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…89111314…327

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    PDN
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,686 ✭✭✭✭PDN


    strobe wrote: »
    What are middle class values?

    In Britain and Ireland they would include placing an emphasis on good literacy and education, politeness towards others, a reluctance to flaunt one's achievements and wealth, and a tolerance (albeit sometimes superficial) of opposing viewpoints.

    In short, most atheists I have met are decent, polite, educated and articulate. I find we can discuss our different opinions without rancour and build genuine friendships built on mutual respect. We can invite each other round for dinner without worrying that anyone is going to make themselves offensive.


  • Options
    #303
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    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.

    Can I expect any traction on the above? Or has this thread been hijacked by Sam Harris bashing? Not to mention numerous other important questions that have been ignored.


  • Options
    #304
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    ...

    A notion of objective morality seems to serve little purpose other than allowing people to feel more confident in their own beliefs. This is not surprising humans have always felt more confident with consensus and group thinking rather than individual conclusions. If my boss asks me for my opinion and he goes "Yes that sounds right" I feel much more confident about that idea than if he didn't.

    Again evolution explains why this is the case.

    I think we have been over this ground before. i.e. - relative and absolute morals. You have made an admirable study and analysis of the subject and I applaud you for that so forgive me for not referring to the earlier parts of you post.

    This above quote however runs counter to and adverse to what became before. the thing is you either believe there are absolute laws morals standards or you don't. Having made the case that you believe there are you then fall back on they idea that you just happen to believe there are and you personal belief is not significant. You then say that morals "serve no purpose" which jumps back to the idea that there are no moral absolutes. In other words by saying they serve no purpose you are basically saying they don't exist since by their very nature absolutes serve a purpose.
    This is a logical contradiction.

    While one can believe in absolutes but not be able to prove them one can't believe in moral absolutes and also disbelieve in them.


  • Options
    #305
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Damn you morality and damn you Sam Harris! You've rat-holed this thread!!


  • Options
    #306
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    This above quote however runs counter to and adverse to what became before.

    It doesn't, though I do remember having quite a bit of trouble getting across what my beliefs were, and if I remember correctly you were having the same issue Jakkass (sorry Jakkass I hope you don't mind me referencing you like that you new user name is too difficult to spell for a dsylexic like myself :P) was having that I highlighted here
    Wicknight wrote:
    From your posts the trouble I think you are having is that you think that if it is just my opinion then I won't have the confidence to assert my opinion on others, such as the rapist. I should say Well my opinion is this and his opinion is that so who am I to make him stop raping that child. That is not an issue I have. I will happily forcibly stop the rapist if I can.
    ISAW wrote: »
    the thing is you either believe there are absolute laws morals standards or you don't.

    I believe there is an absolute moral standard, its my own. I apply it absolutely and universally. I do not believe it is objective and I do change my opinion from time to time.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Having made the case that you believe there are you then fall back on they idea that you just happen to believe there are and you personal belief is not significant.

    I never said my personal beliefs are not significant. My moral beliefs are in fact the only significant ones as far as I'm concerned.

    In fact everyone thinks this. Everyone thinks that their moral assessment is the significant one. This shows the ultimate futility of belief in objective moral standards. I could tell you that your moral opinion is wrong based on the "objective moral standard". Since I cannot demonstrate that in any way external to my opinion you are free to simply dismiss me as wrong, and continue to believe that your particular moral opinion is in line with the true "objective moral standard".

    As we learn from science something that is unknowable and something that doesn't exist appear the same.

    Robin has a great link that he has posted a few times as to how people gravitate to systems of belief that confirm through authority their own beliefs, rather than the other way around. People do not in reality learn the objective moral standard and then change their beliefs to be in line with that. They instead assume that a claim of objective moral standard that lines up with the beliefs they already have is the correct one.

    The counter argument to that, just to be complete, often given is that this isn't true, that before they became Christians person X wanted to sleep with lots of women, rob his grandmother, cheat on his test etc etc and when he learnt about Christianity he learned that all these things we actually wrong.

    This of course is nonsense. People can do things that they also feel are immoral, and go do these things for various reasons until they find an authoritize system to confirm for them that they are in fact immoral and they feel motivated to stop. That doesn't mean they actually believed they were moral in the first place. That is just not how humans work.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You then say that morals "serve no purpose" which jumps back to the idea that there are no moral absolutes.

    I didn't say morals serve no purpose. I said belief in objective morals serves no purpose.

    You can believe in objective morals all you like and that your opinions as to what these objective morals are is correct. But you end up in exactly the same situation you would end up in if there was only relative morals.

    As I said, the only thing belief in objective morality seems to do is give someone a greater confidence (perhaps over confidence) in their particular moral opinion or belief.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Damn you morality and damn you Sam Harris! You've rat-holed this thread!!

    Yeah, wasn't Jakkass supposed to be explaining why "God did it" is more likely than any other, non-intelligent, creation event.


  • Options
    #308
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Finishing up the aul' exams tomorrow, so we'll continue where I left off then. We're far from finished on either the cosmological or axiological.

    Edit: Oh and I'm going by philologos now so please use this in reference to me.


  • Options
    #309
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    philologos wrote: »
    Finishing up the aul' exams tomorrow, so we'll continue where I left off then. We're far from finished on either the cosmological or axiological.

    They're rat holes too (the cosmological argument is nonsense)! I'm trying to get to what your hypothesis predicts but you're having none of it.


  • Options
    #310
    pts
    Registered Users Posts: 576 ✭✭✭pts


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Damn you morality and damn you Sam Harris! You've rat-holed this thread!!

    Sorry, I think that was my bad :p

    So are we moving back to the cosmological argument? If so can we do a quick detour at the who/how point.

    I'm very much looking forward to Philologos (may I call you Phil for short?) addressing how to assess if a creator is a better hypothesis than M-theory. However I think M-theory deals more with the how question whereas the Creator hypothesis deals with the who question. Can we address what question we are asking first.


  • Options
    #311
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    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.

    If morals are just something we make up ourselves and not influenced by an objective standard e.g. God then of course it matters since "right and wrong" becomes relative.

    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I was trying to show you that a belief is only as good as the results it predicts.

    empirical science maybe only as good as that but there are things beyond science for which science is not sufficient. Moral judgement is one of those things.
    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.

    while i accept your opinion that bloind unquestioning faith is not enough and some reason must be added to the mix christianity is not at loggerheads in a free will versus causality debate.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    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:

    Scientists themselves accept science is not sufficient for society. One does not have to believe in god to believe in objectivity or in natural law for example.
    The substance of what you believe is you're brain, which is evolved, experiencing evidence.

    Not essentially. Only if you believe in the material world and nothing else. There are inherent philosophical problems in reducing culture art values thoughts etc. to the level of all being explainable in terms of chemical reactions within the human brain.
    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!

    Memetics tried to study culture in the same way genetics studies genes. guess what ? they failed.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Line 100 people up, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Atheists and ask them a moral question and you will get 100 different opinions back.

    But this is Harking back to moral relativism and you are not one of them are you?
    Just because you can't prove moral absolutes does not stop you believing in them does it?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    But this is Harking back to moral relativism and you are not one of them are you?
    Just because you can't prove moral absolutes does not stop you believing in them does it?

    It is "harking back" to moral subjectivism, which is different to relativism.

    I believe in subjective morality, in that I believe all morality only exists as opinions of the people making the judgements, that morality is not some sort of universal measurement in nature. I also though apply my moral standard absolutely and universally based on the criteria of the moral standard.

    The original point is that there is no requirements in the words "right" or "wrong" that demands an objective moral out look. The words can and are just as easily used in an subjective moral out look. PDN's claim that this butchers the English language is nonsense.


  • Options
    #313
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    pts wrote: »
    Sorry, I think that was my bad :p

    So are we moving back to the cosmological argument? If so can we do a quick detour at the who/how point.

    I'm very much looking forward to Philologos (may I call you Phil for short?) addressing how to assess if a creator is a better hypothesis than M-theory. However I think M-theory deals more with the how question whereas the Creator hypothesis deals with the who question. Can we address what question we are asking first.

    What/Who caused the universe to come into existence (what implies no intelligence, who implies intelligence)

    How did it/they do it (you probably won't get an answer to that if "who" is an answer to question 1).


  • Options
    #314
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, so why can't anything else, including a non-intelligent extra-universe process do this as well, create something out of nothing?

    Maybe it can but to do so it would have to have Godlike abilities.
    Not at all. We explained how evolution explains it far better than the existence of an actual objective morality.

    Where?
    All humans have particular moral instincts, that in the specifics take different shapes and forms but follow general patterns. These evolved to regulate successful social interaction. I don't try and kill you because you then might try and kill me. I don't rape your wife because then you might kick the crap out of me. I don't kill my children because then I would not be selected by natural selection etc etc.

    You are trying to say social interaction is a consequence of biological evolution and the two are directly related. this is what memetics tried to do. But to equate social "evolution" with biological evolution is a mis use of the word "evolution" This is why memetics failed.

    They can be thought of as objective in the sense that they are by and large universal to human kind, but they are a product of a natural process.


    This is where you mistakenly link biological evolution to society
    You proposed that that this doesn't mean God didn't put it into evolution. This is true, it doesn't mean that.


    Christians believe God caused the laws of physics to exist ( assuming there are laws of physics) but not that he was a "watchmaker" God and then walked away and let the universe get on with the job. They believe god constantly interacts with creation e.g. later on God gives souls to proto humans.
    But equally if you accept they could come about by the natural process of evolution (and you seemed to say you accept evolution) then it is illogical to propose that they themselves are evidence for the existence of this creator.

    Morals are not though of as being evolved and linked to biological evolution so this argument doesn't run.

    Arguing that God might have done it only works if you have another argument for the existence of God in the first place. You can't use the argument that God might have done something as evidence of God's existence in the first place.

    Don't you yourself believe in moral absolutes in spite of not having any evidence?

    Barrington wrote: »
    Why is the creation of the universe just happening all by itself not possible?

    Because it requires a cause.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    Ok, and why is he infinite and uncaused again?

    Because a first cause is an uncaused cause.

    Wicknight wrote: »
    I'm not postulating an infinite regress. I'm saying we have no reason to suppose that the creator of the universe is infinite (or finite for that matter).

    For all we know the regression is 3 lengths long, there is an infinite creator (who had nothing to do with our universe), who created a finite being who created a finite being who created our universe (you can replace 3 with any number you like.)

    If you conflate "Turtles all the way down" with Occam's razor you can reduce "any number you like" to 1.
    So why propose the creator was or wasn't infinite? We know nothing about reality before our outside of our universe, we have no idea if there are 20 finite beings or 10 infinite beings.

    See my last comment above.
    Again you seem only interested in supposing the Christian version. Which is fine, but then you tell us to ignore the Christian version for the time being. You can't do that and then just skip over all other alternatives because they don't lead to the Christian version.

    If you don't believe in a creator that is your belief. The point is belief in god is not unreasonable and belief in no God any more reasonable.
    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.

    christians believe morality comes later and humans having concience and souls comes much later than life evolving or abiogenesis which by the way they also view as being influenced by God.


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Which is utterly irrelevant to the point, as I've already explained. Whether people believe their opinion is subjective to them or in line with the objective moral truth of the universe, it is still opinion and can be shared or rejected by others.

    But you actually believe in objective morals don't you? You believe in them but you admit you can't prove them? Why then do you criticise poeople for believing in a god they can't prove?

    I'm not pretending to engage with people like you at all, I don't remember coming to you with anything. You came on to this thread misrepresenting Harris' view, ranting about the English language, proceed to jump from that to claiming atheists are advancing this position to Christians as if we all actually agree with Harris and then threw your toys out of the pram when you were called on this.

    I was having a discussion with Jakkass about the nature of morality before you decided to jump in and share your particular unique perspective about atheists and how terrible we all are. The flaws in this were pointed out, the straw man was exposed and now you are having a hissy fit.

    Can you prove any of this "hissy fit" "toys from the pram" argument?
    Where is your evidence?

    If you have anything relevant to the discussion to add I'm all ears. If you want to rant about how you control the Christianity forum and how much you don't like atheists, well frankly you can save your breath. :rolleyes:

    Where is you evidence about ranting?


  • Options
    #315
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    It is "harking back" to moral subjectivism, which is different to relativism.

    No it isn't!

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/

    For example, moral subjectivism is that species of moral relativism that relativizes moral value to the individual subject.
    I believe in subjective morality, in that I believe all morality only exists as opinions of the people making the judgements, that morality is not some sort of universal measurement in nature. I also though apply my moral standard absolutely and universally based on the criteria of the moral standard.

    I'm sorry . Am I mixing you up with someone else who said they believe that there were some things that were always wrong?
    yes I found it in message 301 in this thread where you say
    I consider raping a child to be immoral. I consider that absolutely and universally based on the nature of the action. In other words I can think of no case or instance where that action in of itself (a clarification to avoid thought experiments such as well what if raping that child saved 3 others from being murdered etc) would ever be moral. I apply that now and I apply that in the future and I apply that to all instances in the past

    How can you be a moral relativist and believe in moral absolutes?


  • Options
    #316
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Wicknight wrote: »
    What/Who caused the universe to come into existence (what implies no intelligence, who implies intelligence)

    Christians believe God caused it and that God does not require a cause.
    How did it/they do it (you probably won't get an answer to that if "who" is an answer to question 1).

    God knows.


  • Options
    #317
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    If morals are just something we make up ourselves and not influenced by an objective standard e.g. God then of course it matters since "right and wrong" becomes relative.

    My question is why is it such a problem for them to be relative? What difference would it make to your existence?

    ISAW wrote: »
    empirical science maybe only as good as that but there are things beyond science for which science is not sufficient. Moral judgement is one of those things.

    while i accept your opinion that bloind unquestioning faith is not enough and some reason must be added to the mix christianity is not at loggerheads in a free will versus causality debate.

    Of course it is. Repeatedly it's brushed under the carpet.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Scientists themselves accept science is not sufficient for society. One does not have to believe in god to believe in objectivity or in natural law for example.

    Science studies natural law.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Not essentially. Only if you believe in the material world and nothing else. There are inherent philosophical problems in reducing culture art values thoughts etc. to the level of all being explainable in terms of chemical reactions within the human brain.

    No there isn't they are just problems Judeo-Christian religions and religions in general. I believe in the material world because because that belief pays rent in anticipated results.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Memetics tried to study culture in the same way genetics studies genes. guess what ? they failed.

    How so?


  • Options
    #318
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    My question is why is it such a problem for them to be relative? What difference would it make to your existence?

    What difference would it make to a atheist to begin believing in God? If none then whay are you taking part in this discussion?

    Of course it is. Repeatedly it's brushed under the carpet.

    How so? What part of the "free will" debate do you claim is being ignored?
    Science studies natural law.

    Laws of nature. Not Natural Law in the sense I meant i.e. moral absolutes

    But the idea that there are laws of nature is only one epistemological perspective. ther are other perspectives which are ontologically orthodox. In other words that ther are "laws of physics" is only one scientific school of belief. there might be no laws of physics and they be just handy approximations and science still be valid is another school of thought which scientists can hold and those scientists be either believers or atheist. How they know what they know may still be dealt with within reason which is what I mean by "ontologically valid" and by science as a subset of reason - "orthodox"
    No there isn't they are just problems Judeo-Christian religions and religions in general. I believe in the material world because because that belief pays rent in anticipated results.

    But you can't prove the mind is purely a result of the physical brain can you? You only believe that.

    How so?

    How come ther is on Journal of Memetics anymore? Did they sucessfully prove there is no God?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics#Criticism
    If memes are not thoughts (and thus not cognitive phenomena), as Daniel C. Dennett insists in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", what, then, are they? What ontological status do they have? Do they, as memeticists (who are also reductionists) insist, in fact exist? And is the idea of "meme" itself a meme? If so, is it true?

    Can Dawkings prove memes or did he just believe in them?

    Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.
    The Skeptic: encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
    By Michael Shermer p 664

    Don't tell me you have never heard of the above?


  • Options
    #319
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    One of the areas where I seem to have an opinion different to most atheists is the free-will and omniscience issue. I believe Christians can consistently claim that God is omniscient about the past, present, and future, and that humans have free will.
    ISAW wrote:
    If morals are just something we make up ourselves and not influenced by an objective standard e.g. God then of course it matters since "right and wrong" becomes relative.

    Nobody likes the idea that moral principles are human constructs which aren't necessarily "true", but the dislike of the idea does not constitute an argument against the idea.


  • Options
    #320
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    Maybe it can but to do so it would have to have Godlike abilities.

    Surely the defining quality of a Godlike being as opposed to a process is intelligence. Why would such a thing have to have intelligence. Could a non-intelligent process not cause the universe to come into being?
    ISAW wrote: »
    Where?
    Earlier in the thread.
    ISAW wrote: »
    You are trying to say social interaction is a consequence of biological evolution and the two are directly related.

    I'm not. I'm "trying" to say that brain development is a consequence of biological evolution, and that morality is related to the brain. Evolution of humans explains why certain moral notions exist in all humans across all cultures.

    (Memetics hasn't failed by the way, but that is a discussion for another thread.)
    ISAW wrote: »
    This is where you mistakenly link biological evolution to society
    I have not mentioned evolution applied to society or culture. You (per usual) seem to be reading your own narrative into what I'm saying. To avoid further frustration I suggest you take a step back.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Christians believe God caused the laws of physics to exist ( assuming there are laws of physics) but not that he was a "watchmaker" God and then walked away and let the universe get on with the job. They believe god constantly interacts with creation e.g. later on God gives souls to proto humans.

    I refer you to the start of the thread and Phil's original posts that triggered this discussion. It doesn't matter what Christians believe, it matters what they can support (in this thread, not the forum in general)
    ISAW wrote: »
    Don't you yourself believe in moral absolutes in spite of not having any evidence?
    I didn't know I required evidence to believe in moral absolutes. I think you are confusing that with objectivism, which would require evidence.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Because a first cause is an uncaused cause.
    And why does the creator of the universe have to be the first cause? Remember in this thread we are looking for a reason for that being the case, not simply "Well that is what Christians believe"
    ISAW wrote: »
    If you conflate "Turtles all the way down" with Occam's razor you can reduce "any number you like" to 1.

    Occam's razor would state you cannot say that the creator is or isn't infinite, is or isn't the first cause, as neither of those things are necessary for the creation of the universe. Adding erroneous details beyond saying that it was what ever is required to make the universe is adding unnecessary complexity to the explanation.

    Remember I'm not saying it is or isn't finite. I'm challenging Phil's proposition that is must have been, or at least likely was.
    ISAW wrote: »
    If you don't believe in a creator that is your belief. The point is belief in god is not unreasonable and belief in no God any more reasonable.
    And that point must be supported. The argument is that "God did it" is a more likely explanation that any of the other ones. What is the support for such a position, assuming you agree.
    ISAW wrote: »
    christians believe morality comes later and humans having concience and souls comes much later than life evolving or abiogenesis which by the way they also view as being influenced by God.
    That isn't relevant to what Phil was saying or my response.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But you actually believe in objective morals don't you?
    No, as I've already stated. These discussions will move a lot faster if you simply assume that I believe what I state I believe.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Can you prove any of this "hissy fit" "toys from the pram" argument?
    Where is your evidence?

    That is off topic. If you think my comments to PDN where unfair you need to take it up with the mods.
    ISAW wrote: »
    No it isn't!

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/relativi/

    That link contradicts you in the first line.

    Relativism is sometimes identified (usually by its critics) as the thesis that all points of view are equally valid.

    If you believe in subjective morality it is not a requirement to believe that all points of view are equally valid. That is moral relativity, contrasted by moral absolutism. It is distinct from the objective vs subjective morality.

    I believe in subjective morality. I believe that morality is only opinion.

    I certainly do not think that all moral opinions are equally valid. In fact unless a moral opinion agrees with my own I tend to think it is utterly invalid and the person who came up with it is a moron. But like Adam Sandler movies.
    ISAW wrote: »
    I'm sorry . Am I mixing you up with someone else who said they believe that there were some things that were always wrong?
    yes I found it in message 301 in this thread where you say

    How can you be a moral relativist and believe in moral absolutes?

    By not being a moral relativist. Easy :pac:


  • Options
    #321
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Morbert wrote: »
    One of the areas where I seem to have an opinion different to most atheists is the free-will and omniscience issue. I believe Christians can consistently claim that God is omniscient about the past, present, and future, and that humans have free will.

    You are to report to Atheism HQ straight away and hand in your badge and staple gun.

    We had such high hopes for you Morbet, such a shame.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    Fanny Cradock
    Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Morbert wrote: »
    One of the areas where I seem to have an opinion different to most atheists is the free-will and omniscience issue. I believe Christians can consistently claim that God is omniscient about the past, present, and future, and that humans have free will.

    That means you are 1/16th theist ;)


  • Options
    #323
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    What difference would it make to a atheist to begin believing in God? If none then whay are you taking part in this discussion?

    Well I have to admit I find the concept absolutely abhorrent, secondly I'm bored and I enjoy argument and sharpening my arguments. Also I think it's important to spread rationality wherever possible(impossible as that seems in here). You still haven't answered my question, do you prefer the one view or the other?
    ISAW wrote: »
    How so? What part of the "free will" debate do you claim is being ignored?

    Come on omniscience and free will as incompatible properties is a gaping wound in the theists arguments and molinism does not suffice. Also if free will existed seperate from the physical interaction of the brain, why does neuroscience show evidence to the contrary etc.
    ISAW wrote: »
    Laws of nature. Not Natural Law in the sense I meant i.e. moral absolutes

    How does this preclude scientific study?
    ISAW wrote: »
    But the idea that there are laws of nature is only one epistemological perspective. ther are other perspectives which are ontologically orthodox. In other words that ther are "laws of physics" is only one scientific school of belief. there might be no laws of physics and they be just handy approximations and science still be valid is another school of thought which scientists can hold and those scientists be either believers or atheist. How they know what they know may still be dealt with within reason which is what I mean by "ontologically valid" and by science as a subset of reason - "orthodox"

    Can you clarify this? Is this just you saying that there are scientists that think that scientific inquiry has it's limitations? I'd say must scientists would agree but that is limitation of ability not the method.
    ISAW wrote: »
    But you can't prove the mind is purely a result of the physical brain can you? You only believe that.

    Yes and for good reason! The evidence points that way. Thus my belief is satisfied in the way it matches my anticipations. See here for one piece of a whole array of information and evidence.
    ISAW wrote: »
    How come ther is on Journal of Memetics anymore? Did they sucessfully prove there is no God?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics#Criticism
    If memes are not thoughts (and thus not cognitive phenomena), as Daniel C. Dennett insists in "Darwin's Dangerous Idea", what, then, are they? What ontological status do they have? Do they, as memeticists (who are also reductionists) insist, in fact exist? And is the idea of "meme" itself a meme? If so, is it true?

    Can Dawkings prove memes or did he just believe in them?

    Memetics has been deemed a pseudoscience on several fronts.
    The Skeptic: encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
    By Michael Shermer p 664

    Don't tell me you have never heard of the above?

    I'm confident that cognitive science is not a pseudo-science. I'm not a proponent of memetics. I am a reductionist however, the brain is the mind the mind is the brain. All the evidence points in this direction and so does the philosophical consensus. Do you reject the consensus?


  • Options
    #324
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Morbert wrote: »
    One of the areas where I seem to have an opinion different to most atheists is the free-will and omniscience issue. I believe Christians can consistently claim that God is omniscient about the past, present, and future, and that humans have free will.

    Care to enlighten us?


  • Options
    #325
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Cognitive science isn't a pseudoscience but memetics are certainly questionable. I've read some sources that claim them as invalid, others claiming them valid. I do feel it worth pointing out that one of the things I love about Shermer is his skeptical attitude to fresh concepts. For example, he was rigourously skeptical about AGW for ages but eventually came to accept it as a valid theory. In time he may be accept memetics, or he may have slick articles written that thoroughly debunk it. For the time being though all one can say is that their use is heavily debated in the scientific community.


  • Options
    #326
    Morbert
    Registered Users Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Care to enlighten us?

    I define an individual with free will as an individual that is capable of determining their own actions, to an extent (I cannot fly, for example). This is possible if, and only if, there was some aspect of the soul/spirit that transcends physical laws, and is capable of self-arbitration. Christians presumably believe this. Once we suppose this transcendent will of an individual, not bound by physical law, we can consistently talk about an individual determining his actions in the past, present, and future, and God knowing the results of this self-determination.


  • Options
    #327
    ISAW
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,142 ✭✭✭ISAW


    Morbert wrote: »
    One of the areas where I seem to have an opinion different to most atheists is the free-will and omniscience issue. I believe Christians can consistently claim that God is omniscient about the past, present, and future, and that humans have free will.

    yes I think I have been over this before . Was it not a scientist who dealt with it? Leibnitz?
    It is an argument usually raised by atheists as a dilemma or trilemma but it is fallacious.
    Although i am relating it to theodicy and the problem oif evil maybe?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best_of_all_possible_worlds

    As regards uncaused causes try M's trilemma
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchhausen_Trilemma

    Nobody likes the idea that moral principles are human constructs which aren't necessarily "true", but the dislike of the idea does not constitute an argument against the idea.

    It was not on about what I like or whether I was for or against the idea of moral absolutes. I was only pointing to the definition of objective. To someone who believes in objective morals of course it matters if morals are relative. Whether or not they can prove morals are subjective or objective is beside the point.

    I find it ironic that many atheists who insist on moral relativity also support the idea of objective empirical science.


  • Options
    #328
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I find it ironic that many atheists who insist on moral relativity also support the idea of objective empirical science.

    False dichotomy by misrepresentation. @Morbert my position is either God is omniscient or he is not a good. That is he's all knowing and also omnipotent, for us to be able to do things that he couldn't anticipate means he's neither omniscient or omnipotent. Essentially I think it's a fallacy to attribute omniscience and omnipotence to a being and then say we're responsible for anything which Christianity certainly does. It's a paradox to me.


  • Options
    #329
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    ISAW wrote: »
    I find it ironic that many atheists who insist on moral relativity also support the idea of objective empirical science.

    Have you ever genuinely met a atheist who insists on moral relativity?


  • Options
    #330
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Wicknight wrote: »
    Have you ever genuinely met a atheist who insists on moral relativity?

    Surely there exists some people though because views of morality are independent from atheism.:)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Surely there exists some people though because views of morality are independent from atheism.:)

    True. But I suspect that the type of person who would reach atheism as a conclusion would also find some serious flaws in the idea of moral relativism, so I suspect they are a minority.

    Moral relativism seems to be more of a straw man idea of what atheists must believe if they don't accept objective moral authority. You see this time and time in posts by theists who seem to think we must regard all moral opinions as equally valid unless God can magically tell is which ones to believe.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement