Evidence for God from Science

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Reason? Reason has nothing to do with the Golden Rule.

Here's a "golden rule" that I see as reasonable, and which most people tend to follow in their everydays lives. And it's one that makes logical sense:

Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you.

After it's your life. You won't be around after it. So live it your way. ("your" intended as third person, not you specifically)

Care to offer a logical alternative?

Do you really have such a low ignorant view of non-theists we're discussing?

Actually, yes, I believe I have very little ignorance of non-theists.

You seem to have a typo here. Or is "Actually, yes, ..." directly answering my question, i.e., you do have a low view of non-theists?

Re-read your original statement. No typo in what I said: "I believe I have very little ignorance of non-theists."

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Reason has everything to do with the Golden Rule. A random group of non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, can easily agree on a set of concrete ethical rules, some of which will look surprisingly like the last 7 Commandments. Those ethical rules will look nothing like what you sarcastically describe above.

Err, how does reason have everything to do with the Golden Rule?

I was not using sarcasm at all. I am dead serious. I've see it. I've even been there and considered it.

I'm born into this world. This is my life. I do not experience the life of someone else, just my life. I want the best for my life. Therefore, I come first in life and everyone else where I see they fit into creating the best world for myself.

Now that is a logical argument. You might reject it, but it is one based on logical reasoning. So to reject it, you need to logically refute one of the premises rather than just rejecting the conclusion outright as you have done.

I'd also be interested in hearing an alternative logical argument that supports the Golden Rule? The only reason I can see, is not logical, but rather emotional. And if emotions evolved to keep humanity more social, why we ought to discard them for ourselves when they don't really suit us.

You obviously missed my assumption. I said, "... non-theists, who roughly agree on reasonable well-known variations of the Golden Rule, ...". As I said before, such people will not reason to the ethical rules you described, and even you considered. People, who don't want the value that derives from the Golden Rule, can justify just about any selfish thing.

Even the reasoning ability of chimps and dolphins in scientific group behavior studies not only follow variations of the Golden Rule, but also derive them on their own. "I'll share these treats with you, if you do the same for me if you ever have treats. And if you don't share with me later, I won't share with you when I again have the chance."

Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so.

Hehe... counterproductive to what -- someone's own gain?

Thanks for providing some logic to the Golden Rule. Sadly, your example really ends up supporting a maxim to always look after ourselves.

Giving something to get something back is still ultimately self serving and supports the maxim I proposed: "Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you." If the chimp is going to give to receive, then it is obviously profiting him. And so, if the chimp refrains from giving after not receiving then it is because he realises the giving is no longer profiting him. No?

Provide the logic for a chimp just giving away everything, not getting anything back, and repeating to go the extra mile to continue giving everything away.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:MN is clearly tautologous, unless wishing to highlight some sort of obscure slant against belief in God. Copernicus did science without needing to understand MN, because certain methods that MN claims to provide are actually implicit to Science. Only Copernicus did his science without basing his enquiry in Philosophical Naturalism (like MN), but rather based upon a fully-fledged Theism, specifically Christianity.

Now you're just making stuff up.

Oh please. Copernicus is there for anyone to read.

As for your other words, your mistrust of me in asking the CSI question is misplaced.

Re: MN, I feel you may be reacting to a couple of statements of mine here and there, and your tone evidently shows you have broad stroked me. Why bother continuing discussion with me if you believe I'm being underhanded?

In any case, I feel much of my beliefs with the MN discussion, including any supposed agenda I have to the CSI question, gets further clarified in my later posts from Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:41 am onward. The discussion of MN was moved on with my more recent exchanges with Percy.

Kurieuo wrote:Now we saw with my CSI question, that this second neutral definition seems at the end of the day not good enough for you and Morny. Rather you guys desired to push out MN to borrow assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism so that it could encapsulate "intelligence we are familiar with" and incorporate that into the natural order of things.

MN shouldn't rule out anything based on a priori and arbitrary ideas about what is supernatural. Instead, the circularity in MN is that it tests and measures only that which is testable and measurable, and calls such things "natural". So it's not really about excluding the supernatural, but only including what is deemed natural based upon its testability.

According to MN as I understand it, considering human intelligence as un-/super-natural would "push out" the definition of MN more than considering it to be natural would. The effects and even workings of human intelligence are after all eminently observable and testable.

Kurieuo wrote:Interested in your thoughts. Hopefully you agree with some of the above?? While finding this philosophising of science interesting, I'd like to agree and move on.

I agree with a lot of the above. As I've said before, I think we have pretty much the same idea about how science should be done, and I do see the basis of your aversion to the term MN even though I don't share it. I think we can move on

Kurieuo wrote:However, like Christians might believe that non-Christians are spiritually blinded and need to be born again -- not of the water but the spirit -- Atheists have proposed their own ideas. For example, Freud and Kant who in a quite matter of fact way state we have a delusion or believe in an illusion and this affects our rationality. One side is right, and the other is wrong. I'm obviously on the Christian side so... it's not like I've got the other option.

Thanks for this response (including the stuff I didn't quote - I didn't want to clog the thread up) - interesting to read your thoughts.

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so.

Hehe... counterproductive to what -- someone's own gain?

Yes, but you conveniently forgot to mention everyone else's gain. Selfishness is shortsighted for not only everyone else, but also the practicianer. The Golden Rule, in which everyone has a vested interest in everyone else's gain, isn't a zero-sum game, i.e., everyone can win. This logic isn't difficult, as even chimp and dolphin studies show.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks for providing some logic to the Golden Rule. Sadly, your example really ends up supporting a maxim to always look after ourselves.

Giving something to get something back is still ultimately self serving and supports the maxim I proposed: "Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you." If the chimp is going to give to receive, then it is obviously profiting him. And so, if the chimp refrains from giving after not receiving then it is because he realises the giving is no longer profiting him. No?

Provide the logic for a chimp just giving away everything, not getting anything back, and repeating to go the extra mile to continue giving everything away.

Your chimp example is a strawman - no person (or chimp) will injure themselves firmly believing that nothing but hardship will ever result. Including you, correct? Every religious person I know requires the carrot at the end for being a follower.

Kurieuo wrote:In any case, I feel much of my beliefs with the MN discussion, including any supposed agenda I have to the CSI question, gets further clarified in my later posts from Mon Nov 11, 2013 8:41 am onward. The discussion of MN was moved on with my more recent exchanges with Percy.

I've looked at your referenced previous post and the following posts with no clear understanding. So you generally reject the MN definition in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism ... losophy%29, whose 3rd paragraph says, In contrast, assuming naturalism in working methods, without necessarily considering naturalism as an absolute truth with philosophical entailments, is called methodological naturalism.?

If your MN definition requires philosophical naturalism, then OK, we can never make any progress. But then your MN definition seems redundant.

If you exclude intelligence from MN's scope, you throw out entire branches of science showing that the Scientific Method has had great success observing, testing, and characterizing human intelligence. Please give an example of a discovery or successful investigation that doesn't justify incorporating intelligence "into the natural order of things" (your wording).

Maybe your "philosophical" claim is that God just inspired Copernicus? Also OK. But MN doesn't care who whispers helpful hints in your ear, only that you show your work of weighing natural evidence to justify your natural theory. (BTW, Copernicus also has additional quotes deriding beliefs inconsistent with evidence.) Copernicus, just like Galileo, Pasteur, and Laplace, is a shining example of MN's usefulness, even before the coining of the term "Methodological Naturalism" (Wiki's definition).

PerciFlage wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Now we saw with my CSI question, that this second neutral definition seems at the end of the day not good enough for you and Morny. Rather you guys desired to push out MN to borrow assumptions of Philosophical Naturalism so that it could encapsulate "intelligence we are familiar with" and incorporate that into the natural order of things.

MN shouldn't rule out anything based on a priori and arbitrary ideas about what is supernatural. Instead, the circularity in MN is that it tests and measures only that which is testable and measurable, and calls such things "natural". So it's not really about excluding the supernatural, but only including what is deemed natural based upon its testability.

According to MN as I understand it, considering human intelligence as un-/super-natural would "push out" the definition of MN more than considering it to be natural would. The effects and even workings of human intelligence are after all eminently observable and testable.

Kurieuo wrote:Interested in your thoughts. Hopefully you agree with some of the above?? While finding this philosophising of science interesting, I'd like to agree and move on.

I agree with a lot of the above. As I've said before, I think we have pretty much the same idea about how science should be done, and I do see the basis of your aversion to the term MN even though I don't share it. I think we can move on

Perci, thanks for your exchanges here.

Initially I didn't know what to make of your posts, but I am glad to have pursued these exchanges with you. I didn't know what to make of you, but re-reading it seems you were quite honest after all and just interested in some stimulating discussion which I appreciate.

I think we do largely see eye-to-eye, however having taken a short break, I'd like to give one last issue a crack re: your observable human intelligence as being natural.

Your inclination to define "Natural" as more than an observation of processes carrying on in the world without any intervention, to incorporate "humans" who are observable and therefore become a part of the natural world... such reasoning definitely seems quite reasonable since we obviously appear to be a part of the natural order. But, I feel there is actually more going on than meets the eye. If we dig down below the surface level then things start becoming quite complicated and odd.

First, a detour out of interest re: human intelligence. Consider that people often talk about how we appear to be the only creatures who transcend nature to make it conform to our ways, rather than the other way around. No other species has had it in their ability to manipulate the environment and even destroy Earth and all life on it like we do. No other species has had such a dramatic impact. Our level of intelligence, self-awareness and ability to manipulate the natural order seems anything but natural. And yet, we also work within that natural order and even tied to it, such that we cannot escape the inevitability of physical death.

Much can be done to reflect and think about all this, including the mind-body problem (i.e., whether we are ultimately physically derived from one physical substance, what is the mind and intelligence). So it is not entirely clear whether humans and their intelligence really ought to be considered "natural" -- certainly there is no clear mind-body solution based upon physicalism or materialism that doesn't have some problems that I'm aware to.

Leaving this detour now, we do appear to observe "humans" -- so much so that testing seems hardly needed -- so let me consider the implications of your definition of what is "natural".

If what is "observable and testable" is what we are to consider "natural", then one must believe that MN is a method that continually pushes the boundaries of what is "natural" when exploring what is "unnatural".

Unless one invokes something like Philosophical Naturalism (which we're trying to avoid to make MN philosophically neutral), then one cannot from the beginning know whether an explanation is indeed natural or unnatural. And if what one declares as "supernatural" were to be observed and tested and maybe even repeated, then such would mean what is actually supernatural is in fact natural. This all leads us to conclude that we simply do not know what is in fact "natural".

Again, the only way around this conclusion is to assume Philosophical Naturalism from the outset, such that "nature" is arbitrarily defined in circular fashion as that which excludes God/gods, spirits/ghosts, etc according to ones own biased taste....

However, if Methodological Naturalism is truly neutral, then in practice one must withhold judgement as to what is natural/unnatural. Such that, MN continually advances the natural into unnatural territory (not yet observed and untested parts of reality). Thus, in keeping with your definition of "natural", it can be said the MN explores what is unnatural (unobserved and untested), and similarly that MN profits us no new knowledge if it simply explores what is natural (already observed and tested).

But doesn't this become too odd? To say that MN explores that which is unnatural. Who would really consider that MN is an method of exploring the "unnatural" rather than that which is "natural"? I'm sure not many scientists, especially your secular kind, could consistently use terms in this manner. Even if initially accepted, one is inclined to want to exchange definitions to substitute in a biased definition of Philosophical Naturalism to reinstate MN as a methodology for exploring the natural world.

Now, the only way out of these unnecessary complications without basing Methodological Naturalism upon Philosophical Naturalism is to simply embrace my #2 definition:

• 2) On the other hand, one can take a conjoined looked at the fuller term "Methodological Naturalism" to simply mean a more neutral method of examining the natural order of things without any sort of intelligent intervention. For example, plants might randomly grow in no particular pattern out in the wild -- this is the natural order of things. However, to see them lined up perfectly in rows according to their own kind and particular colours -- without any natural explanation this is likely the result of an unnatural arrangement (e.g., produced by a gardener).

Push "MN" to mean something more, then you either have to based it upon assumptions of Philsophical Naturalism, or you have a lot of explaining to do to unravel all the complications, and then good luck trying to convince others to work with your understanding.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so.

Hehe... counterproductive to what -- someone's own gain?

Yes, but you conveniently forgot to mention everyone else's gain. Selfishness is shortsighted for not only everyone else, but also the practicianer. The Golden Rule, in which everyone has a vested interest in everyone else's gain, isn't a zero-sum game, i.e., everyone can win. This logic isn't difficult, as even chimp and dolphin studies show.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks for providing some logic to the Golden Rule. Sadly, your example really ends up supporting a maxim to always look after ourselves.

Giving something to get something back is still ultimately self serving and supports the maxim I proposed: "Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you." If the chimp is going to give to receive, then it is obviously profiting him. And so, if the chimp refrains from giving after not receiving then it is because he realises the giving is no longer profiting him. No?

Provide the logic for a chimp just giving away everything, not getting anything back, and repeating to go the extra mile to continue giving everything away.

Your chimp example is a strawman - no person (or chimp) will injure themselves firmly believing that nothing but hardship will ever result. Including you, correct? Every religious person I know requires the carrot at the end for being a follower.

Err, it was originally your chimp example...? but, a chimp can survive without treats so its not like a matter of life and death, or even injury.

Is this not the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"? So love others as you want to be loved. Love has no boundaries.

Personally, I think your belief is more in the Silver Rule which is along the lines of "Do not do unto others what you don't want them to do to you." This rule allows for complacency. You can walk by a burning house and let the kids inside die without risking your life. One chimp can withhold treats from another chimp after realising he's not going to get anything back. This all finds a happy home in the maxim I previously provided: "Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you."

So then, it now seems that you reject the "Golden Rule" to believe that it really doesn't exist? That people won't injure themselves if nothing but hardship will result? That people need some carrot dangled? This insults the many people have given their lives for others.

Many people, belief or no belief, have sacrificed their own life for others. It happens every day. If you were a parent, would you not want someone to risk their lives saving your children from a burning house? Would you risk your life saving someone else children from a burning house? Would you push a child out of the way of a bus to take the full force and be a cripple the rest of your life? Many acts of self-sacrifice have been performed by people of all beliefs. No carrot. Just based on this strong belief in "Good". But, what is this goodness worth dying for?

Kurieuo wrote:Unless one invokes something like Philosophical Naturalism (which we're trying to avoid to make MN philosophically neutral), then one cannot from the beginning know whether an explanation is indeed natural or unnatural. And if what one declares as "supernatural" were to be observed and tested and maybe even repeated, then such would mean what is actually supernatural is in fact natural. This all leads us to conclude that we simply do not know what is in fact "natural".

Again, the only way around this conclusion is to assume Philosophical Naturalism from the outset, such that "nature" is arbitrarily defined in circular fashion as that which excludes God/gods, spirits/ghosts, etc according to ones own biased taste....

But nature isn't arbitrarily defined according to one's own tastes in MN. As I said in my previous post:

Perciflage wrote:MN shouldn't rule out anything based on a priori and arbitrary ideas about what is supernatural. Instead, the circularity in MN is that it tests and measures only that which is testable and measurable, and calls such things "natural". So it's not really about excluding the supernatural, but only including what is deemed natural based upon its testability.

So God/gods/spirits/ghosts shouldn't be deemed supernatural from the outset and therefore untestable. Instead, the best one can say using MN is that those things are untestable and/or unverified, but that in the future a test may well be devised that puts them within the purview of MN. Whether something is deemed testable isn't through some assumption about whether it is "natural", but rather the exact opposite.

Kurieuo wrote:However, if Methodological Naturalism is truly neutral, then in practice one must withhold judgement as to what is natural/unnatural. Such that, MN continually advances the natural into unnatural territory (not yet observed and untested parts of reality). Thus, in keeping with your definition of "natural", it can be said the MN explores what is unnatural (unobserved and untested), and similarly that MN profits us no new knowledge if it simply explores what is natural (already observed and tested).

Whilst you could use the tenets of MN to define everything which is untestable or as yet untested as "unnatural", a better word would be, simply, "untested". It's also not the case that we don't benefit from exploring that which has already been tested. Sticking with the example already used in this thread, Copernicus, Newton and Laplace all made contributions to the field of orbital mechanics, with each man supplementing and correcting the work of his forebears. Five centuries have passed since Copernicus first formulated his heliocentric model, and we still haven't answered every question in that field.

Morny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Morny wrote:Must we really rely on supernatural insight to reason that lying, cheating, etc., are counterproductive? Evidently chimps and dolphins don't think so.

Hehe... counterproductive to what -- someone's own gain?

Yes, but you conveniently forgot to mention everyone else's gain. Selfishness is shortsighted for not only everyone else, but also the practicianer. The Golden Rule, in which everyone has a vested interest in everyone else's gain, isn't a zero-sum game, i.e., everyone can win. This logic isn't difficult, as even chimp and dolphin studies show.

Kurieuo wrote:Thanks for providing some logic to the Golden Rule. Sadly, your example really ends up supporting a maxim to always look after ourselves.

Giving something to get something back is still ultimately self serving and supports the maxim I proposed: "Look after yourself first, and then anyone else thereafter as much as it profits you." If the chimp is going to give to receive, then it is obviously profiting him. And so, if the chimp refrains from giving after not receiving then it is because he realises the giving is no longer profiting him. No?

Provide the logic for a chimp just giving away everything, not getting anything back, and repeating to go the extra mile to continue giving everything away.

Your chimp example is a strawman - no person (or chimp) will injure themselves firmly believing that nothing but hardship will ever result. Including you, correct? Every religious person I know requires the carrot at the end for being a follower.

Sorry to jump in so late to the thread. But, I've spent several minutes reading and getting caught up. We've had this debate in the past on the forum, with non-theists presenting the GR.
I would feel safe in assuming that self-sacrifice is viewed as a virtue. Ex: A person who would take a bullet for another. Obviously if one soldier jumps on a hand grenade to save his platoon, he isn't going to be around to reap the benefits. Yet, it would be hard to find someone who wouldn't see the virtue in this act of self-sacrifice.
But so what? You can argue that the GR is reasonable and beneficial to society, but I say, "so what?" Your proposition that humans benefit from the GR implies that human kind has some intrinsic value. And ultimately that is what it comes down to. What does it MATTER? Once you are dead (from a non-theist worldview) you are worm food. There is nothing at that point. There is no you to benefit, or to even consider the benefit. So who cares? Carl Sagan, who used to sell the hippy dippy cosmology ("We are made of star stuff!") as something romantic, became synical as he approached death. Why? Because he knew, if he were right, it really didn't mean jack s#@&. And therefore, there is nothing intrinsicly BETTER about the GR than there is in adopting, 'only the strong survive.' One cannot adhere to the GR without smuggling in the presupposition that existance, human or otherwise, has intrinsic value. It's the elephant standing in the corner. You can duck and dive. You can reference Dolphins or any other species, but at the end of the day it comes down to, "so what?" The bottom line is it makes you 'feel' better. It helps to jusitfy that one day the elephant in the room is going to stomp you into dust, and then...,well, who gives rip about a rule, golden or otherwise. If an asteroid collided with the earth right now, and humanity were completely wiped out, what would it matter? It wouldn't. And therefore, it DOESN'T.

And that is why it is so essential to understand the context of the GR. Jesus Christ referred to the GR in the context that man has intrinsic value. Not just the illusion of value, but that mankind has authentic and genuine value to an eternal and transcendent God. That there is something fundamentally true to doing unto others as you would have them do unto you. Not because it gets your back scratched in the end, but because within the fabric of the cosmos, it really is objectively true. You matter. I matter. And how I treat you really does matter. And this is the essense of Christ's message. You can't do unto to others to get some reward. But that you OUGHT to do unto others because it is objectively the RIGHT thing to do.