| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/09/2006 05:24:30 PM · #576 |
First I have to say I have loved this discussion I have read every post. I dare not enter this discussion with you Grey Matter Giants but I have read these 3 books that pertain to this thread and I thought I would share for those who might like some interesting reading.
The Tao of Physics
The God Particle: If the Universe Is the Answer, What Is the Question?
The Physics of Immortality |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:25:23 PM · #577 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I still don't get it. Religion is thoroughly incompatible with scientific method. It's proof by faith (regardless of tests) vs. proof by testing (regardless of belief). Philosophy is more about rationalization than proof of anything, and no more compatible or incompatible with Atheism than Christianity. |
I don't disagree. I just find that the typical armchair atheist doesn't think through the full ramifications of their belief. Think of them as the flip side of the "feel good" Christian who likes to think there is a benevolent grandfather in the sky looking after us but doesn't get too upset about looking the other way when we feel like acting sorta shabby.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:35:14 PM · #578 |
Too..many...coversations...head...about...to...explode!
Milo, I won't quote your last post, but simply reply with what I think you are looking for.
I believe that atheists do have standards and ethics, but they are ultimately based on nothing more than "what I feel" (no matter how many layers of complexity lie in between).
Here is the difference between two atheists who disagree and two theists who disagree:
Two theists meet. One is Christian, one is Hindu. They disagree on the divinity of Christ and that he is the only path to heaven. In the theist world view, one is correct and one is incorrect. We may not know who is who until the end, but one will be right and one will be wrong. Truth comes with a capital "T".
Two atheists meet. One is capitalist, one is communist. They disagree on the idea of progressive taxation. In the atheist world we already know a priori, that truth does not come with a captial "T". How could it? There is nothing outside of us to point to. One is not right and one is not wrong, there is merely disagreement.
Think of it as science in reverse. We can clearly apply the scientific method to answer questions of science. Theology, in a way, has its own scientific method. It's called Absolute Truth. Atheism has no claim on absolute truth and would argue there is no such thing outside of Science. Theists claim there is such a thing and it resides in God. Of course we disagree on what that Truth looks like, but theists have the ability to claim philosphical Truth, atheists do not.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 05:55:32 PM · #579 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Think of [atheists] as the flip side of the "feel good" Christian who likes to think there is a benevolent grandfather in the sky looking after us... |
What is the flip side? If you go visit an ancient temple and "realize" Zeus isn't watching from above, does that mean you are suddenly free to spray paint graffiti on his temple? For some people yes, and for others, no. In the absence of a Big Brother or Benevolent Grandfather, people still have their own sense of right and wrong- as evidenced by toddlers and monkeys who have no concept of a god. Religion is NOT the source of morality. It's merely a platform used to indoctrinate cultural standards which may themselves be morally corrupt (stoning non-believers, taking possession of a late brother's wife, slavery, etc.).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Here is the difference between two atheists who disagree and two theists who disagree... |
The theists would be limited to a shouting match of beliefs, but non-theists can present physical evidence and test theories. The first two simply assume the other is wrong with only their own opinions to back up their assertions, while the other two can play Sim Earth and see what works. Philisophical truth is only an assumption of truth. Scientific truth is better known as fact. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 06:27:57 PM · #580 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
What is the flip side? If you go visit an ancient temple and "realize" Zeus isn't watching from above, does that mean you are suddenly free to spray paint graffiti on his temple? For some people yes, and for others, no. In the absence of a Big Brother or Benevolent Grandfather, people still have their own sense of right and wrong- as evidenced by toddlers and monkeys who have no concept of a god. Religion is NOT the source of morality. It's merely a platform used to indoctrinate cultural standards which may themselves be morally corrupt (stoning non-believers, taking possession of a late brother's wife, slavery, etc.). |
CS Lewis takes this innate sense of good and evil to be evidence for God. The fact that a) the sense is nearly universal b) the sense is much more the same than it is different across cultures c) the sense often does not lead to self-preservation and d) we all fail to live up to our own sense seems more compatible with a sense which was placed rather than one which developed.
Originally posted by scalvert, the pious:
The theists would be limited to a shouting match of beliefs, but non-theists can present physical evidence and test theories. The first two simply assume the other is wrong with only their own opinions to back up their assertions, while the other two can play Sim Earth and see what works. Philisophical truth is only an assumption of truth. Scientific truth is better known as fact. |
There are lots of questions where physical evidence and theories have no sway. If you believe that the scientific method can hold sway in philosophy then I would argue just as hard that theology can hold sway in science. We'd both be wrong and you are simply claiming benefit in the very same actions you are deriding in your opponent (using the tools of one sphere in the realm of the other sphere).
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 07:32:33 PM · #581 |
Wow, where has this thread been hiding? I've had a very entertaining morning reading some of the best ranting i've ever seen. I particulary enjoyed the part where we dipped into beastilaty for a while...
I've got to the end and it's time for my 2 cents.
Why is it that the same people who demand absolute proof of evolution are prepared to accept the whole death of jesus thing with a whole lot less evidence? |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 07:36:11 PM · #582 |
Originally posted by dr_timbo:
Why is it that the same people who demand absolute proof of evolution are prepared to accept the whole death of jesus thing with a whole lot less evidence? |
I'm struggling to come up with a smartass answer for this...
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 08:30:03 PM · #583 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
CS Lewis takes this innate sense of good and evil to be evidence for God... |
1. Why can't those things be the result of natural evolution? Indeed, understanding what's beneficial or harmful to others is advantageous (if not essential) for social animals to survive. 2. Interesting that you would turn to an author of fiction for reference material.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you believe that the scientific method can hold sway in philosophy then I would argue just as hard that theology can hold sway in science. We'd both be wrong... |
In a way we'd both be right, although philosophy is conjecture, not proof, so I'm not sure what the point would be.
From Wikipedia: "...many of the speculations of early philosophers in the field of natural philosophy eventually formed the basis for modern scientific explanations on a variety of subjects." "[Medieval philosophy was] characterized by analysis of the nature and properties of God..." |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 08:42:16 PM · #584 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
1. Why can't those things be the result of natural evolution? Indeed, understanding what's beneficial or harmful to others is advantageous (if not essential) for social animals to survive. 2. Interesting that you would turn to an author of fiction for reference material.
|
If you only know Lewis for his fiction (The Chronicles of Narnia), you don't know Lewis. He is widely regarded as the preeminent Christian philosopher of the 20th century.
To answer your question, try giving Dawkins' The Selfish Gene a try. Although Dawkins says altruistic behavior exists, it only exists as far as the gene can propogate itself. This is easily understood with simple altruistic behaviors (warning calls, suicidal rescues of family members), but as soon as you get more complicated, you quickly run out of pier to walk on.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 20:46:24.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 09:34:01 PM · #585 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[C.S. Lewis] is widely regarded as the preeminent Christian philosopher of the 20th century. |
Interesting. You'd think that might warrant at least a passing mention in his biography. All I see is author and professor specializing in Medeival literature. Maybe I just overlooked that "preeminent philosopher" part?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...as soon as you get more complicated, you quickly run out of pier to walk on. |
Soooo... how exactly does that fit in with the National Geographic link I pointed to earlier detailing monkeys who would turn down a treat or throw it back in disgust out of a sense of unfairness? Seems like there's plenty of room on the pier to me.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 21:49:27. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 10:50:10 PM · #586 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
[C.S. Lewis] is widely regarded as the preeminent Christian philosopher of the 20th century. |
Interesting. You'd think that might warrant at least a passing mention in his biography. All I see is author and professor specializing in Medeival literature. Maybe I just overlooked that "preeminent philosopher" part?
|
Methinks thou useth wikipedia too much...
From the inside cover of the current biography I'm reading:
"Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential religious writer of his day."
another quote
"The most influential Christian apologist of the last hundred years..."
- Richard Neuhaus, First Things
I'd hope you'd allow me at least the edge in my knowledge of Christian writers and philosophers...
BTW...I'd check out that wikipedia entry again. I think it says as such now. Does that change your mind?
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:10:34 PM · #587 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW...I'd check out that wikipedia entry again. I think it says as such now. Does that change your mind? |
LOL. Did you just go ahead and update that wiki entry? That's the thing, anybody can edit it and the changes are made in realtime yet it often gets used as gospel in discussions like this. Ok that's it continue this interesting thread!
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 23:11:54.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:19:16 PM · #588 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential religious writer of his day." |
"most influential" and "pre-eminent" are not synonymous -- Mein Kampf is arguably the "most influential" political tract of the 20th Century, but I'm not sure you'd label the author a "pre-eminent" political theorist. |
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:28:05 PM · #589 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably the most influential religious writer of his day." |
"most influential" and "pre-eminent" are not synonymous -- Mein Kampf is arguably the "most influential" political tract of the 20th Century, but I'm not sure you'd label the author a "pre-eminent" political theorist. |
I don't know. I did have to remind myself of the definition the first time I used it, but I think it sticks. "Superior to or notable above all others; outstanding." I cannot think of a superior, more influential, or better Christian philosopher during the 20th century. I think many others can't as well. I'm looking at my bookshelf and I have no less than 14 books by him. I do realize it's a subjective term though.
|
|
|
|
08/09/2006 11:48:10 PM · #590 |
Regardless of how esteemed Lewis is or may have been as a Christian apologist, you're still pointing to his personal opinion that an innate sense of right and wrong is evidence of God, when that same sense could be easily considered a natural requirement for the survival of any social animal. If the members of a pack, troop, pride, etc. didn't have some instinctive feel for what benefits or harms the group, there would be no survival advantage to BEING in a group.
Message edited by author 2006-08-09 23:55:17. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 12:08:32 AM · #591 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Regardless of how esteemed Lewis is or may have been as a Christian apologist, you're still pointing to his personal opinion that an innate sense of right and wrong is evidence of God, when that same sense could be easily considered a natural requirement for the survival of any social animal. If the members of a pack, troop, pride, etc. didn't have some instinctive feel for what benefits or harms the group, there would be no survival advantage to BEING in a group. |
How do you apply this line of reasoning to the human animal? Humanity pursues countless activities that are counterproductive, self-destructive and simply no good for the race as a whole. You don't even have to quantify these actions as good or evil and you can find examples on both an individual level and when looking at the race as a whole.
When you start drawing conclusions from the animal world (assuming you set humanity apart from the rest of the animals), you either need to talk your way past a lot of disturbing conclusions or else buy into the idea wholeheartedly. For instance, animals (and packs/herds in particular) will either leave their sick to fend for themselves and die or else actively kill them. This behavior when pursued by humans resulted in ideologies such as Nazism which has generally been viewed as a Real Bad Thing. If it is simply the nature of the beast (no pun intended) then how can it be evil? Was it evil or was it just behavior that was unacceptable to a bunch of other animals with more guns and an equal level of visciousness capable of eliminating said behavior?
edit: sp
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 00:15:26. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 12:31:20 AM · #592 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
How do you apply this line of reasoning to the human animal? |
Achoo/Lewis speculated that an innate sense of right and wrong was evidence of God. I'm saying that such a sense is very likely necessary for social animals (including people) to function/survive better than individuals. A honeybee doesn't fan the hive to cool itself- it could simply go outside to do that. Animals are also observed in both counterproductive behavior (the monkey study I linked earlier) and staying with the sick (beached dolphins, protective elephants, etc.).
I've already stated several times that good and evil are artificial contructs of civilization, and what's good for one group of people may be evil for another (cannibalism, Aztec "basketball," cutting off the hand of a thief...). |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 12:36:42 AM · #593 |
| "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." ~Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 12:42:22 AM · #594 |
Ahh, I misunderstood. I more or less agree with what you've said.
I think perhaps Achoo would make a better case by pointing at the human capacity for feeling remorse, guilt, shame, etc for 'evil' behavior. Taking action that benefits you the individual or your 'herd' does not absolve a sense of guilt if you know that action is morally wrong. How would nature spawn a sense of guilt, especially guilt over taking necessary and healthy action?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 01:51:29 AM · #595 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Achoo/Lewis speculated that an innate sense of right and wrong was evidence of God. I'm saying that such a sense is very likely necessary for social animals (including people) to function/survive better than individuals. A honeybee doesn't fan the hive to cool itself- it could simply go outside to do that. Animals are also observed in both counterproductive behavior (the monkey study I linked earlier) and staying with the sick (beached dolphins, protective elephants, etc.). |
It seems like your logic is a bit circular here.
Animals exhibit counterproductive behavior that really helps out the species and not the individual.
How do we know this behavior helps the species?
Because animals exhibit such behavior. How else could it have evolved?
I'm afraid animal studies can only take us so far. Our tendancy to anthropomorphize animal behavior is likely to quite get in the way. Maybe the dolphin is staying with the beached partner because it is just as confused or suffering from the same malady the other is, not because of any "social" behavior.
Routerguy did hit on some key points. Why has our society developed such counterproductive ideas as caring for the elderly, dying, and weak? You can't make any argument that this behavior helps propogate the selfish gene as a) the majority of these individuals are past the point of reproduction and b) weak individuals weaken the whole herd, espeically if they ARE able to pass their genes on. Yet we repulse at the idea of eugenics or survival of the fittest (and for good reason). What gives?
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 05:27:32 AM · #596 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Too..many...coversations...head...about...to...explode! |
Do you want me to switch sides and help you out for a bit? You are doing a sterling job of responding to a lot of questions (even if I don't agree with your answers).
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 05:30:13.
|
|
|
|
08/10/2006 08:12:31 AM · #597 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Too..many...coversations...head...about...to...explode! |
Do you want me to switch sides and help you out for a bit? You are doing a sterling job of responding to a lot of questions (even if I don't agree with your answers). |
You're such a lawyer ... |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:03:35 AM · #598 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
How do we know this behavior helps the species? |
Using the honeybee as a simple example- they fan the hive with their wings rather than leave to a cooler spot, they communicate the location of food to others instead of simply hoarding it for themselves, they readily use their stingers in defense even though doing so means death to the individual, their queens are not unlike the elderly in that they require care and cannot readily fend for themselves, etc, etc. Is there any other way to explain behavior so obviously detrimental to individuals? Social animals must "know" that their own sacrifices are good for the group and that other behaviors are "evil" (a prairie dog who DOESN'T sound an alarm would avoid calling attention to itself, but jeapordize others).
You make a broad statement that humans care for the weak, but some people do practice euthanasia, leave the sick to die or ignore pleas for help on Mt. Everest (ahem). What's repulsive to you may be perfectly fine to another. Hunter-gatherers may well have turned their backs on the old or infirm, but the recent development of technology has largely suppressed the influence of natural selection in humans, so artificial ideas of good and evil imposed by modern societies no longer have to benefit the herd or correspond to genetics. Witness the Taliban.
A quick response for Routerguy: humans have no monopoly on guilt and shame. I have merely pointed to something "bad" without saying a word and watched a dog slink off with his tail between his legs or hide under a bed for hours. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 09:46:29 AM · #599 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A quick response for Routerguy: humans have no monopoly on guilt and shame. I have merely pointed to something "bad" without saying a word and watched a dog slink off with his tail between his legs or hide under a bed for hours. |
I've liked your arguments so far, but this one is very weak. Your dog's behavior is almost entirely a product of your human influence, A domestic dog is pretty far removed from a wild beast and is certainly immune to most if not all of the environmental and evolutionary factors you point at as motivator for behvaior in animal and man. You are projecting your own understanding of guilt/shame/remorse onto the dog when you see it slink away. It is equally if not more likely that the dog's response is one of fear of punishment. If you can come up with an example in nature, source of the behavioral motivators that you are basing your argument on, where animals exhibit these emotions and explain how evolution caused them to be present in animals - and for what purpose -I would (seriously) like to see it.
Message edited by author 2006-08-10 09:48:55. |
|
|
|
08/10/2006 10:28:05 AM · #600 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by scalvert:
A quick response for Routerguy: humans have no monopoly on guilt and shame. I have merely pointed to something "bad" without saying a word and watched a dog slink off with his tail between his legs or hide under a bed for hours. |
I've liked your arguments so far, but this one is very weak. Your dog's behavior is almost entirely a product of your human influence, A domestic dog is pretty far removed from a wild beast and is certainly immune to most if not all of the environmental and evolutionary factors you point at as motivator for behvaior in animal and man. You are projecting your own understanding of guilt/shame/remorse onto the dog when you see it slink away. |
I think Mark Twain agrees with you on this one:
"Man is the only animal which blushes ... or needs to." |
|
