| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2013 05:26:24 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
This is true, but some famous writers/speakers (Dawkins & Co.) have sort of become spokespeople for the massive following of atheists that they have gathered to themselves. In a way, Dawkins and others have become leaders of a pro-atheist movement. And where there are leaders and numerous followers there is an organization, even if it is not an official or particularly well structured organization. |
Dawkins doesn't lead and we don't follow. He's merely a (well-publicised) advocate for a shared view. There's a really big difference. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:44:19 AM · #127 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If you base your life on science, then you are basing your life on many things that are yet unproven. |
You are unclear on what science is. Science can not be based on anything that is not proven. That is the point of science. It is not a faith where you can believe anything you like and call it "your truth". Unproven theories sit beyond the edge, outside science. A lot of activity goes on at the edges, but until an unproven passes the scientific method of repeated proofs, it ain't science.
As Gould put science and faith are "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". They operate on different rules. They are not opposite sides of the same coin. You can accept one, both or neither. Pairing them up as ying and yang is a false dichotomy.
You can not fathom a logical basis for morality without God? Have you ever read any philosophy written in the last 250 years?
"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety towards the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests."
George Santayana. Start with him, then Kant, and keep going.
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 05:57:50. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 06:02:14 AM · #128 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
At last... a Christian who seems to admit that Atheists are NOT amoral ... could this be true? :O)
Ray |
I have never claimed that atheists are amoral people. Many atheists are very moral in the sense that they do things that I interpret as being "good." I do think that atheist lack a logical basis for their morality, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are amoral. They have morals, they just can't explain them logically. But that's been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. |
...and of course, the contents of the Bible can be explained logically.
Speaking of morals... how do you feel about a religious organization that refuses to recognize the fact that condoms could significantly reduce the spread of aids, but would rather stick to the belief that procreation should be the sole goal of sex.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 03:36:06 PM · #129 |
If I've learned anything over the last ten years of these conversations, it's when this particular topic comes up we need to reflect upon one question (because we have different answers which makes all the difference). Is discussing morality more like discussing math or more like discussing art? Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides).
So, importantly, it would be incorrect to say the atheist has no morality, because they do (artwork morality). The theist does well to remember this. On the other hand, it is a worthy question to ask if artwork morality is meaningful or, pragmatically, helpful. The atheist does well to dwell on this. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 03:46:21 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I've learned anything over the last ten years of these conversations, it's when this particular topic comes up we need to reflect upon one question (because we have different answers which makes all the difference). Is discussing morality more like discussing math or more like discussing art? Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides).
So, importantly, it would be incorrect to say the atheist has no morality, because they do (artwork morality). The theist does well to remember this. On the other hand, it is a worthy question to ask if artwork morality is meaningful or, pragmatically, helpful. The atheist does well to dwell on this. |
I don't think I'm a particularly dim person but I have no clue how this analogy fits (other than half way through I was 'of course it's more like art'!) |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:15:13 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Most theists will say it is more like discussing math |
LOL. By that you mean unicornian math? You know the kind based on conjectures not proofs?
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 16:18:05. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:21:27 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Dawkins doesn't lead and we don't follow. He's merely a (well-publicised) advocate for a shared view. There's a really big difference. |
Dawkins has followers. If you don't believe that then you're living in a bubble my friend.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are unclear on what science is. Science can not be based on anything that is not proven. |
You are unclear on what I said. Read what I wrote again. Did I say that science is based on things that are unproven? No, I did not. I said if a person bases their life on science then they are basing their life on some things that are unproven. What I meant by that is science does not have all the answers. The field of science contains many theories and there are many things in the universe that are still unknown and cannot be explained by science.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
It is not a faith where you can believe anything you like and call it "your truth". |
Actually, people can believe whatever they want and call it truth. It doesn't matter if you consider yourself "religious" or "scientific." You can say and believe whatever you want, but that doesn't make it actual science or true religion.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Unproven theories sit beyond the edge, outside science. A lot of activity goes on at the edges, but until an unproven passes the scientific method of repeated proofs, it ain't science. |
I believe we are using different definitions of the term "science." You're referring to science as a body of knowledge and I'm referring to it as a field or discipline.
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
As Gould put science and faith are "Non-Overlapping Magisteria". They operate on different rules. They are not opposite sides of the same coin. You can accept one, both or neither. Pairing them up as ying and yang is a false dichotomy. |
If science and faith are non-overlapping and operate on different rules then how could a person accept both? |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:27:15 PM · #133 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If science and faith are non-overlapping and operate on different rules then how could a person accept both? |
Ask  DrAchoo. He believes in both. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:40:19 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
If science and faith are non-overlapping and operate on different rules then how could a person accept both? |
Ask DrAchoo. He believes in both. |
The key in Gould's idea is the "non-overlapping" part. It would be like knowing English and French or liking Baseball and Football. The rules of one domain do not apply to the other but you can hold both sets of rules as valid and important in their proper context.
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 16:45:29. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 04:43:18 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by Paul:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I've learned anything over the last ten years of these conversations, it's when this particular topic comes up we need to reflect upon one question (because we have different answers which makes all the difference). Is discussing morality more like discussing math or more like discussing art? Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides).
So, importantly, it would be incorrect to say the atheist has no morality, because they do (artwork morality). The theist does well to remember this. On the other hand, it is a worthy question to ask if artwork morality is meaningful or, pragmatically, helpful. The atheist does well to dwell on this. |
I don't think I'm a particularly dim person but I have no clue how this analogy fits (other than half way through I was 'of course it's more like art'!) |
Put more bluntly and less poetically, are the truths of morality objective or subjective? It's a fundamental question and when two people start talking about morality that have different answers, the conversation is likely doomed from the start. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:10:59 PM · #136 |
| If the "truths of morality" are objective, then there should be some way of proving them so by physical evidence. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:19:25 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If I've learned anything over the last ten years of these conversations, it's when this particular topic comes up we need to reflect upon one question (because we have different answers which makes all the difference). Is discussing morality more like discussing math or more like discussing art? Most theists will say it is more like discussing math and most atheists will say it is more like discussing art (though there are exceptions on both sides).
So, importantly, it would be incorrect to say the atheist has no morality, because they do (artwork morality). The theist does well to remember this. On the other hand, it is a worthy question to ask if artwork morality is meaningful or, pragmatically, helpful. The atheist does well to dwell on this. |
If something is neither meaningful or, pragmatically helpful, what purpose does it serve.
Perhaps my grasp of the English language is not what it should be, but are you not suggesting here that the atheist morality is of no consequence since it is not based on either meaning or use.
Help me out here Doc.
Ray
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 17:22:45. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:37:15 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Melethia:
The OP also hasn't posted an image or entered a challenge since 2010. Just an observation. |
But less than two years is still ok, right? |
Comin' up on a year, there, Sir... I think it time you entered a challenge. There's an expert architecture thingie going on right now. Right up your alley. Get to work! :-) |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:45:51 PM · #139 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If the "truths of morality" are objective, then there should be some way of proving them so by physical evidence. |
Consider your statement Paul:
Objective truths are proved by physical evidence.
How would one ascertain whether this statement, itself, is an objective truth? Through physical evidence? That seems pretty circular. Quickly we should be able to see there are objective truths that are not open to proof via physical evidence. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:49:59 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
If something is neither meaningful or, pragmatically helpful, what purpose does it serve.
Perhaps my grasp of the English language is not what it should be, but are you not suggesting here that the atheist morality is of no consequence since it is not based on either meaning or use.
Help me out here Doc. |
I wasn't implying an answer, I was saying it is an important question for an atheist to understand. Is subjective morality meaningful or helpful?
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 17:50:50. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 05:56:24 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quickly we should be able to see there are objective truths that are not open to proof via physical evidence. |
Want to us help out with a concrete (sic) example or two?
It is not circular reasoning, it is merely defining one's terms -- "objective" means "that which can be demonstrated by physical evidence." Something which is both "objective" and yet "unprovable" is an oxymoron, a self-contradicting phrase, a meaningless term. You can't have something mean both itself and its opposite* and have a meaningful discussion.
*with a few examples in which legal meanings have morphed, such as "sanction" -- irrelevant to my pointm, I think. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 07:32:02 PM · #142 |
No, I would say your definition of objective is quite odd in this context. By "objective" I mean, "independent of the observer". So, when I say "objective truth" I mean "a truth which is true independent of the observer". Surely you will agree there are such things which are true while at the same time are not provable by physical evidence. See my previous post for an example.
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence.
Message edited by author 2013-04-14 19:34:34. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 08:37:06 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
I do think that atheist lack a logical basis for their morality, but that doesn't mean that all atheists are amoral. They have morals, they just can't explain them logically. |
I dunno.....I think this is pretty logical.....
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
Simple, straightforward, and it's been around longer than Christianity.....
|
|
|
|
04/14/2013 10:17:02 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence. |
The question is what we accept as true.
If you are a person of science, you operate on provable truths. Yet you accept that science is an expanding bubble, that many truths are (as they say on the X-Files) still out there. Science is an incomplete set, never to be complete. But if you operate on conjecture or supposition, you become a person of faith.
If you are purely a person of faith, you follow a tenant that has all the answers. It describes to your satisfaction all the answers for all time. This kind of faith put Galileo on his knees. Your knowledge set is circumscribed in a single book. you have all the answers you need, and any further information borders on heresy.
Thankfully most of us live in the middle ground, where we learn from empirical truth, but accept that the body of knowledge is forever growing, so certainty is not something we can claim. |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 11:00:07 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence. |
Actually, no: there's a third category where some are provable and some are not. I assume your syntax is mangled, and your second line should read "Not all truths are provable by physical evidence"? |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 11:12:57 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence. |
Actually, no: there's a third category where some are provable and some are not. I assume your syntax is mangled, and your second line should read "Not all truths are provable by physical evidence"? |
Yes. Sorry. You are exactly right. I think I meant to say, "SOME truths are NOT provable by physical evidence." |
|
|
|
04/14/2013 11:21:52 PM · #147 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence. |
The question is what we accept as true.
If you are a person of science, you operate on provable truths. Yet you accept that science is an expanding bubble, that many truths are (as they say on the X-Files) still out there. Science is an incomplete set, never to be complete. But if you operate on conjecture or supposition, you become a person of faith.
If you are purely a person of faith, you follow a tenant that has all the answers. It describes to your satisfaction all the answers for all time. This kind of faith put Galileo on his knees. Your knowledge set is circumscribed in a single book. you have all the answers you need, and any further information borders on heresy.
Thankfully most of us live in the middle ground, where we learn from empirical truth, but accept that the body of knowledge is forever growing, so certainty is not something we can claim. |
Unless I misled you with my poor syntax (see Robert's post and my reply), I think you are speaking tangentially to my main point. An idea sometimes emerges that all truths of value fall within the domain of Science (ie. the Scientific Method). This has sometimes been labelled, usually in a mildly derogatory fashion, as Scientism. Whether he mean to or not, Paul seemed to be supporting its tenets. My reply above was mainly to show that it is easy to declare Scientism as self-defeating as it is not possible to prove that Scientism is true using the Scientific Method (as it is circular logic). |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 12:19:26 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
|
That's logical from a humanistic standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 12:37:07 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
|
That's logical from a humanistic standpoint, but not from a scientific standpoint. |
By this you mean a scientist's standpoint? Because science in of itself makes no judgements. It has no standpoints. It's merely a method of processing data. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 12:52:13 AM · #150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
All truths are provable by physical evidence.
All truths are NOT provable by physical evidence.
One of those statements is objectively true, but neither is provable by physical evidence. |
The question is what we accept as true.
If you are a person of science, you operate on provable truths. Yet you accept that science is an expanding bubble, that many truths are (as they say on the X-Files) still out there. Science is an incomplete set, never to be complete. But if you operate on conjecture or supposition, you become a person of faith.
If you are purely a person of faith, you follow a tenant that has all the answers. It describes to your satisfaction all the answers for all time. This kind of faith put Galileo on his knees. Your knowledge set is circumscribed in a single book. you have all the answers you need, and any further information borders on heresy.
Thankfully most of us live in the middle ground, where we learn from empirical truth, but accept that the body of knowledge is forever growing, so certainty is not something we can claim. |
Unless I misled you with my poor syntax (see Robert's post and my reply), I think you are speaking tangentially to my main point. An idea sometimes emerges that all truths of value fall within the domain of Science (ie. the Scientific Method). This has sometimes been labelled, usually in a mildly derogatory fashion, as Scientism. Whether he mean to or not, Paul seemed to be supporting its tenets. My reply above was mainly to show that it is easy to declare Scientism as self-defeating as it is not possible to prove that Scientism is true using the Scientific Method (as it is circular logic). |
You'll never get Goliath off his feet by using the same biblically old fallacies. Religion as an alternative isn't strengthen by pointing out science's flaws. Even if Goliath were to fall he would land on top of David. That's because religion has all of the same flaws and then some. |
|
