Evidence for God from Science

hatsoff wrote:

zoegirl wrote:but why would there be any reason *to* behave according to *your* morality?!?! So what if that is what *you * believe to be right....doesn't mean it is!

you have revealed the weakness in you own statement ..."I am lucky enough"

Hatsoff...why is your system morally right??? Short answer, simply because you have decided it is....and right now the majority is with you....so great. But that by no means makes it so....it just means that a majority of us have, in your thinking, decided that to kill someone else is wrong, to steal is wrong...

Quite so. Indeed, that's all it ever means to say that something is "right" or "wrong"---that someone or some group has decided to label it as such. The only difference between us, here, is that you believe God exists and has thrown in his own moral preferences, whereas I do not.

The rest of the animal community does not adhere to this strange line of behavior...indeed other animals such as lions kill the young from other males. This behavior would most certainly have evolved to so that the genes pass down to the next generation. That is certainly not wrong for the lions...what makes it wrong for us, other than some quirk in our thinking that provided our ancestors a greater fitness?!?!??

We have a powerful central nervous system which enables us to reflect on our actions and consider the perspectives of others. So it is that we have developed shared codes of conduct, whereas dumb animals have not done the same.

I don't see anything "strange" about that.

I didn't say anything about it being strange....I am saying that your morality is enirely arbitrary. Whether or not your powerful complex thinking has allowed you the *idea* that you are right does not make it right.

Bottomline, there is nothing inherently right or wrong about killing, fighting, stealing, deception, rape, greed, lust according to the evolutionary model alone....

Indeed not, since "inherent" rightness or wrongness is an unintelligible concept. The existence of God doesn't change that, by the way.

We are nothing less than morality bullies, declaring those that engage in behavior that their genes dictate to be social outcasts....

Yes, that is so, just like the Biblical God, if he exists, is the same sort of moral autocrat, insisting that we comply with his moral decrees, and threatening eternal torture for those guilty of the slightest infraction.

Let's not sidestep the issue. We can discuss God's morality later.

Let's just clarify this. You are agreeing that there is nothing right or wrong about rape and murder other than the fact that we have, as a society, declared it to be so?

zoegirl wrote:Whether or not your powerful complex thinking has allowed you the *idea* that you are right does not make it right.

Sure it does. Rightness is defined by our ideas. It's just a concept used in social contexts.

Let's not sidestep the issue. We can discuss God's morality later.

I'm not after the content of God's morality, but rather what it means to talk about it. If the Biblical God exists, then what is rightness? What is wrongness?

Let's just clarify this. You are agreeing that there is nothing right or wrong about rape and murder other than the fact that we have, as a society, declared it to be so?

Close, but not exactly.

Morality only makes sense with respect to a particular moral code or a collection of codes. They can be laid down by anyone---including but not limited to society. So, if God exists, then he can give us a code of conduct, and that divine moral code will define morality in a certain context. Similarly, a society can define a moral context by its majority opinions. Individual people can single-handedly lay the foundations for their own moral codes, e.g. Kant's categorical imperative or Siddhartha Gautama's eightfold path.

Hopefully that helps.

hatsoff wrote:I don't know what you mean by this. You seem to be saying that you would not stop behaving altruistically, correct? And, then you are also suggesting that the reason you would not is because you "know that man's altruistic nature is not pure." But what does that mean? I can't make heads or tails of it.

Man's ways are different from God's way... God's ways are higher. Not sure what the confusion is here..

hatsoff wrote:On certain matters, sure. But there is also obviously a great deal of overlap, as we all function together in the same society.

We may function in the same society but over all they are in opposition. Why hasn't the secular world embraced the views of the church?

hatsoff wrote:But others are lucky enough. Surely you would not suddenly begin cheating and stealing if you were to become convinced that God does not exist, would you? Well, the same goes for most other people.

Again, it's all luck... What you are saying is that no one's moral compass is equal. There is nothing to base it against besides how someone feels that day.

hatsoff wrote:It's not a matter of belief. Labels are not true or false; they are useful or not useful, appropriate or inappropriate, intuitive or unintuitive, etc.

Then why are you calling me religious?

hatsoff,

There is nothing that makes rape right or wrong other than the fact that currently you and the majority of society have declared it to be so. That's it.

You bring up God as being a morality bully....but let's think about that....IF He does exist then He of all beings has the right to declare something right or wrong.

If He *doesn't* exist, what gives *you* or the rest of society to declare someone else's morality to be right, other than your own thinking declares it to be so. (and if thinking is how we derive our conclusions, then we can hardly condemn the murderer or rapist his own thinking and conclusions)....that is what I meant by morality bully.


If God doesn't exist, then currently in our society we have a majority that have established a moral code and are acting as if they have the right way. But what gives them the right other than they have the numbers for them???

But others are lucky enough. Surely you would not suddenly begin cheating and stealing if you were to become convinced that God does not exist, would you? Well, the same goes for most other people.

Not my point...whether or not I would is not the question...If God does not exist what gives you the right or me the right to declare stealing to be wrong....

A scenario: A virus kills off the majority of the human race. By some genetic combination, those that have a stronger immnunity to the virus also have aberrant views of morality (at least by your standards). Suddenly they have the majority. Now according to evolutionary models, a new morality paradigm has been established. Stealing is perfectly fine, as long as you can defend yourself. There would be nothing wrong about this, just as there is nothing necessarily right or wrong as our current mode of thinking that stealing is wrong.

Canuckster1127 wrote: There are actually very few atheists who go so far as to assert dogmatically the "non-existence" of God.

Bart, if this is true, then the ramifications for atheism could be devastating. Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god. If what you say is true, then I can only wonder how many "atheists" are not actually atheist.

God bless

Canuckster1127 wrote:A good example as to how some of the scientific community in general have extended their scientific discipline beyond the realm of science itself and into the philosophic realm without allowing for the acceptance of reality being more than the material has been some of the reaction to Francis Collins...

I'll agree with you there, to some extent!
If both sides constrained themselves to the evidence then that would be fantastic.

It does dismay me when I see eloquent writers and talented scientists like Dawkins muddle their scientific/methodological viewpoints with their personal/philosophical ones.

If we had more Carl Sagans and Kenneth Millers, who stuck to the evidence and clearly separated their personal beliefs from their empirical ones then I'd be a very happy boy indeed

DannyM wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god.

That is only one definition of atheism.

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god.

That is only one definition of atheism.

What's the other/s?

touchingcloth wrote:If we had more Carl Sagans and Kenneth Millers, who stuck to the evidence and clearly separated their personal beliefs from their empirical ones then I'd be a very happy boy indeed

You can't escape it... At some point personal beliefs will collide with scientific ones.

For many evolutionists, evolution has functioned as something with elements which are, let us say, akin to being a secular religion.

“Evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically. I guess we all knew that, but I think that we're all much more sensitive to these facts now. And I think that the way to deal with creationism, but the way to deal with evolution also, is not to deny these facts, but to recognize them, and to see where we can go, as we move on from there.” — Michael Ruse

"But there is no such thing as philosophy-free science; there is only science whose philosophical baggage is taken on board without examination." Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995) p.21 Evolutionist Daniel Clement Dennett

Dennett also claimed Darwinism is universal acid, it goes through everything. William Provine, a professor from Cornell, one of the points he would make there is no bases for morality, there is no absolute truth, there is no free will. How can there be free will? Consciousness itself is called an emerged property.

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god.

That is only one definition of atheism.

What's the other/s?

The implicit or explicit lack of belief in a god.

DannyM wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote: There are actually very few atheists who go so far as to assert dogmatically the "non-existence" of God.

Bart, if this is true, then the ramifications for atheism could be devastating. Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god. If what you say is true, then I can only wonder how many "atheists" are not actually atheist.

God bless

Danny,

In an extreme sense it is true nevertheless. As I've mentioned before, and I'm certainly not a fan of his, Richard Dawkins will not go so far as to deny all possibility of the existence of God. He rates it a 6 on a scale of 7. I'm certainly no atheist or fan of atheism either, but I have found that it doesn't lead to very effective communication when either side of a debate or conversation begins to define the other side by its extremes or by exagerating their positions. That usually leads to effectively ending the conversation and escalating the angst.

I would daresay, that a very large percentage of those who use the term atheist, would not deny the possibility of God's existence. They would say that they see no evidence for God and therefore choose to live as if God does not exist until they are convinced otherwise. Of course, it's my contention that their framework predetermines their conclusion and so it's as much a statement of faith on their part in the rightness of their underlying epistomology just as it is with Christians, although we term that acceptance as faith.

Not everyone who claims themselves to be an atheist is necessarily an atheist of the same bent as the more militant and vocal faction such as Dawkins, Harris, and company. If you look, you will even find atheists who react and respond against them. Several on this board have said that they used to be atheists and have since come to faith in Christ. Many others will as well. For my part, I find it more effective to speak civilly with all who are willing to do the same and to believe that listening to what other's have to say and not trying to pigeonhole them into predetermined categories leads to more effective conversations and even on occassion, the changing of minds.

blessings,

bart

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Atheism is explicitly the belief that there is no god.

That is only one definition of atheism.

What's the other/s?

The implicit or explicit lack of belief in a god.

Agnosticism.

DannyM wrote:Agnosticism.

Once again, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge that can be applied to any idea, it's not limited to theology (unlike atheism).

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:Agnosticism.

Once again, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge that can be applied to any idea, it's not limited to theology (unlike atheism).

I know that, but we are talking about agnosticism with regards theology. I'm well aware about the term and how/where it can be applied. Your above description of atheism is not a description of atheism but a description of agnosticism - theologically speaking.

DannyM wrote:

touchingcloth wrote:

DannyM wrote:Agnosticism.

Once again, agnosticism is a claim about knowledge that can be applied to any idea, it's not limited to theology (unlike atheism).

I know that, but we are talking about agnosticism with regards theology. I'm well aware about the term and how/where it can be applied. Your above description of atheism is not a description of atheism but a description of agnosticism - theologically speaking.

But the 2 things - theistic agnosticism and a belief or otherwise in a deity - are compatible.