Evidence for God from Science

Hi Audie, I'm feeling nervous now.

Audie wrote:

K wrote:For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.

Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.

Could you please say why you think as in bold?

Kenny and I had previous exchanges that we reached a common ground on.

In response to the "rape example" I provided of what some evolutionary thinkers believe is a way for undesirables to pass on their genes.
This pricks my own conscience -- rape is never in any way morally fine even if it might be a natural phenomenon.
Kenny's response was that science should not be used to determine morality. I agreed with him.

The reason I agreed is because "Science" deals with the physical world.
Ethics or Moral Philosophy is needed to explore with moral truths.

So any justification that science might bring to bear on moral issues I believe is a category error.
It is like saying what is the shape of the colour red. Colour has not shape. It is a category error to think it does.
That is why I readily agreed with Kenny that science should not be used to determine morality.

Kenny and I also had exchanges over morality being an intrinsic part of us.
Such that, even if everyone thought it alright to kill Kenny for fun they would still be wrong.
Or if religion thought it alright to kill Kenny, that religion would be morally wrong.
So Kenny and I agreed that morality seems to be an innate part of us, even if society and religion can still greatly influence what we see as morally right and wrong.

Audie wrote:As for the example you used earlier, while there is a sort of countercurrent thing there,
there is more to the picture than that being an exception to disprove a rule.

With salmon, for example, the 'king" or "Chinook" salmon, the males may weigh as much as 100 lbs. The contest for females is just that, a contest.

BUT, while the big boys are busy contesting, a "jack" (sorry Jack) salmon can slip in and fertilize some eggs.

The "jack" is a two yr old that may weigh five pounds, and in no way could compete directly.

It is a successful strategy, to some extent. But it has not resulted in the entire population of males being 5 pounders any more than human society has gone to an all-rape reproduction system.

Kenny also made the distinction that "we" are not animals.
We are of higher intelligence and are just aware that some things are morally right and wrong.
I agreed with him.

There also isn't really much I disagree with you on here in your example.
Certainly society isn't going to go to an all-rape reproduction system because of an idea proposed by some evolutionary thinkers.
However, there are those, who would agree with their logic. I'm sure there are rapists that really don't care, and such thinking is dangerous to women and young girls.
It provides justification for rape in some instances, something which my moral conscience screams is wrong, as I'm sure yours would.

I shudder to think that any education institution, like the University of California Santa Barbara, would promote:
"That rape might be an adaptation is a reasonable hypothesis to pursue, and the proper framework is intersexual conflict."

Where are the brakes to stop educated people becoming fools and forsaking what many intrinsically know to be wrong?
Kenny is right. Science should not guide what is or is not moral.

I don't mean to insult on intellectual people, as I consider myself somewhat intellectual.
But often the smartest and most educated people reach the dumbest conclusions.
Sometimes when I hear this or that comment, I think that must have come from someone highly educated, because no uneducated person would make such foolish statements.

Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: While we can't see through the smoke to agree in some objective manner about every particular moral issue, we are still in fact seeing the smoke itself.

You don't need to have perfect moral sight to know and believe some things are morally wrong or right.
Therefore you don't need a perfect morality to see its smoke.
The smoke is objectively real even if the details are hazy due to our subjectivity.

So if we see the smoke (moral values that we identify with), then according to Aquinas's reasoning, there is a source of this smoke (moral values).

I don't want you feeling like I'm laying some kind of trap.
So to be totally transparent and show my cards, the source for me -- the fire -- is God Himself.
Christian theology sees "Goodness" a part of God's very nature, along with other attributes like "Holiness", "Immutability", "Eternality", "Love", etc.
God for me, is the fire -- the ultimate source of all the smoke I see (the innate moral values we both possess and identify with).

If you see the smoke, and claim there is no fire (which I don't see you doing by the way), then that does seem a little odd to me.

I agree! Like the old saying goes; where there is smoke there is fire. Of course the Theist will see the Fire (source of morality) as God. While I can’t speak for all atheists, I can only speak for myself; I see the source of morality (fire) as a human desire to live peacefully. I believe humans are for the most part peaceful and social creatures; and in order to live socially and in peace each has to feel they are treated fairly otherwise there will be no peace, IOW there has to be empathy for one another. I believe this is the source of morality, and morality is the source of human laws.

Ken

Thanks Ken,

I'm not sure how much further I can press matters if you really do see "the fire" as an innate "desire to live peacefully". But, let me try.

Hana raises a valid question I think: "where is the human desire to live peacefully from?"

For me, I find it hard to accept that the root of all morality stems from an innate sense to live peacefully.
This still seems like where dealing with the smoke. Perhaps smoke closer to the fire, but still smoke nonetheless.

Why do I say this?
Well, I'd put forward that there seems to be many who are quite happy to be angry.
Many do not want peace, but would prefer power, wealth and/or glory instead.
Many even who would quickly go to war and fight for their beliefs, their country or ideals.

So, this difference in values suggests to me that "a desire to live peacefully," while I too think is more morally desirable, is still a moral "gradation".
As such, my feeling is that such a response is too simple.
In other word, what you call the fire is actually still smoke, and there is some source still further that is actually the fire.

Maybe I am missing some connection that you see.
So, is there any reason why you believe "the desire to live peacefully" is "the fire" -- the source of moral good?
Or, is it just something you choose to believe because right now, you're just not sure right now?
I'd more prefer your most honest answer.

Whatever the case, thanks for having this conversation with me.
I've enjoyed it regardless and think perhaps in the past I judged you too quickly.

All the best, K.

Kurieuo wrote:Hi Audie, I'm feeling nervous now.

Audie wrote:

K wrote:For the Atheist, there is Evolution... however, this seems a little odd to me, particularly because science may contradict what we intuitively know to be morally wrong. I agree with you that we should not use science to determine morality. For example, the rape example I mentioned earlier. Far from being the "hottest" source, science can lead people to a quite cold morality.

Thoughts? I'm also happy for you to prod in a direction if there's something else you'd like to explore further.

Could you please say why you think as in bold?

Kenny and I had previous exchanges that we reached a common ground on.

In response to the "rape example" I provided of what some evolutionary thinkers believe is a way for undesirables to pass on their genes.

Wellllllll, maybe. You said "science' and now clarify it or narrow to "some evolutionary thinkers", a term I do not recognize in either sense of the word "recognize". But ok, some may think that. That it may occasionally work doesnt relate well to your earlier idea that, what was it, why dont we all behave so badly if evolution theory says blah..

That is why I compared it to the "jack salmon". It may work occassionally, tho whether rape is genetic is very questionable, whereas the "jack salmon" is genetic.

This pricks my own conscience -- rape is never in any way morally fine even if it might be a natural phenomenon.

Exceptin' when God directs it.. (cheap shot)

Kenny's response was that science should not be used to determine morality. I agreed with him.

Seems fair, tho perhaps there could be an exception. At least, determine laws related to morality.

The reason I agreed is because "Science" deals with the physical world.
Ethics or Moral Philosophy is needed to explore with moral truths.

So any justification that science might bring to bear on moral issues I believe is a category error.

Something like yours, thinking that "science" is in contradiction to morality rather than the source of it.

Kenny and I also had exchanges over morality being an intrinsic part of us.

Of course, and it either evolved that way of was god-poofed there. , another cheap s hot.

Audie wrote:As for the example you used earlier, while there is a sort of countercurrent thing there,
there is more to the picture than that being an exception to disprove a rule.

With salmon, for example, the 'king" or "Chinook" salmon, the males may weigh as much as 100 lbs. The contest for females is just that, a contest.

BUT, while the big boys are busy contesting, a "jack" (sorry Jack) salmon can slip in and fertilize some eggs.

The "jack" is a two yr old that may weigh five pounds, and in no way could compete directly.

It is a successful strategy, to some extent. But it has not resulted in the entire population of males being 5 pounders any more than human society has gone to an all-rape reproduction system.

Kenny also made the distinction that "we" are not animals.

Also? We are animals.

We are of higher intelligence and are just aware that some things are morally right and wrong.

Some animals certain show the rpecursors of human morality.

Certainly society isn't going to go to an all-rape reproduction system because of an idea proposed by some evolutionary thinkers.

What is with this "evolutionary thinkers"? Science and religion and philosophy all get misused. The 911 boys were "religious thinkers" in a far more direct logical and integrral way than any social darwinist of hypothetical rape-society thinker is doing science.

A person who "gets it' about evolution would never think of such things as the excesses of WW2 or the like.

However, there are those, who would agree with their logic.

No real logic comes from a faulty premise.

I'm sure there are rapists that really don't care, and such thinking is dangerous to women and young girls.

Tell me about it.

It provides justification for rape in some instances, something which my moral conscience screams is wrong, as I'm sure yours would.

Anything will do, if that is the goal. Think ISIS for a start.

Where are the brakes to stop educated people becoming fools and forsaking what many intrinsically know to be wrong?

Where indeed? There isnt anything.

I don't mean to insult on intellectual people, as I consider myself somewhat intellectual.
But often the smartest and most educated people reach the dumbest conclusions.

We think here of Dr. K Wise and his determination to be a YEC even if all the evidence in the universe says its wrong.

1over137 wrote:Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Jumping in to say its from the same source as the pro-survival "desire" of a flock of birds, or a pack of hyaenas to get along with eachother.

I'm YEC? That'd be music to the ears of some here.

Audie, I mean no offence, but this was a discussion between Kenny and I.
So, I was working with Kenny. And where we agree on things, no further justification was needed.

If you want to debate points where we found agreement, then I'm happy to have a discussion with you too.
Let's start over from the beginning with each other here. I'll let you lead.

And seriously, me wise? Thank you.
But, I'm no Dr. You're the one studying Law.
Geesh. See why I stated I was nervous? Please be gentle.

Audie wrote:
We think here of Dr. K Wise and his determination to be a YEC even if all the evidence in the universe says its wrong.

Wow! Audie, do you know what happens when you assume? K a YEC? that's like calling the pope a Protestant.

Way to go Audie!

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Jumping in to say its from the same source as the pro-survival "desire" of a flock of birds, or a pack of hyaenas to get along with eachother.

Could you be any more vague?

Kurieuo wrote:I'm YEC? That'd be music to the ears of some here.

Audie, I mean no offence, but this was a discussion between Kenny and I.
So, I was working with Kenny. And where we agree on things, no further justification was needed.

If you want to debate points where we found agreement, then I'm happy to have a discussion with you too.
Let's start over from the beginning with each other here. I'll let you lead.

And seriously, me wise? Thank you.
But, I'm no Dr. You're the one studying Law.
Geesh. See why I stated I was nervous? Please be gentle.

Hey that IS gentle! For me.

("Kenny and me", not "Kenny and I")

Omg. You're right! And you thought I was smart.

Audie, me just read what you wrote more closely (which was hard to do because you don't know how to quote properly ).
But, me did find your humour amusing which me missed the first time around.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
We think here of Dr. K Wise and his determination to be a YEC even if all the evidence in the universe says its wrong.

Wow! Audie, do you know what happens when you assume? K a YEC? that's like calling the pope a Protestant.

Way to go Audie!

Oh dear the assumptions!!!

Dr. K Wise, an american paleontologist and yec.

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

Kurieuo wrote:Omg. You're right! And you thought I was smart.

Audie, me just read what you wrote more closely (which was hard to do because you don't know how to quote properly ).
But, me did find your humour amusing which me missed the first time around.

Ok, you are right, I get mixed up on how to use the quote thing.

("which I missed", not "what me missed")

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
We think here of Dr. K Wise and his determination to be a YEC even if all the evidence in the universe says its wrong.

Wow! Audie, do you know what happens when you assume? K a YEC? that's like calling the pope a Protestant.

Way to go Audie!

Oh dear the assumptions!!!

Dr. K Wise, an american paleontologist and yec.

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

Surely you planted that one on purpose?
I should just quit now.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:
We think here of Dr. K Wise and his determination to be a YEC even if all the evidence in the universe says its wrong.

Wow! Audie, do you know what happens when you assume? K a YEC? that's like calling the pope a Protestant.

Way to go Audie!

Oh dear the assumptions!!!

Dr. K Wise, an american paleontologist and yec.

http://creation.com/kurt-p-wise-geology-in-six-days

Surely you planted that one on purpose?
I should just quit now.

I dont just do things. I always have a reason.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:Kenny, where is the human desire to live peacefully from?

Jumping in to say its from the same source as the pro-survival "desire" of a flock of birds, or a pack of hyaenas to get along with eachother.

Could you be any more vague?

Sorry, I was just trying to avoid being overly wordy.

Animals that "get along" in a group have a better survival chance than those that do not.

The ability for group animals such as primates, or ants, to live peacefully deeply predates the existence of modern man.