Evidence for God from Science

PerciFlage wrote:

B. W. wrote:The sex offender man, who held those three women hostage in Ohio recently, under such a system would be guilty of what? What would be wrong with murder and mayhem, theft, ruining people’s lives? Who cares – all is a meaningless joke…

Disregarding other people for a moment, can I assume that even if you were to accept that the universe were nothing but matter and energy that you believe individual people would still value their own lives? That, regardless of whether they believed killing or stealing from another person was breaking some universal law or not, that at a minimum they would desire to minimise their own risk of death or experience of pain?

Assuming that you do believe that to be true, then killing someone or otherwise ruining their life would immediately focus the lens of suspicion upon you. At the very least people might seek to avoid any dealings with you, and they might seek to do something to you to discourage you from acting like that again, or else to physically prevent you from ever acting like that again.

Unless you want to make the argument that in a godless world no one would mind in the least being on the receiving end of theft or attack, then it simply doesn't follow that people would have unlimited motivation to commit attacks and robbery. Theft and murder might not be wrong in any meaningful universal sense, but they wouldn't be without repercussions for the perpetrator.

Have you read the news and world news lately?

There are different ways people murder each other - just as Jesus mentioned...

Character assassination, relationship assassination, bitterness, ends justify the means; power and control through intimidation ... a whole host of stuff is justified and passed off as normal...

Next, in a godless world, people cast off restraints, become more distant, unkind they'll exchange Caritas for Libertas. Caritas is Latin and means charity and moral virtue from the heart - to give without thought of a return. Libertas means a condition meet so one can be free - Libertas -given in a tit for tat manner - a I scratch your back - you scratch mine - you earn liberty in an exchange and get something in return. Slave earned libertas in ancient Rome... The Idea is an exchange, a reward, for service rendered. You purchase votes this way by pitting people against each other...

Folks only will fool themselves if they think a godless society can actually live by the golden rule and have been doing so for years - again read the news - look around - look in a mirror...

The idea of Atheism in all its forums is easily summed up as: give up all ideas of God and you'll get enlightenment/perfection/beauty...(libertas) because if you don't we will first ridicule you, mock you, pass legislation against you, and if that doesn't work - take your children from you, sanction you, and this doesn't work - eventually eliminate you because we know what is best... Is this not theft and non-physical murder? and justified too by the illusion of human grandeur transitioning into a new form?
-
-
-

Byblos wrote:I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

Yes that is true - they can do so based upon their concepts of libertas...

Such morals change and there is no anchor for the soul to be measured. What one group thinks is morally right will be removed by later generations. I think of the former USSR and the former Warsaw pack countries mirrored by historical well documented concerning the work ethic in these countries demonstrates this very well. Everybody did only the minimum to get by and relied on the black market too. The products produced were substandard at best. Complained, well, you dare not do that or else... Later generations rebelled against this this progressive utopia...

One generation morally thinks it best that human cannot marry and have sexual relations with animal pets, another generation squawks loudly at the repression of human rights against such folks imposed by society and legalize these unions as normal... all done to sway public opinion just to win voters for the next election - libertas.

All human beings are moral beings but they cannot define, what absolute right and wrong is. Humanity lives to twist and warp the rules and work the system...to their own advantages.

We are talking about all manner of Transitional Forms and how the idea of evolutionary progress infects all manner of social, political, scientific thought and philosophy. Instead of getting better - we discover more chaos to justify as normal, so I don't think the topic has been derailed - just evolving in its transition
-
-
-

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:I would say atheists can be moral, there's no question about that. The problem is they have no basis on which they can account for this sense of morality, other than perhaps the golden rule. And we know how well the GR has worked out.

First, FL slams "Scientific American", http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 05#p146351, and now the Golden Rule is a failure?!

Do tell.

Rather than derail this thread (more than it already has) or start a new one, please read the following (long) thread then offer your comments if they haven't already been covered.

Morality without God.

You made an astounding claim about the Golden Rule. After asking a simple question, your response is little more than to go read 44 locked pages of mostly word salad?!

Only in an effort not rehash things already rehashed many times over (and not to derail this thread, but that's not working either).

Morny wrote:Commandments 4 thru 10 reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, e.g., "I don't want you to lie to me, so I won't lie to you." In practice, I agree with you, i.e., those 7 Commandments haven't "worked out" well, but the problem is with us, not with the Golden Rule.

If you had read the thread I referenced you would have know that the problem is not even the golden rule. The problem is grounding the GR in objectivity and I am contending you cannot do that without an objective moral giver. One of main posters in that thread, i.e. Spock, tried to formulate an objective grounding of the GR by basing it on love, which he called primitive. Had you read the thread you would have also known that there are even more primitive things than love, i.e. goodness so love is not the most primitive. But when you get to goodness as a primitive notion, that too must be objectively grounded and I contend that can only be goodness itself. Guess what goodness is (metaphysically speaking)? You can spin it any which way you want but you will always come back to God. Otherwise it is utterly meaningless.

B. W. wrote:Have you read the news and world news lately?

There are different ways people murder each other - just as Jesus mentioned...

Character assassination, relationship assassination, bitterness, ends justify the means; power and control through intimidation ... a whole host of stuff is justified and passed off as normal...

Next, in a godless world, people cast off restraints, become more distant, unkind they'll exchange Caritas for Libertas. Caritas is Latin and means charity and moral virtue from the heart - to give without thought of a return. Libertas means a condition meet so one can be free - Libertas -given in a tit for tat manner - a I scratch your back - you scratch mine - you earn liberty in an exchange and get something in return. Slave earned libertas in ancient Rome... The Idea is an exchange, a reward, for service rendered. You purchase votes this way by pitting people against each other...

Folks only will fool themselves if they think a godless society can actually live by the golden rule and have been doing so for years - again read the news - look around - look in a mirror...

I haven't argued that people are inherently good, or that a system of ethics not grounded in anything objective or absolute can be arrived that is anything other than messy and subject to changing over time. I'd probably agree with your thesis that in a godless universe nothing matters in any meaningful sense, I just don't agree that utter, wanton chaos is the necessary consequence. If people truly are motivated by nothing beyond their genes and their own selfish desires, then acting with brazen malice at all times would not serve them well because of the risk of retribution. If you wanted to argue that a likely consequence of a godless universe is people behaving with a level of opportunism and Machiavellianism inversely proportional to the level of oversight, that would be a different matter...

Not that I was there, but I think a godless world would be very similar to the times of Noah. Which sounds pretty bad. Murder, revenge, theft, etc.

ryanbouma wrote:Not that I was there, but I think a godless world would be very similar to the times of Noah. Which sounds pretty bad. Murder, revenge, theft, etc.

In other words...Detroit.

Morny wrote:Ooops. I didn't notice the recent postings after your 1st question about MN. Sorry about that!

Either of your wiki references seems OK as a starting point for defining "methodological naturalism". So for now lets go with the wikipedia definition that you've opted for.

Kurieuo wrote:So then, what would be some examples of what MN could reveal about a crime scene?

How about every "CSI", "The Mentalist", "Perry Mason", and "Dragnet" TV episode. Please give a crime solving example that a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism could not solve.

But, you see... either definitions are definitely not ok (at least in a logically sound sense) according to what you just said.

One definition (Wikipedia's) of "Methodological Naturalism" is saying it excludes Philosophical Naturalism -- a philosophical belief that excludes God existence. Methodological Naturalism here has no bearing upon what one believes about reality. It is simply a tool of scientific investigation which rules out unnatural scenarios such as intelligent intervention.

Therefore, CSI conducted for say a homicide, can not really use this tool since it's not dealing with purely natural processes. Rather, your dealing with intelligent causes, namely someone murdering another person so different scientific tools of discovery are needed. Even other areas like psychology to try and determine the type of person who committed the crime.

The other definition (Rationalwiki - or really should it be more called AtheistWiki?) grounds "Methodological Naturalism" in "Philosophical Naturalism". Therefore, no longer is methodlogical naturalism simply a tool of science, but rather a philosophy about reality and science.

There is clearly a difference in the definition that one accepts.

And it is clear with the second [ir]rationalwiki definition, that Atheists are trying to impose their philosophy onto Science. When many here on both sides have freely admitted that "Science" is neutral as to whether or not God exists. Certainly, many now respected early scientists wouldn't have based any scientific tool upon an Atheistic philosophy, since many were Christian.

And if "Methodological Naturalism" is to be based upon the second definition, that grounds its meaning in Philosophical Naturalism, then this is not science but Atheism being smuggled in as science. And so it ought to be rejected as science on the same grounds that one would reject ID.

RickD wrote:

ryanbouma wrote:Not that I was there, but I think a godless world would be very similar to the times of Noah. Which sounds pretty bad. Murder, revenge, theft, etc.

In other words...Detroit.

Yikes! When I posted this, I hadn't yet heard about the barbershop shootings yesterday! Bad timing on my part. Sorry.

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:Commandments 4 thru 10 reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, e.g., "I don't want you to lie to me, so I won't lie to you." In practice, I agree with you, i.e., those 7 Commandments haven't "worked out" well, but the problem is with us, not with the Golden Rule.

If you had read the thread I referenced you would have know that the problem is not even the golden rule. The problem is grounding the GR in objectivity and I am contending you cannot do that without an objective moral giver. One of main posters in that thread, i.e. Spock, tried to formulate an objective grounding of the GR by basing it on love, which he called primitive. Had you read the thread you would have also known that there are even more primitive things than love, i.e. goodness so love is not the most primitive. But when you get to goodness as a primitive notion, that too must be objectively grounded and I contend that can only be goodness itself. Guess what goodness is (metaphysically speaking)? You can spin it any which way you want but you will always come back to God. Otherwise it is utterly meaningless.

Sorry, my fault for not reading through the referenced topic's 44 pages of ... well, never mind.

Back to cat herding ... Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Morny wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Morny wrote:Commandments 4 thru 10 reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, e.g., "I don't want you to lie to me, so I won't lie to you." In practice, I agree with you, i.e., those 7 Commandments haven't "worked out" well, but the problem is with us, not with the Golden Rule.

If you had read the thread I referenced you would have know that the problem is not even the golden rule. The problem is grounding the GR in objectivity and I am contending you cannot do that without an objective moral giver. One of main posters in that thread, i.e. Spock, tried to formulate an objective grounding of the GR by basing it on love, which he called primitive. Had you read the thread you would have also known that there are even more primitive things than love, i.e. goodness so love is not the most primitive. But when you get to goodness as a primitive notion, that too must be objectively grounded and I contend that can only be goodness itself. Guess what goodness is (metaphysically speaking)? You can spin it any which way you want but you will always come back to God. Otherwise it is utterly meaningless.

Sorry, my fault for not reading through the referenced topic's 44 pages of ... well, never mind.

Back to cat herding ... Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Bah, Golden Rule? Yeah right. There is no golden rule in life.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Ooops. I didn't notice the recent postings after your 1st question about MN. Sorry about that!

Either of your wiki references seems OK as a starting point for defining "methodological naturalism". So for now lets go with the wikipedia definition that you've opted for.

Kurieuo wrote:So then, what would be some examples of what MN could reveal about a crime scene?

How about every "CSI", "The Mentalist", "Perry Mason", and "Dragnet" TV episode. Please give a crime solving example that a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism could not solve.

But, you see... either definitions are definitely not ok (at least in a logically sound sense) according to what you just said.

One definition (Wikipedia's) of "Methodological Naturalism" is saying it excludes Philosophical Naturalism -- a philosophical belief that excludes God existence. Methodological Naturalism here has no bearing upon what one believes about reality. It is simply a tool of scientific investigation which rules out unnatural scenarios such as intelligent intervention.

Therefore, CSI conducted for say a homicide, can not really use this tool since it's not dealing with purely natural processes. Rather, your dealing with intelligent causes, namely someone murdering another person so different scientific tools of discovery are needed. Even other areas like psychology to try and determine the type of person who committed the crime.

Let's assume your initial choice of Wikipedia's MN definition.

Using your own crime example, what technique for nabbing the "intelligent" murderer (or "cause" or "intervention" or whatever term you want) violates the working assumption of Methodological Naturalism?

Intelligence, whether human, chimp, dolphin, or crow, is subject to scientific study under MN. When you intelligently respond in a blog, I provisionally assume that fairies are not whispering into your ear. Such a MN assumption has been hyper-effective at understanding the world, and also does fairly well with capturing "intelligent" murderers ... and in some cases, even understanding bloggers.

Morny wrote:
Where am I trying to "ground" the Golden Rule or the Commandments in objectivity, whatever than means? No wonder topics swell to 44 pages, rarely reaching common ground between opposing viewpoints.

I'm just saying that most of the Commandments reasonably follow from Golden Rule versions, and gave an example. Surely, you generally agree. Yes?

Surely you agree that the atheist can dismiss the Golden Rule as he/she pleases while the theist is morally bound to it.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Ooops. I didn't notice the recent postings after your 1st question about MN. Sorry about that!

Either of your wiki references seems OK as a starting point for defining "methodological naturalism". So for now lets go with the wikipedia definition that you've opted for.

Kurieuo wrote:So then, what would be some examples of what MN could reveal about a crime scene?

How about every "CSI", "The Mentalist", "Perry Mason", and "Dragnet" TV episode. Please give a crime solving example that a provisional assumption of methodological naturalism could not solve.

But, you see... either definitions are definitely not ok (at least in a logically sound sense) according to what you just said.

One definition (Wikipedia's) of "Methodological Naturalism" is saying it excludes Philosophical Naturalism -- a philosophical belief that excludes God existence. Methodological Naturalism here has no bearing upon what one believes about reality. It is simply a tool of scientific investigation which rules out unnatural scenarios such as intelligent intervention.

Therefore, CSI conducted for say a homicide, can not really use this tool since it's not dealing with purely natural processes. Rather, your dealing with intelligent causes, namely someone murdering another person so different scientific tools of discovery are needed. Even other areas like psychology to try and determine the type of person who committed the crime.

Let's assume your initial choice of Wikipedia's MN definition.

Using your own crime example, what technique for nabbing the "intelligent" murderer (or "cause" or "intervention" or whatever term you want) violates the working assumption of Methodological Naturalism?

Intelligence, whether human, chimp, dolphin, or crow, is subject to scientific study under MN. When you intelligently respond in a blog, I provisionally assume that fairies are not whispering into your ear. Such a MN assumption has been hyper-effective at understanding the world, and also does fairly well with capturing "intelligent" murderers ... and in some cases, even understanding bloggers.

Wikipedia quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

• Naturalism can intuitively be separated into a metaphysical and a methodological component."[3] Metaphysical here refers to the philosophical study of the nature of reality. Philosopher Paul Kurtz argues that nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles. These principles include mass, energy, and other physical and chemical properties accepted by the scientific community. Further, this sense of naturalism holds that spirits, deities, and ghosts are not real and that there is no "purpose" in nature. Such an absolute belief in naturalism is commonly referred to as metaphysical naturalism.[4]

By contrast:

• assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism

I read that to mean any methods used in science under "methodological naturalism" do not necessitate or exclude either "Philosophical Naturalism" or "Theism". Such methods therefore, however one might think they best fit with their philosophies, are in and of themselves neutral when performed.

For example, it is quite neutral to take a position about how something could have arisen "naturally", that is without an "unnatural cause".

By "natural" here I intend it to be in its purest and rawest meaning. That is, something left alone unhindered to occur according to any environmental processes without any outside intervention.

For example, my hair in its natural state would be very long, scruffy and untouched, but in an "unnatural" state may be scruffy, have lice, oily, or whatever the case might be.

CSI, in order to declare some crime has taken place, must first rule out "natural" causes. For example, a big boulder that lands on top a person out in the wilderness, was the rock pushed or was this just an unlucky set of natural circumstances?

MN, in its most neutral philosophical form, would simply look at natural environment, any and all natural processes, that may have caused the boulder to fall at that precise time.

So, MN might look at natural explanations to account for the deep drag marks that extend 50m back from what appears to be the boulder's original location. Did a strong wind push the boulder through the sand off the cliff? What of the footprints in the sand. What natural causes might have made these foot-like imprints?

The investigator is left to use other scientific and investigative tools along with his noggin to look for interventionist causes, and determine one way or another whether it was "natural" or "unnatural" (ergo intelligent intervention) that cause the rock to fall on top of a person. For example, could an alien after failing to abduct Poindexter have decided to kill him?

Again, this meaning of "natural" and even "naturalism" is its most basic form and entirely philosophical neutral. To understand how the world works, obviously one must conduct physical observation and tests (science) on the natural order.

Ultimately, I see it comes down to this. If you or anyone wishes to impose "philosphical naturalism" onto any scientific method or process, then you're largely doing philosophy and stagnating truth and real possibilities rather than letting the scientific facts speak for themselves to those who then draw conclusions from what is revealed.

Kurieuo wrote: The investigator is left to use other scientific and investigative tools along with his noggin to look for interventionist causes, and determine one way or another whether it was "natural" or "unnatural" (ergo intelligent intervention) that cause the rock to fall on top of a person. For example, could an alien after failing to abduct Poindexter have decided to kill him?

Again, this meaning of "natural" and even "naturalism" is its most basic form and entirely philosophical neutral. To understand how the world works, obviously one must conduct physical observation and tests (science) on the natural order.

Methodological naturalism isn't really concerned with excluding the possibility of intervention by intelligent actors, but rather excludes the possibility of intervention by supernatural actors^*. The actions of human beings are natural (they are bound by the laws of physics), and so fall into the scope of MN.

Crime scene investigators would be unlikely to ever examine your falling rock scenario, unless there was pretty compelling evidence that the rockfall was something other than a horrible accident. Usually forensic experts would be called to a scene where it was highly likely that a crime had taken place, and their job would be to work out who should be considered a suspect for that crime, rather than whether human intervention was involved at all.

A better example for how the assumptions of MN might be applied to a crime scene is this: A secure delivery truck is found stopped in the middle of the street - the driver is dead at the wheel with two bullet holes in his chest, and the truck's payload of cash is missing. Even with no witnesses the scenario looks to be a crime, so forensics are called in. Some of their a priori assumptions rooted in MN would be: the bullets were fired from a gun; the gun was wielded by a person; the money was taken by people rather than spirited away or disappearing into thin air. Investigation at the crime scene would proceed from that point - bullet trajectories could be determined to discover where the gun was fired from, fingerprints and DNA samples could be taken from the truck, the driver's background and acquaintances could be looked into the determine the probability that the crime was murder disguised as robbery, etc. etc.

Ultimately, I see it comes down to this. If you or anyone wishes to impose "philosphical naturalism" onto any scientific method or process, then you're largely doing philosophy and stagnating truth and real possibilities rather than letting the scientific facts speak for themselves to those who then draw conclusions from what is revealed.

I agree. I would go even further and say that stating that MN and the scientific method have proven philosophical naturalism to be true is almost a contradiction in terms because by definition MN can only act upon what is natural (see my footnote).

* "Natural" as regards methodological naturalism is defined somewhat circularly. Technically gods and ghosts could be considered natural rather than supernatural under MN if we had a consistent means to test for gods and ghosts.

I agree. I would go even further and say that stating that MN and the scientific method have proven philosophical naturalism to be true is almost a contradiction in terms because by definition MN can only act upon what is natural (see my footnote).

* "Natural" as regards methodological naturalism is defined somewhat circularly. Technically gods and ghosts could be considered natural rather than supernatural under MN if we had a consistent means to test for gods and ghosts.

Perci, if an event happens which cannot be consistently tested for then the event falls under supernaturalism correct?
Well then veridical near death experiences fall under the supernatural because they have been shown to happen time and time again even though they are also high personal, and can't be grown in a lab.
The evidence for them is so good that One of Australia's biggest humanist organizations is imploring its atheist comrades worldwide to change its definition of methodological naturalism to include for explaining away veridical Nde's in a naturalistic way. Sounds like moving the goalposts to me.

Science will only progress when it becomes humble enough to honestly see its limitations and accept that truth can be found outside of a laboratory.