Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Zombrex · 23-01-2013 11:01pm

Doc Farrell wrote: »

So the tens of thousands of working scientists who are Christian are anti-science?

Yes. This shouldn't surprise anyone, thousands of non-Christian scientists are anti-science.

In fact the scientific methodology factors this in to the methodology. If science could trust the judgement of individual scientists then you wouldn't have things like repeatability and falsifiability incorporated into the methodology.

A key part of science is not trusting the judgement of the individual scientists. This allows scientists to believe in God, believe in Muhammad, believe in Alien Comet Spaceships, believe in ghosts, believe in psychics, believe in homopathy etc and still do science. So long as they follow the scientific methodology they are doing science.

This is a virtue of science (and something completely absent from things like philosophy), but it should not be confused with the view that because these scientists are doing science then their personal spiritual beliefs are some how compatible with science.

Again if methodologies like theology were better at discerning accurate information from the world around us (including supernatural questions such as does God exist), then they would already be incorporated into the scientific method.

If you think I'm wrong try and come up with a reason why this isn't the case, something a bit more in depth than just saying that science only deals with the physical (or at least ask yourself why science only deals with that, if it is so easy to accurate assess the supernatural using things like theology why is science not doing that right now, and why do we have thousands of religions but only 1 theory of electromagnetism).

Doc Farrell wrote: »

The source, purpose and goal of religion is to experience love, Zombrex. It's that simple.

For something that is about "experiencing love" it seems to spent a lot of time proclaiming things about the world around us (God A exists, god A made the universe, god A wants X, god A really doesn't want Y, Y is a sin, Z cured leprosy, turned water into wine and rose from the dead) .

philologos · 23-01-2013 11:04pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

You can probably anticipate the next comment.

Grand, let's accept this scenario that there's no actual evil until the Fall - no-one has done anything bad yet.

However, for someone to be able to do bad, that potential has to exist within reality, as created by God. So the concept of evil has to exist within God, and the capacity to do evil has to come from God - as the ultimate source of everything that is.

Alternatively, it is necessary to contend that God didn't know what he was doing; he created free will and was then surprised when things got so badly out of control.

Cutting to the chase, either God isn't all good, or God isn't all powerful/knowing.

The Epicurean dilemma, eh? I remember this one from my days as a philosophy student. Let's hold back on it though. We've a few presuppositions to examine here.

1) Yes, the Biblical text is rather clear that there was no evil before the fall. Indeed, Scripturally how could it be said that:

Genesis 1:31 wrote:

And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

2) Evil didn't exist prior to the fall because nothing which could be considered to be evil existed or was manifest in creation. It was when evil first occurred that sin entered the earth, and as subsequent Scripture says as Adam fell, all humanity fell as a result (Romans 5:12).

3) Why can we do what is evil? - God didn't make us to be robotic machines, rather He gave us free will. As autonomous beings the responsibility is on us to act rightly before God in His creation and by His standards.

4) Why does the concept of evil have to exist within God? - Depending on how you understand evil, it can refer to the absence of good, or it can refer to a perversion of what is good (for example intelligence used to perpetrate a mass atrocity).

5) Why is it necessary to believe that God didn't know what He was doing?

6) Things aren't out of His control. God sent His Son Jesus to redeem creation, and He sent Jesus to save us from our sin if we are willing to believe and trust in Him. Otherwise, God's wrath is rightfully upon us. We've sinned in His creation, what we naturally deserve is His punishment rather than his favour. What's incredible about Jesus is that He took the punishment we deserved on our behalf so that we could be forgiven. God sent Jesus to redeem creation, and He will send Jesus to judge at the end of all time.

7) Why must God not be "all good" (because we what we did, how bizarre

)? Why wouldn't God be "all powerful" (again because of what we did)? Moreover, why can't there be a third option such as evil existing for a purpose in creation?

philologos · 23-01-2013 11:06pm

Zombrex wrote: »

Yes. This shouldn't surprise anyone, thousands of non-Christian scientists are anti-science.

This is unbelievable nonsense.

Essentially what is being said is that if you don't agree with my philosophy you're anti-science.

The reality is that many Christian scientists hold science in high regard irrespective of whether atheists believe their philosophy is the handmaiden of science (which is very very very questionable).

Morbert · 23-01-2013 11:33pm

Again, the discussion is falling into old potholes and will be spinning wheels.

To make the discussion more fruitful, let's agree on some definitions.

Empiricism: The theory of knowledge which asserts that what we know about the universe is ultimately obtained through our senses.

Uniformitarianism: The idea that the laws of nature are not changed or suspended on a fundamental level.

Naturalism: The idea that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. The laws of nature are the most fundamental descriptions possible.

Science: The systematic method of investigation characterised by the rigorous application of empiricism and uniformitarianism (and therefore naturalism) to observations. It involves the construction of predictive frameworks à la Popper, Lyell et al.

Christians can accept science. They can accept any theory established by science. Similarly, they can carry out scientific investigations by adopting naturalism, empiricism, and uniformitarianism on a methodological level.

However, Christians are not empricisists or naturalists. They do not accept strong uniformitarianism. Atheists see a cognitive dissonance in picking and choosing what philosophies to adopt when deciding what is inferred. Atheists maintain that their epistemology and ontology are more consistent.

[edit] - In short: Christians are not necessarily anti-science. But they are anti-empiricism, anti-uniformitarianism, and anti-naturalism, which make up the foundation of the scientific methodology.

philologos · 23-01-2013 11:36pm

Morbert wrote: »

Again, the discussion is falling into old potholes and will be spinning wheels.

To make the discussion more fruitful, let's agree on some definitions.

Empiricism: The theory of knowledge which asserts that what we know about the universe is ultimately obtained through our senses.

Uniformitarianism: The idea that the laws of nature are not changed or suspended on a fundamental level.

Naturalism: The idea that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. The laws of nature are the most fundamental descriptions possible.

Science: The systematic method of investigation characterised by the rigorous application of empiricism and uniformitarianism (and therefore naturalism) to observations. It involves the construction of predictive frameworks à la Popper, Lyell et al.

Christians can accept science. They can accept any theory established by science. Similarly, they can carry out scientific investigations by adopting naturalism, empiricism, and uniformitarianism on a methodological level.

However,Christians are not empricisists or naturalists. They do not accept strong uniformitarianism. Atheists see a cognitive dissonance in picking and choosing what philosophies to adopt when deciding what is inferred. Atheists maintain that their epistemology and ontology are more consistent.

I think Christians don't accept scientism. Namely the philosophical belief that all we can know comes through natural science.

That's a matter of philosophy, not of whether or not Christians accept science.

Morbert · 23-01-2013 11:42pm

philologos wrote: »

I think Christians don't accept scientism. Namely the philosophical belief that all we can know comes through natural science.

That's a matter of philosophy, not of whether or not Christians accept science.

"Know" needs to be qualified here before I can comment further. We can, for example, define abstract rules and premises, and deduce consequential theorems and tautologies. This is what mathematicians do every day. What they know does not come from science. Thus, nobody accepts scientism.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2013 1:10am

philologos wrote: »

I think Christians don't accept scientism. Namely the philosophical belief that all we can know comes through natural science.

That's a matter of philosophy, not of whether or not Christians accept science.

By scientism do you mean something different to this?

Empiricism: The theory of knowledge which asserts that what we know about the universe is ultimately obtained through our senses.

Do you have any evidence that you can 'know' anything by any means other than the brains interpretation of the senses? That would be pretty interesting.

Peregrinus · 24-01-2013 3:42am

Morbert wrote: »

Empiricism: The theory of knowledge which asserts that what we know about the universe is ultimately obtained through our senses.

Uniformitarianism: The idea that the laws of nature are not changed or suspended on a fundamental level.

Naturalism: The idea that nothing exists beyond the natural universe. The laws of nature are the most fundamental descriptions possible.

Science: The systematic method of investigation characterised by the rigorous application of empiricism and uniformitarianism (and therefore naturalism) to observations. It involves the construction of predictive frameworks à la Popper, Lyell et al.

I’m going to stop you here, because I think you’re over-reaching yourself. Science doesn’t require that you embrace empiricism or naturalism or even, I think, uniformitarianism. To “do science”, it’s enough that you believe that the natural universe exists, that it is governed by laws. and that knowledge about it can be obtained through the senses. Which is why, as you point out yourself, you can wholeheartedly endorse and practice science, and at the same time embrace rationalism (the view that knowledge about reality can be obtained through the use of reason), acknowledge the truth-value of pure mathematics, etc.

So I think it’s going a little bit far to say that empiricism, uniformitarianism and nanturalism “make up the foundation of the scientific methodology”. They all seem to me to go rather further than they need to to provide a solid foundation for science.

And I think Philologos is correct to suggest that they are, infact, the foundation for what he refers to as scientism - the believe that true knowledge can only be attained through natural science.

As you point out, this can easily degenerate into a semantic debate about what we mean by “know”. I hate semantic debates. But perhaps we can short-circuit it thus: can we agree that we can “know” that it is true that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides? If we can know this, then that’s knowledge which is not empirically obtained, and which relates to something (a platonic figure) not found in the natural universe. (Which I think provides an answer to El Duderino’s question.)

The scientismist would, I think, have to deny that we can know this - indeed, he would have to deny that the claim has any meaning - and, to that extent, you are right to say that there are no (or very few) true scientismists about. But that just illustrates that it’s not just Christians who reject empiricism, naturalism, etc; we pretty well all do.

nagirrac · 24-01-2013 4:41am

I would actually argue that scientism, as in "the improper usage of scientific claims", is now very common. I would base this on the prevalance in modern day culture to claim science "says this" or science "proves that", an unfortunate feature of the information age where everyone has an opinion on everything but knowledge of little.

The most obvious case I can think of is the common claim among non-scientists that life emerged from random processes and the theory of evolution proves this, and by the way also proves no need for a creator. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to answer how life emerged. How you get from organic molecules like amino acids to a cell is still quite the mystery.

I think some of the debate on evolution has become too polarized in nature. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone, given the evidence, can argue against evolution in principle, but that does not stop my fascination for how the mechanisms of evolution work, including the mechanisms that we may have no clue about today. Science is an ongoing fascinating discovery and if there is one thing the history of science teaches us it is to never get too comfortable in our conclusions.

There should be no conflict between science and spirituality. I personally would make the distinction between spirituality and religion as I believe religion is largely based on historical beliefs and spirituality is more free to evolve and less encumbered by dogma. That opinion however is based on my not being religious.

Science does not prove the existance or non existance of a creator. However, if you at least give consideration to the possibility that a creator exists outside our space time universe, then science as we currently know it simply cannot provide such evidence.

Morbert · 24-01-2013 5:52am

Peregrinus wrote: »

I’m going to stop you here, because I think you’re over-reaching yourself. Science doesn’t require that you embrace empiricism or naturalism or even, I think, uniformitarianism. To “do science”, it’s enough that you believe that the natural universe exists, that it is governed by laws. and that knowledge about it can be obtained through the senses. Which is why, as you point out yourself, you can wholeheartedly endorse and practice science, and at the same time embrace rationalism (the view that knowledge about reality can be obtained through the use of reason), acknowledge the truth-value of pure mathematics, etc.

So I think it’s going a little bit far to say that empiricism, uniformitarianism and nanturalism “make up the foundation of the scientific methodology”. They all seem to me to go rather further than they need to to provide a solid foundation for science.

That naturalism is the foundation of the scientific method is not controversial even among theists, insofar as most people (bar creationists, ID proponents Etc.) accept that methodological naturalism is necessary for science, even if it is not accepted on a metaphysical level.

Rationalism becomes deeply problematic if it is used to make statements about what is real. Mathematicians, for example have constructed a real number system that is very useful when describing reality (hence the name). However, mathematicians have also constructed number systems like the Z4 ring which are no more or less true or valid, but don't describe reality. Rationalism can't decide which system is more correct, or more representative of reality (empiricism is needed for that). Thus, mathematicians are interested in discovering consistency between statements, rather than statements about what is or isn't real. The truth of the Z4 ring, or the reals, is irrelevant. What is relevant what is inferred from them.

And I think Philologos is correct to suggest that they are, infact, the foundation for what he refers to as scientism - the believe that true knowledge can only be attained through natural science.

As you point out, this can easily degenerate into a semantic debate about what we mean by “know”. I hate semantic debates. But perhaps we can short-circuit it thus: can we agree that we can “know” that it is true that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides? If we can know this, then that’s knowledge which is not empirically obtained, and which relates to something (a platonic figure) not found in the natural universe. (Which I think provides an answer to El Duderino’s question.)

A perfect example to illustrate my point above. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is true under euclidean geometry. However, it is not true under non-euclidean geometry. Mathematicians cannot (and do not try to) say which system is more true than the other.

The scientismist would, I think, have to deny that we can know this - indeed, he would have to deny that the claim has any meaning - and, to that extent, you are right to say that there are no (or very few) true scientismists about. But that just illustrates that it’s not just Christians who reject empiricism, naturalism, etc; we pretty well all do.

The difference here, as illustrated above would be mathematical statements are not necessarily descriptive of reality. They have a platonic, abstract form that is sometimes useful when describing what we observe and sometimes not. Whereas empiricism and whatnot are all theories of knowledge/statements about reality. Thus, we can be empiricists on a metaphysical level, but still appreciate mathematics. There would only be a problem if we were strict platonists.

Morbert · 24-01-2013 5:55am

nagirrac wrote: »

I would actually argue that scientism, as in "the improper usage of scientific claims", is now very common. I would base this on the prevalance in modern day culture to claim science "says this" or science "proves that", an unfortunate feature of the information age where everyone has an opinion on everything but knowledge of little.

The most obvious case I can think of is the common claim among non-scientists that life emerged from random processes and the theory of evolution proves this, and by the way also proves no need for a creator. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to answer how life emerged. How you get from organic molecules like amino acids to a cell is still quite the mystery.

I think some of the debate on evolution has become too polarized in nature. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone, given the evidence, can argue against evolution in principle, but that does not stop my fascination for how the mechanisms of evolution work, including the mechanisms that we may have no clue about today. Science is an ongoing fascinating discovery and if there is one thing the history of science teaches us it is to never get too comfortable in our conclusions.

There should be no conflict between science and spirituality. I personally would make the distinction between spirituality and religion as I believe religion is largely based on historical beliefs and spirituality is more free to evolve and less encumbered by dogma. That opinion however is based on my not being religious.

Science does not prove the existance or non existance of a creator. However, if you at least give consideration to the possibility that a creator exists outside our space time universe, then science as we currently know it simply cannot provide such evidence.

The standard understanding of evolution by atheists is that, while it certainly does not disprove the existence of God, it refutes the watchmaker argument for the existence of God.

Peregrinus · 24-01-2013 6:41am

Morbert wrote: »

That naturalism is the foundation of the scientific method is not controversial even among theists, insofar as most people (bar creationists, ID proponents Etc.) accept that methodological naturalism is necessary for science, even if it is not accepted on a metaphysical level.

Why is this so? It seems to me that once you accept that the natural universe exists (i.e. it’s not illusory), you can proceed from there to accepting that the natural sciences are a reliable way of investigating it. I don’t see any need for an assumption that the natural universe is the only thing there is; you only need to make that assumption if you want to arrive at the conclusion that the natural sciences are a reliable way of investigating everything there is.

Am I missing something?

Morbert wrote: »

Rationalism becomes deeply problematic if it is used to make statements about what is real. Mathematicians, for example have constructed a real number system that is very useful when describing reality (hence the name). However, mathematicians have also constructed number systems like the Z4 ring which are no more or less true or valid, but don't describe reality. Rationalism can't decide which system is more correct, or more representative of reality (empiricism is needed for that). Thus, mathematicians are interested in discovering consistency between statements, rather than statements about what is or isn't real. The truth of the Z4 ring, or the reals, is irrelevant. What is relevant what is inferred from them.

Well, that does rather beg the question of what we mean by “real”, which gets us back to semantics. But, again, if we can accept that the real numbers are real, then I think we have to accept that fact that something can have no material (in the sense of physical, empirically observable) reality, and yet be “real”.

This isn’t just semantics. It’s not just the number 2, for instance, that can’t be empirically observed. Causation, as Hume pointed out, can’t be empirically observed. If we think it’s meaningful to think of causation as a “real” phenomenon - and most natural scientists do think this - then yes, there are real phenomona which cannot be empirically observed but can be rationally inferred.

Morbert wrote: »

A perfect example to illustrate my point above. The square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides is true under euclidean geometry. However, it is not true under non-euclidean geometry. Mathematicians cannot (and do not try to) say which system is more true than the other.

Is “more true” a meaningful concept? Surely both systems are equally true, given their axioms? Likewise scientifically-derived conclusions are true, given the axioms of science. My point is just that I think you’re overstating the axioms needed to underpin the scientific method.

Morbert wrote: »

The difference here, as illustrated above would be mathematical statements are not necessarily descriptive of reality. They have a platonic, abstract form that is sometimes useful when describing what we observe and sometimes not. Whereas empiricism and whatnot are all theories of knowledge/statements about reality. Thus, we can be empiricists on a metaphysical level, but still appreciate mathematics. There would only be a problem if we were strict platonists.

Maybe we’re just disagreeing about terms, but I’d put that the other way around. If you’re a Platonist in the sense that you think ideas and abstractions (like, e.g., the number 2) have a real existence whether or not there is an empirically-observable phenomenon which corresponds to them, then thinking of mathematics as dealing with reality is not a problem. It’s only if you take the contrary view (that ideas/abstractions have no reality; they’re just tools of language useful for talking about empirically observable things) that appreciating pure mathematics as “real” or “true” can be problematic.

philologos · 24-01-2013 8:37am

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

By scientism do you mean something different to this?

Empiricism: The theory of knowledge which asserts that what we know about the universe is ultimately obtained through our senses.

Do you have any evidence that you can 'know' anything by any means other than the brains interpretation of the senses? That would be pretty interesting.

The senses are fundamentally flawed and prone to error. Just read the opening of Rene Descartes First Meditation to find that out philosophically. Or if you want an even more interesting perspective look out what George Berkeley said on the matter.

What I would say is that from a Christian perspective rather than an atheist materialist perspective there are two ways by which we speak of what we know.

1) Firstly by observing creation.
2) by what God has revealed to us in His word.

Psalm 19 is a perfect example where David explains this two-fold knowledge. If God has spoken into creation, this becomes a form of knowledge for the Christian in addition to what we know from creation. Different means.

If someone claims that all anyone can know is from natural science, that's fine but in order for me to find that convincing they need to explain exactly how this is the case. Or how the universe could possibly come from nothing.

nagirrac · 24-01-2013 8:39am

Morbert wrote: »

The standard understanding of evolution by atheists is that, while it certainly does not disprove the existence of God, it refutes the watchmaker argument for the existence of God.

Evolution describes how life gradually evolved over long periods of time on earth and says nothing about how life itself emerged from inanimate matter. The only ones making the watchmaker argument against the theory of evolution are biblical literalists. The watchmaker argument as it pertains to life's complexity was made by Paley long before evolution was even proposed.

Morbert · 24-01-2013 8:42am

nagirrac wrote: »

Evolution describes how life gradually evolved over long periods of time on earth and says nothing about how life itself emerged from inanimate matter.

Yes. Abiogenesis, a new and exciting set of scientific fields investigates the emergence of life.

The only ones making the watchmaker argument against the theory of evolution are biblical literalists. The watchmaker argument as it pertains to life's complexity was made by Paley long before evolution was even proposed.

The literalists are unfortunately quite numerous.

Morbert · 24-01-2013 9:17am

Peregrinus wrote: »

Why is this so? It seems to me that once you accept that the natural universe exists (i.e. it’s not illusory), you can proceed from there to accepting that the natural sciences are a reliable way of investigating it. I don’t see any need for an assumption that the natural universe is the only thing there is; you only need to make that assumption if you want to arrive at the conclusion that the natural sciences are a reliable way of investigating everything there is.

Am I missing something?

What you have described (blue text) is metaphysical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is the insistence that we should only posit natural causes and patterns when investigating phenomena. If we don't, we end up with stuff like this: http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/tj/v17n2_cosmology.pdf

Well, that does rather beg the question of what we mean by “real”, which gets us back to semantics. But, again, if we can accept that the real numbers are real, then I think we have to accept that fact that something can have no material (in the sense of physical, empirically observable) reality, and yet be “real”.

The adjective "real" in this case is a little misleading, just as "imaginary numbers" is also misleading. "Real" refers to the fact that they are the numbers we originally used to describe much of the real world, not because they themselves are considered real.

This isn’t just semantics. It’s not just the number 2, for instance, that can’t be empirically observed. Causation, as Hume pointed out, can’t be empirically observed. If we think it’s meaningful to think of causation as a “real” phenomenon - and most natural scientists do think this - then yes, there are real phenomona which cannot be empirically observed but can be rationally inferred.

Causation would also fall under the definition of an abstract concept or description, rather than a real object. Newtonian mechanics, for example, might imply a causal description of the universe. Lagrangian mechanics, on the other hand, is a description of the universe void of cause and effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrangian_mechanics

Even relativity reduces causality to a null cone structure in a 4D spacetime.

Is “more true” a meaningful concept? Surely both systems are equally true, given their axioms? Likewise scientifically-derived conclusions are true, given the axioms of science. My point is just that I think you’re overstating the axioms needed to underpin the scientific method.

Oh yes, empiricism certainly doesn't prove itself. My only point is that atheists would not be rationalists if rationalism is defined as a strict deduction of statements about what is real (rather than tentative inductive inferences from observation).

Maybe we’re just disagreeing about terms, but I’d put that the other way around. If you’re a Platonist in the sense that you think ideas and abstractions (like, e.g., the number 2) have a real existence whether or not there is an empirically-observable phenomenon which corresponds to them, then thinking of mathematics as dealing with reality is not a problem. It’s only if you take the contrary view (that ideas/abstractions have no reality; they’re just tools of language useful for talking about empirically observable things) that appreciating pure mathematics as “real” or “true” can be problematic.

I think this is just crossed wires. If atheists were platonists, then they couldn't be empricists on a metaphysical level, because there would be objects we could know about (the number 2) through means other than our senses.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 10:21am

philologos wrote: »

HHobo: I disagree, from what I remember in Ireland there were barely any Christians who wanted the Defamation Act in 2009 to be passed. I completley opposed it. I oppose blasphemy laws entirely.

I was only using a blasphemy law as an example of a law which specifically favours religion. I am happy to accept that most Irish people, whatever their religion do not support it.

There are examples of current laws, with considerable support, which have their roots in Abrahamic religious sensibilities. An example would be the illegalisation of prostitution.

philologos · 24-01-2013 10:43am

HHobo wrote: »

I was only using a blasphemy law as an example of a law which specifically favours religion. I am happy to accept that most Irish people, whatever their religion do not support it.

There are examples of current laws, with considerable support, which have their roots in Abrahamic religious sensibilities. An example would be the illegalisation of prostitution.

Most sensible people are opposed to prostitution because they believe that it undermines the liberty and dignity of the individual.

I value human beings too much to support nullifying them to mere sexual objects to get ones jollies to. They are worth far more than this.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 10:50am

nagirrac wrote: »

The most obvious case I can think of is the common claim among non-scientists that life emerged from random processes and the theory of evolution proves this, and by the way also proves no need for a creator. The theory of evolution does not even attempt to answer how life emerged. How you get from organic molecules like amino acids to a cell is still quite the mystery.

The claim you are making is certainly common enough. I have seen it made innumerable times. I have not, however, ever heard anyone make the claim the evolution proves abiogenesis. Who is making this claim?
The only claim that is made is that the most basic building blocks of life, are capable of self assembly. I have yet to see anyone make the claim that evolution proves that these organic molecules definately assembled themselves in the first replicaing organisms and evolution proved this. I would argue that given that every other mysterious process that once baffled us that has been solved, it turns out there was a natual explaination. There is no reason why this particular mystery should be any difference. It could be, but why on earth would be tempted to think so?

nagirrac wrote: »

I think some of the debate on evolution has become too polarized in nature. I simply cannot comprehend how anyone, given the evidence, can argue against evolution in principle, but that does not stop my fascination for how the mechanisms of evolution work, including the mechanisms that we may have no clue about today. Science is an ongoing fascinating discovery and if there is one thing the history of science teaches us it is to never get too comfortable in our conclusions.

This is precisely why religions doctrine is anti-science. It works in certainties about things it can have no knowledge of. It is the antithesis of the scientific method.

nagirrac wrote: »

There should be no conflict between science and spirituality. I personally would make the distinction between spirituality and religion as I believe religion is largely based on historical beliefs and spirituality is more free to evolve and less encumbered by dogma. That opinion however is based on my not being religious.

There is no conflict in principle. The conflicts only arises when unsupportable claims start being made about reality.

nagirrac wrote: »

Science does not prove the existance or non existance of a creator. However, if you at least give consideration to the possibility that a creator exists outside our space time universe, then science as we currently know it simply cannot provide such evidence.

This is true but surely there must be a least some good reason to believe there is such a thing as "outside our space-time universe" before we bother wasting any time on it. The same rationale can be used to defend the possible existance of absolutely anything. It seems quite unproductive to start giving undue amounts of plausibility or undue consideration to some particular member of the set of all things which are not conclusively disproven by science. That set is infinitely large and likely always will be.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 11:07am

philologos wrote: »

Most sensible people are opposed to prostitution because they believe that it undermines the liberty and dignity of the individual.

Why is having sex with someone undignified?
Did you just argue the limiting what a person is allowed to do with their own body is enhancing their liberty?

philologos wrote: »

I value human beings too much to support nullifying them to mere sexual objects to get ones jollies to. They are worth far more than this.

"mere sexual objects". Presumably when you employ someone to do any service for you, you treat them as an object in the same way. When a waiter brings you your food in a restaurant, do you make a point of finding out all about their humanity, or do you recognise that they are completely human, just like you, but in the current context, they are providing a service?
How would it sound to you, if I objected to table waiting on the grounds that you are reducing these people to "mere serving objects"
If you want to view prostitutes as mere sexual objects thats your business but please don't impute that view on other people.

Christianity has a very nasty side which thinks that sex is dirty and sinful. It seems to have major hangups about the pluming of procreation too. Hence Jesus had to be born of a virgin. Oddly, a married virgin but obviously she had to be a virgin! Christians are completely entitled to feel this way. They are also completely entitled to personally oppose the idea of prostiution. Nobody is forcing you to prostitute yourself or avail of such services. The reason that people like me take pains to oppose religion, is that this freedom is never enough for the religious. They aren't happy until everyone is forced to conform to their view. Legislating their morality. The worst aspect of this, is that sexworkers are forced into illegal and dangerous conditions.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 11:19am

Peregrinus wrote: »

As you point out, this can easily degenerate into a semantic debate about what we mean by “know”. I hate semantic debates. But perhaps we can short-circuit it thus: can we agree that we can “know” that it is true that in a right-angled triangle the square on the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the squares on the other two sides? If we can know this, then that’s knowledge which is not empirically obtained, and which relates to something (a platonic figure) not found in the natural universe. (Which I think provides an answer to El Duderino’s question.)

The scientismist would, I think, have to deny that we can know this - indeed, he would have to deny that the claim has any meaning - and, to that extent, you are right to say that there are no (or very few) true scientismists about. But that just illustrates that it’s not just Christians who reject empiricism, naturalism, etc; we pretty well all do.

I don't think a scientismist would have to deny anything of the sort. Are a triangle, the ideas or length, squares, equality all free from an empirical basis? Pythagoras is only deemed to be true because it relates to the physical universe. If it didn't, we could not determine what it was even talking about, much less if it were true of not.

philologos · 24-01-2013 11:35am

HHobo wrote: »

Why is having sex with someone undignified?
Did you just argue the limiting what a person is allowed to do with their own body is enhancing their liberty?

"mere sexual objects". Presumably when you employ someone to do any service for you, you treat them as an object in the same way. When a waiter brings you your food in a restaurant, do you make a point of finding out all about their humanity, or do you recognise that they are completely human, just like you, but in the current context, they are providing a service?
How would it sound to you, if I objected to table waiting on the grounds that you are reducing these people to "mere serving objects"
If you want to view prostitutes as mere sexual objects thats your business but please don't impute that view on other people.

Christianity has a very nasty side which thinks that sex is dirty and sinful. It seems to have major hangups about the pluming of procreation too. Hence Jesus had to be born of a virgin. Oddly, a married virgin but obviously she had to be a virgin! Christians are completely entitled to feel this way. They are also completely entitled to personally oppose the idea of prostiution. Nobody is forcing you to prostitute yourself or avail of such services. The reason that people like me take pains to oppose religion, is that this freedom is never enough for the religious. They aren't happy until everyone is forced to conform to their view. Legislating their morality. The worst aspect of this, is that sexworkers are forced into illegal and dangerous conditions.

That's nonsense. Christianity does not treat sex as dirty or sinful. That's the same cliche that I see trotted out again and again by non-believers.

Christians believe that sex is a great thing in a loving marriage. There's no hangups whatsoever involved.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 11:58am

philologos wrote: »

That's nonsense. Christianity does not treat sex as dirty or sinful. That's the same cliche that I see trotted out again and again by non-believers.

Christians believe that sex is a great thing in a loving marriage. There's no hangups whatsoever involved.

It is not a cliche. Christianity does treat sex as sinful. Why is a problem outside of marriage?

Ever hear the phrase "The immaculate conception"

Definition of immaculate:
1 : having no stain or blemish : pure
2 : containing no flaw or error

3 a : spotlessly clean

b : having no colored spots or marks <petals immaculate>

The conception was immaculate because it didn't involve any of that wonderful, loving, married sex.

You keep claiming X or Y is nonsense, or ridiculous and whenever you are presented with a case that seems to contradict these pronouncements, you just go ahead and claim that X or Y is nonsense....

Explain why sex is sinful outside of marriage. I'm not looking for scripture here Phil. I'm looking for a cogent case as to why sex with someone you are not married to is immoral

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2013 12:22pm

philologos wrote: »

The senses are fundamentally flawed and prone to error. Just read the opening of Rene Descartes First Meditation to find that out philosophically. Or if you want an even more interesting perspective look out what George Berkeley said on the matter.

What I would say is that from a Christian perspective rather than an atheist materialist perspective there are two ways by which we speak of what we know.

1) Firstly by observing creation.
2) by what God has revealed to us in His word.

Psalm 19 is a perfect example where David explains this two-fold knowledge. If God has spoken into creation, this becomes a form of knowledge for the Christian in addition to what we know from creation. Different means.

If someone claims that all anyone can know is from natural science, that's fine but in order for me to find that convincing they need to explain exactly how this is the case. Or how the universe could possibly come from nothing.

Why would you use philosophy when you could use science to make your point?

If you would like to read some psychology you would learn that the senses are not simply flawed. Transduction occurs where the senses disassemble the information we take in turn it into electrical impulses (the language of the nervous system) and the brain reinterprets the electrical impulses in the light of past experiences and priorities and expresses it in terms of chemicals.

It does all that reasonably faithfully but its goal is not to take in every bit of information. Instead its goal is to pay attention to (attenuate) the important things in the environment. So moving things will be attenuated to. Things grow in retinal image size (moving towards you) will be attenuated to.

The brain uses rules of thumb to cut the amount of information you take in. To say the senses are fundamentally flawed shows a fundamental flaw in understanding of the senses unfortunately.

You could look at the philosophy from an era before we had any decent understanding of how the brain worked. That would be foolish but you are free to use it in lieu of facts. The problem is that your argument is working at the level of 400 year old philosophy. If we both use old philosophy then we can say the two arguments are equal. However the two are not equal. So when you use an even older reference with even less relevance (Psalm 19) justify divine revelation...

The question I asked was: "Do you have any evidence that you can 'know' anything by any means other than the brains interpretation of the senses? That would be pretty interesting."

Was Psalm 19 the evidence?

On the second point 'God mad everything' is not an explanation of anything. I will honestly tell you I don't know how the universe got to be here. We don't have enough information to make a decision. You are free to go back to the philosophical argument where our opinions are equal, but you propose extra things (gods and the veracity of one particular holy book) and I'm not sure how you justify them.

'God did it' is not even a hypothesis.

As a matter of interest do you agree that we should keep trying to find extra-biblical evidence for how the universe got here?

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2013 12:29pm

philologos wrote: »

Most sensible people are opposed to prostitution because they believe that it undermines the liberty and dignity of the individual.

I value human beings too much to support nullifying them to mere sexual objects to get ones jollies to. They are worth far more than this.

If your religion tells you not to get involved in prostitution, then don't get involved in prostitution. Religions have all sorts of rules about sex and sexuality. You would still be free to obey those rules.

It's this bit right here that brings some atheists to be vocal at all. To put it simply, Please feel free to practice your religion. Please understand that not everyone in the state is bound by the rules of your religion.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 24-01-2013 12:54pm

HHobo wrote: »

The conception was immaculate because it didn't involve any of that wonderful, loving, married sex.

I had the same misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception up to a few years ago; as an aside, there must be some significance to how the Catholic Church could have so much control over education and still fail to communicate basic concepts about the religion.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception, not Jesus. The Immaculate Conception refers to the contention that Mary was born, uniquely among humans, without original sin.

GCU Flexible Demeanour · 24-01-2013 1:02pm

philologos wrote: »

7) Why must God not be "all good" (because we what we did, how bizarre)? Why wouldn't God be "all powerful" (again because of what we did)?

I'd guess these arguments are well known to you. Unfortunately, for me, they don't stack up. For me, it always comes back to the possibility for evil needing to come from somewhere. If it doesn't come from God, that's basically saying he's not the all-powerful source of everything. If it does come from him, in the form of the "terms and conditions" attached to free will, then he's the ultimate source of evil.

philologos wrote: »

Moreover, why can't there be a third option such as evil existing for a purpose in creation?

I think that's included in what I'm saying - perhaps not explicitly, but I thought I'd acknowledged this in my response to Jimi. I'm not commently at all on the motivation for including evil; if evil was included for some good purpose that we cannot see, it still means that God is the source of that evil. We'd just be trusting that good will come of it, even if we cannot account for how.

El_Duderino 09 · 24-01-2013 1:06pm

HHobo wrote: »

Why is having sex with someone undignified?
Did you just argue the limiting what a person is allowed to do with their own body is enhancing their liberty?

"mere sexual objects". Presumably when you employ someone to do any service for you, you treat them as an object in the same way. When a waiter brings you your food in a restaurant, do you make a point of finding out all about their humanity, or do you recognise that they are completely human, just like you, but in the current context, they are providing a service?
How would it sound to you, if I objected to table waiting on the grounds that you are reducing these people to "mere serving objects"
If you want to view prostitutes as mere sexual objects thats your business but please don't impute that view on other people.

Christianity has a very nasty side which thinks that sex is dirty and sinful. It seems to have major hangups about the pluming of procreation too. Hence Jesus had to be born of a virgin. Oddly, a married virgin but obviously she had to be a virgin! Christians are completely entitled to feel this way. They are also completely entitled to personally oppose the idea of prostiution. Nobody is forcing you to prostitute yourself or avail of such services. The reason that people like me take pains to oppose religion, is that this freedom is never enough for the religious. They aren't happy until everyone is forced to conform to their view. Legislating their morality. The worst aspect of this, is that sexworkers are forced into illegal and dangerous conditions.

Did they ever consummate the marriage?

HHobo · 24-01-2013 1:23pm

GCU Flexible Demeanour wrote: »

I had the same misunderstanding of the Immaculate Conception up to a few years ago; as an aside, there must be some significance to how the Catholic Church could have so much control over education and still fail to communicate basic concepts about the religion.

Mary is the Immaculate Conception, not Jesus. The Immaculate Conception refers to the contention that Mary was born, uniquely among humans, without original sin.

While I think the case that Christianity has hang-up about sex still stands, I accept that I was completely wrong on the immaculate conception point.

Mea Culpa.

HHobo · 24-01-2013 1:27pm

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Did they ever consummate the marriage?

Don't think we are ever told either way but I'd imagine so!

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments