Evidence for God from Science

There is an interesting thread on God and Morality here.
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... sc&start=0

Zenith wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

i observe my cats feeling attachment to me, or curiosity, jealousy, happiness, etc.

That's personification. You are attributing human characteristics to animals.

gorillas take care of each other in the wild, they know what is right and wrong in living together. any animal that cares for its young has morals (though very simple).

Non sequitor.

1) Gorillas take care of their young
2) Unknown premise
____
Conclusion: Gorillas have morals.

As I just told you, you cannot determine what is moral by what is. If a gorilla cares for its young, how do you reach the conclusion that the gorilla thinks such an action is moral? Do explain. I just told you you can't do that.

most of our morality is learned through life experience too. as a child we are constantly told what not to do, just like how you can train a dog.

This simply begs the question.

maybe you should define what morality is to you, then, because i really can't see what it would be other than what i have explained.

It is you who ignore the normative meaning of morality.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:It is you who ignore the normative meaning of morality.

then lay it all out for me, man. i'm a child, i need you to tell me what the normative meaning of morality is, because obviously, i don't have the slightest clue. all i see are simple interactions, i can't uncover the deep interworkings of complex life such as humanity. i can't see the inherent difference between animal and humans. please, show me. (i really want you to, i'm only partly being sarcastic

On a television program in britain on channel 4 in january,Richard Dawkins decided to have a go at all religions. One of the things he said is that people shouldn't enforce their beliefs on others. All the time on that program, he was enforcing his beliefs on anyone who watched it, so isn't he a bit of an idiot?

Dawkins makes no sense. Especially him claiming religion is evil-he can't say that-his religion has no explanation for evil and claims it doesn't exist...so...

puritan lad wrote:I have to say, at least he is consistent. I have yet to hear a "moral atheist" explain the basis for his morality, (or for that matter his "reason".)

So am I to understand that you don't understand morailty? Human reasoning is always fallible because the mind of man is fallible, puritan. But God's wisdom which tells us that love is better than hate, a life-long sexual relationship with a virgin of the opposite sex prevents divorce, jealousy, broken familes, and disease, stealing from others increases our dependence on things rather than breeding love for people, loving our enemies instead of murdering them sustains life rather than produces death, etc. But man's reasoning, "I get to do whatever I want and who cares if it hurts anyone?" always leads to death. And that's why God says; "The wisdom of the world is foolisheness is God's sight.

puritan lad wrote:I have to say, at least he is consistent. I have yet to hear a "moral atheist" explain the basis for his morality, (or for that matter his "reason".)

Spot on Puritan Lad.

Dawkins has gone halfway to accepting what his philosophy demands, but cannot let go of reality and has to entitle his TV programme about religion as 'The root of all evil'. He will be hard pressed to let go.

On his assumption that we are merely faulty machines, then eventually science will be able to fix us (that's where he is headed). So if science can fix us with, say, a course of tablets, then Richard needs to ask himself a question.

"If one of his family members is raped and murdered by a 'broken' person, and a course of 'future prozac' is prescribed and fixes the murderer, is Richard happy to see that murderer walk free and not even be admonished because he did no wrong, but was just in a state of disrepair? "

And if not Richard, why not? We are, after all, just mechanistic animals - why should we carry all of this unnecessary emotional baggage about with us - where did these sensibilities come from? And in fact, they are just an irrational response to murder and the like, and by your reckoning should be 'fixed' as well.

Ah, that's it - prescribe a course of tablets for the murderer, and at the same time prescribe a course for the victims 'unreasonable' family who seem to think they have been wronged.

Dawkins is propounding nonsense, but is at least consistent with his bankrupt materialistic philosophy.

Regards,

Blacknad.

all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.

Evolutionary psychology only explains where the sense of morality came from, not what morality is nor what our moral values should be. Too brief a response but dinner's ready.

terminatordrei wrote:

all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.

Evolutionary psychology only explains where the sense of morality came from, not what morality is nor what our moral values should be. Too brief a response but dinner's ready.

It has explained where the sense of morality comes from? I don't recall you showing this.

terminatordrei wrote:

all human (and many animal) morals consistently center around one main point: if an action is helpful to the survival of the community, it is good; if an action is harmful to the survival of the community, it is bad.

Evolutionary psychology only explains where the sense of morality came from, not what morality is nor what our moral values should be. Too brief a response but dinner's ready.

Lets clarify.

Evolution based philosophy offers a possible explanation for the origins of morality.

This philosophy is not a scientific theory, but more a series of propositions based on evolutionary scenarios.

This should not be confused with the actual science of evolution.

It has explained where the sense of morality comes from? I don't recall you showing this.

Chillax. I was taking for granted the hypothesis proposed by Blind Electric Ray to show him that it doesn't explain everything about morality , especially the most important aspect, i.e. what moral values are.

IMO, Dawkins should stick to biology since iit appears he wouldn't make it as a philosopher or social scientist.