.

    We all have the ability to recognize faces quickly, and to judge if something is dangerously hot by just feeling it. Why would morality be any different?

    We know that damage to certain part of the brain drastically effects morality.

    While it would be a misrepresentation to say we fully understand morality and the causes of different moral instincts (as you say scientists still debate this left right and centre all the time), the only workable explanation, with all its problems, is an evolutionary framework for morality.

    You can disagree with that all you like but you disagree because you already have made your mind up that God makes morality and gives it to us through some unknown supernatural process.

    This therefore cannot be used as an argument for the existence of this God in the first place. This is circular reasoning. Start without God and you are back at the evolutionary explanation for morality, which doesn't support the God hypothesis in the first place.
    philologos wrote: »
    It seems that when we say that someone is wrong, we are making a claim about moral reality rather than anything else.

    Of course.

    Take a different example. When we say poop is disgusting we are making a claim that we expect to be universal. But it isn't, it is an evolved instinct that has particular reasons, but is not found universally in all humans. Some people, probably due to changes in their brain that deviate from the norm, don't think poop is disgusting. This is rare because poop is dangerous so we have evolved an instinct to see it as something to avoid, and thus people without this instinct are at greater risk of disease and death.

    Despite this we don't go "poop is disgusting in my subjective opinion". We don't think like that. We just go "poop is disgusting" and we think if anyone doesn't agree there is something wrong with them.

    Morality appears to work exactly the same, we declare our subjective opinions about morality to be universal, and we think if anyone disagrees with us they are wrong.

    There are evolutionary reasons we do this, but it doesn't point to there actually being an objective moral standard, any more than it points to their being an objective standard for what is or isn't disgusting.


  • Options
    #253
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Dude! All the evidence is pointing towards evolution or naturalistic explanation, it's hard to be doubtful about that when there are no other competing theories/hypothesis that fit with what we know about nature. I'd love know to what does it matter to you if morals where evolved or not? It's intellectually dishonest to want something to be true contrary to the evidence.

    This isn't true. Most scientists dispute heavily that science can answer moral questions and indeed Sam Harris provoked a huge debate amongst scientists in the media when he said this. Here's one criticism in Scientific American, plenty more can be found on a google.

    I don't deny that the brain was formed through biological evolution. What I do deny is that the substance of what we believe or our philosophy is informed by evolution.

    I think it is dishonest of you to claim that Sam Harris' conclusions are anything more than moral philosophy.

    pts: I'm simply not going to be able to get to every point. There's simply too much to deal with. Hopefully some of the others will chip in as well.


  • Options
    #254
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    This still doesn't make your position any more tenable. It is reasonable to believe that there is an ultimate cause to all things other than just that the universe created itself.

    As has been repeatably explained to you those are not the only two options.

    You seem to just ignore this point, which frankly makes your argument that you are just being reasonable some what stupid.

    Why is God did it any more reasonable than M-theory (i seem to remember asking this already :rolleyes:)


  • Options
    #255
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    This isn't true. Most scientists dispute heavily that science can answer moral questions and indeed Sam Harris provoked a huge debate amongst scientists in the media when he said this.

    That was a debate over whether science can tell us which moral opinion is right or wrong.

    It was not a debate over whether the physical brain, as a product of evolution, is responsible for morality as a trait of humans in the first place.

    Again the details are still being discussed, but few scientists disagree with this general principle. Humans have moral standards because of the brain, and the brain developed the way it did because of evolution.

    Science may or may not be able to tell you if it is moral to kill your baby (Harris is arguing it can, others argue it can't precisely because their is no objective standard to assess with science and thus what would science be measuring?).

    It can though tell you why you wonder about whether it is moral to kill your baby or not in the first place, ie why you have morals at all and why certain things are more important in our moral questions (killing babies) than others (should you sleep on the left or right side of your bed)


  • Options
    #256
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    ^^ In respect to M-theory I've given you my thoughts on that already if you look.


  • Options
    #257
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    philologos wrote: »
    pts: I'm simply not going to be able to get to every point. There's simply too much to deal with. Hopefully some of the others will chip in as well.

    Philologos alone
    avatar_246ba2d94635_128.png

    Ok, hopefully we'll be able to revisit the point some time soon.


  • Options
    #258
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    This isn't true. Most scientists dispute heavily that science can answer moral questions and indeed Sam Harris provoked a huge debate amongst scientists in the media when he said this. Here's one criticism in Scientific American, plenty more can be found on a google.

    Really? Name 5 actual scientists that are having a heavy dispute that don't have a religious agenda and are actually studying the mind and behaviour. While you're at tell the evolutionary psychologists there wasting there time. Oh yes before I forget let the neuro scientists know that the brain can't explain there behaviour etc. :rolleyes:
    philologos wrote: »
    I don't deny that the brain was formed through biological evolution. What I do deny is that the substance of what we believe or our philosophy is informed by evolution.

    The substance of what you believe is you're brain, which is evolved, experiencing evidence.
    philologos wrote: »
    I think it is dishonest of you to claim that Sam Harris' conclusions are anything more than moral philosophy.

    Ah no, what I'm saying is that human behaviour and why they choose to behave in a certain way is a product of evolved brains. Guess what they can be studied by science!


  • Options
    #259
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex: Scientists are scientists. I'm not going to pretend with you that atheist scientists are somehow more "scientists" than theists. If you want to hold such a tragic attitude to science that's you're prerogative.*

    * Sounds shockingly familiar to Harris' discriminatory understanding of science in respect to Francis Collins


  • Options
    #260
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    CerebralCortex: Scientists are scientists. I'm not going to pretend with you that atheist scientists are somehow more "scientists" than theists. If you want to hold such a tragic attitude to science that's you're prerogative.*

    * Sounds shockingly familiar to Harris' discriminatory understanding of science in respect to Francis Collins

    Okay fair enough, but address the rest of the post. As for the genome project I'm glad Craig Venter is around. ;)


  • Options
    #261
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Science cannot make value judgements as to what is ultimate good and what is ultimately evil, it cannot make value judgements in respect to how we should run or order our societies. Such things are dealt with in political and moral philosophy.

    Studying how the brain works != studying what is right or wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    philologos wrote: »
    Science cannot make value judgements as to what is ultimate good and what is ultimately evil, it cannot make value judgements in respect to how we should run or order our societies. Such things are dealt with in political and moral philosophy.

    Studying how the brain works != studying what is right or wrong.

    If we define a heuristic to evaluate what is good/bad then science can help us develop policies to maximize that heuristic.

    Sam Harris proposes using the well-being of conscious creatures as said heuristic. Now you can argue that this heuristic was not justified, but if we agree on the heuristic then science can tell us how to act morally and what is right and wrong.


  • Options
    #263
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    lmaopml wrote: »
    Morbert, is this tied in with the many worlds / parallel universe or multiverse theory and the graviton boson? :o Sorry, I have a very lay understanding of theoretical physics, but I find it interesting - and was wondering are the creation and annhilation operators, mathematical operators for equations in the realms of that area of theoretical physics?

    It's related to gravity, but not to the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. I will give a response with some detail soon. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that a state of "nothing" isn't actually nothing in the theological sense, but rather a state that, due to physical laws like gravity, can produce space-time manifolds, and hence universes.


  • Options
    #264
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    pts: You're going to need to give more details.


  • Options
    #265
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    pts wrote: »
    If we define a heuristic to evaluate what is good/bad then science can help us develop policies to maximize that heuristic.

    Sam Harris proposes using the well-being of conscious creatures as said heuristic. Now you can argue that this heuristic was not justified, but if we agree on the heuristic then science can tell us how to act morally and what is right and wrong.

    My problem with Harris's book is that I don't think there was ever such a dispute. No reasonable theologian has ever claimed we can't consider the scientific facts when trying to understand a situation that requires a moral choice.


  • Options
    #266
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    pts wrote: »
    If we define a heuristic to evaluate what is good/bad then science can help us develop policies to maximize that heuristic.

    Sam Harris proposes using the well-being of conscious creatures as said heuristic. Now you can argue that this heuristic was not justified, but if we agree on the heuristic then science can tell us how to act morally and what is right and wrong.

    Yes, if you arbitrarily redefine something to suit yourself then you can examine it scientifically.

    This does not mean that science can tell us what is right or wrong - it simply means you can redefine 'right' and 'wrong' to make them mean something totally different, then triumphantly present your results as if they mean something more than that you've learned how to butcher the English language.


  • Options
    #267
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    philologos wrote: »
    ^^ In respect to M-theory I've given you my thoughts on that already if you look.

    You said it was just a hypothesis. Isn't "God did it" also just a hypothesis?

    Why pick one over the other?


  • Options
    #268
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    philologos wrote: »
    pts: You're going to need to give more details.
    Details about? I haven't read the book, I am just attempting to summarise what I believe the premise of the book is.
    Morbert wrote: »
    My problem with Harris's book is that I don't think there was ever such a dispute. No reasonable theologian has ever claimed we can't consider the scientific facts when trying to understand a situation that requires a moral choice.

    While I don't disagree with your point, I do believe there are gray areas such as abortion. We can try to record the scientific facts about when a fetus feels pain, develops a working brain etc etc yet this scientific knowledge is unlikely to change his/her opinion on the moral choice of abortion.


  • Options
    #269
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, if you arbitrarily redefine something to suit yourself then you can examine it scientifically.

    This does not mean that science can tell us what is right or wrong - it simply means you can redefine 'right' and 'wrong' to make them mean something totally different, then triumphantly present your results as if they mean something more than that you've learned how to butcher the English language.

    Right and wrong have always been opinions, no redefinition of these words is required to get to Harris' argument.

    I personally don't agree with Harris, and I'm not alone. But your little tirade against butchering the English language seems wildly off the mark fo what is being discussed.


  • Options
    #270
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    PDN wrote: »
    Yes, if you arbitrarily redefine something to suit yourself then you can examine it scientifically.

    This does not mean that science can tell us what is right or wrong - it simply means you can redefine 'right' and 'wrong' to make them mean something totally different, then triumphantly present your results as if they mean something more than that you've learned how to butcher the English language.

    What was redefined? What was the original definition and what is the new definition? I don't think your point makes sense.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Right and wrong have always been opinions, no redefinition of these words is required to get to Harris' argument.

    Ah, not so fast. Right and wrong are opinions if we accept your initial atheistic assumptions.

    So, the position being advanced by atheists to Christians would seem to be that science can determine right and wrong if you begin by accepting the atheist's conclusion as a premise. Can anyone say 'Circular Argument'?

    In my book, however, right and wrong are absolute concepts.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement