Science and religion

[Darkstar]

pragmatic truth claims are obviously very different from correspondent or ethical truth claims.

You made another post where you said that common sense says you should trust in empirical science.

What makes you think this? This is what I used to think when I was about 17 or 18 years old, I used to be an atheist and I had an immense trust in science. I didn't realize the fallibility of science, how quickly it is replaced with new theories, and how limited its sphere it.

Why is it common sense to base everything on empirical science?

I said philosophy too...

If you had a relationship with a women, would you consult empirical science for advice? Would you think about statistical methods while you talking to her to discern the right way to act?

What makes you think that empirical science is the best way to understand life?

Not life, physical reality. And, actually, science might be able to lend some help even in the situation you described. (I think you may have forgotten about the "soft" sciences like psychology) If god exists, there is no reason that science shouldn't have found him by now. I am not saying that it would be able to comprehend his powers when it did, but even if god were non-physical, his interactions with the world would have to take on physical form to interact with the physical world.

---

If the success of science in aiding modern societies is sufficient to attribute the power to grant ultimate knowledge, and ultimate dominion of yourself over to something (as you place ultimate dominion and control of yourself in the hands of science when you trust it), why not use morals based on technology instead? Why not base your morals on wet vac chemical methods?

*cough* philosophy*cough*

Say you were going to get married. Why not ask the people that develop chemical formulas for wet vacuum cleaners for advice getting married? Surely wet vacuum cleaners have proved their utility in aiding people to clean floors.

Isn't that just feeling? I mean, if you like them and they like you then it's emotion. Sure, you could explain the chemical reactions responsible for that, but it wouldn't be useful at the moment. Your feelings, paired with general common sense (if there is some obvious reason it won't work out) is pretty much what you would use.

[pocaracas]

define "evil".

Evil is being separate from God, or separate from the intended order of creation. To go against the purposes of God is evil.

So then, under this definition of yours,
" A spiritually mature person would prefer to starve rather than to do something seriously [separate from God, or separate from the intended order of creation]. "

As far as I'm aware, there is no god. If there is a god and it wants me to acknowledge its existence, then I expect it to make me aware of it in the very same way it made cave-people aware of it.... if such a thing ever happened.

Given that there is no god, your definition of "evil" is moot, which renders your whole argument of trying to make into an evil person also moot.

So, to me, there is no evil.
To you, I'm evil incarnate.

I don't know what is more valuable to me, but I'd say my own life is way up there among the most valuable things.
What does that say about my character? you're the philosopher, not me...

What you value most, that is how you will know what your character is. If you value your life more than you value doing good, you are a selfish person. Your character is a character of selfishness. It is a horrible condition.

Considering your concept of evil, I'd say that your concept of good is the opposite of evil, so something along the lines of "NOT separate from God, nor separate from the intended order of creation"
So yes you're right, I am not good, in your delusional definition of such a word.

My life is much much more valuable, to me, than the notion of a specific god, any god.
If your life isn't that worthy, why don't you just kill yourself and meet your maker? You'd be much happier then.... in your view... In my view, you'd be just a sad dead body.

I think you're projecting... I've never read anything by Hitchens nor Russel.

I'll tell you how I'd seek this god of yours. I won't.
Assume I'm apart from the rest of the civilized world, and have no contact with anyone who could provide me with the concept of god.
Knowing evolution to be a fairly accurate representation of the way human life came to be on this planet (considering life came to be on the planet, somehow, and moving from there... say you start at 65 million years ago, right after all the dinos dies off), at some point, early humans had no notion of any god. I expect to acquire knowledge of its existence the same way those people did all those years ago.
I will never accept other people's accounts, for they can, and most likely are, false (even if unknowingly).

If you know, then why don't I?

Because I have spent years and years and years of my life purifying myself from sin and seeking God and have given up everything to follow Jesus Christ.

Repeat after me: if I convince myself of something, that something is true, for me. If I surround myself with people who are convinced of the same thing, my conviction is strengthened.
Psychology 101. You fail at it, while practicing it perfectly.

Why doesn't it provide everyone with the same knowledge?...

God always provides people with the same level of knowledge, based on how hard they seek Him and how hard they sanctify themselves.

No. I refuse to seek it.
Cave people did not seek it, did they? If they did, then they ended up suffering from the same psychological problem you have: self-delusion.

(what about different religions...) why does it provide this knowledge in different ways so as to produce conflicts among the people?

What if the different religions all expressed aspects of the revelation of God that was distorted in different ways (Jews distort the Old Testament, Muslims distort the New Testament, Buddhism is like a philosophy that distorts some aspects, Christian denominations distort different teachings and come to different ideas).

What if they just express the human desire to provide some explanation of the surrounding world, in order to keep them at rest? what if the multitude of different divinities are just a mirror of the people who created them?
Ra, the sun god, would be quite important for a people who have too much sun, like Egyptians.
Thor, the god of thunder, would be important to a people who depend on the sea, like the vikings.
Yahweh, would approve of genocide, by a conquering people, like the jews.
Jesus would be for peace, by a people under the pax romana.

F'in heck! It fits!

I wouldn't call you crazy, but then again, I don't know you, besides all the things you write on here... I'd call you deluded, at least.

What evidence do you have that I am suffering from delusions, a specific medical term that is a very serious accusation to level at someone? To say that someone is deluded is to intentionally call their credibility into question. You don't typically see scientists accusing each other of having delusions. This is a very serious attempt at character assassination, you are trying to discredit someones testimony.

What evidence to you have that people are deluded.

Whoa there, big boy.
Evidence for your delusions? You claim that ... heck, I'll just quote you:

I have experience it myself. God showed me a revelation of hell in which I saw all the events of my life. I recieved supernatural confirmations and powerful displays of the glory of God. God showed me how God had judged all the events of my life. I was punished for sins that I had commited and God showed me the reason why.

How do you do it? How do you communicate with god?
Would you be willing to submit to some psychological evaluation? EEG?
Science would much desire to study this human-god interaction.
No such interaction has yet been found, in spite of thousands of people claiming to have it.

The human mind is a very powerful thing.
If you wish for something, you can become convinced that that thing exists. If that something is defined as not material, then finding it becomes completely open to the mind's ability to deceive itself.

I read somewhere that you've done drugs and become schizophrenic when you're on them... this is symptomatic that your brain has some screw loose.
I advise you to read further of neural pathologies and try to find some where you fit.... you could start with Van Gogh's: Vincent van Gogh's health.

[The Reality Salesman01]

Ryantology, there are many arguments for God's existence and the truth of Christianity, and I have posted them on here over and over again. It is simply not true that I am only arguing that God exists because his existence cannot be dis-proven, I am arguing God exists because of historical evidence (which accepts the historicity of Jesus Christ and the apostles working to spread the message that they would spread at the cost of their own lives), the coherence and explanatory power of theism (in the cosmological, moral and teleological arguments that coincide with modern physics such as the big bang theory and ethics in appreciating human language which refers to ethical concepts), the historical spread of Christianity through miracles and signs and wonders which I have personally experienced.

Also the historical reality of Israel and how it relates to Islam, and the spread of monotheism around the world and how Islam, Christianity and Judaism have created the most advanced societies in existence.

There are many other arguments as well, if you want to study natural theology.

Not a single thing you have offered as a "good argument" has been a good argument pointing to theology as probable. You have just shown that its possible.

You are having a hard time making the distinction between possible, plausible and probable.

You keep calling your unfalsifiable hypothesis probable. Its not. For it to be probable, you would have to have better reason to believe that you are right and...

A) every other religion is wrong
B) The metaphysical and scientific impossibilites your hypothesis depends on are not as they appear.

You have not. Your hypothesis, while possible, is no more PLAUSIBLE or PROBABLE than the tooth fairy.

---

Prove how it is morally wrong in formal logic.

Like this:

1. (self evident)
2. (self evident) if condition 1 then conclusion
===========
3. (conclusion)

---

Mr Infidel, I promised I would give you 100 dollars, I am not lying. What is holding you back? I will because I care about you.

Things we do not yet understand exist
Miracles are something that is not yet understood
Once something is understood, it is not a miracle

This argument doesn't show that miracles don't logically exist.

But it does raise the question...Why does anyone care about miracles? They are just reasons to continue to educate our children. To celebrate things as "miracles" is another way to celebrate ignorance.

Can you imagine if people just chalked electricity up to being a miracle and never sought understanding?
Fire?
Cancer as an evil spirit?

Jesus!

[jstrodel]

A lot of whether theology is probable versus possible hinges on the degree to which you care about how important it is to be a good person, and your perception of the importance of peoples sense of a higher good in life.


If you see this as very significant to you, you are more apt to find God's existence more probable, because only the concept of God offers a way to ground these values.

If you don't care much about morality, God's existence will seem less probable to you, because the explanatory power the arguments bring to the intensely real problem of morality seems distant.

For those who don't care whether objective morality is real or not, theistic claims lose their strength.


The existence of many religions which are similar to Christianity is evidence that there is some common revelation as well as mans perversion of the religious system. The existence of very similar religions can be explained by the descriptions of the supernatural such as Pharaohs courts which had magicians and accepting the reality of the occult in the ancient world with Balaam and Balak.

You are using the concept of falsifiability to define whether arguments from God's existence are probable or not, which was developed in the 20th century by Karl Popper. Why should religious belief conform to this standard? You havn't proved it.

[Darkstar]

A lot of whether theology is probable versus possible hinges on the degree to which you care about how important it is to be a good person, and your perception of the importance of peoples sense of a higher good in life.

Now that's just propaganda.

If you see this as very significant to you, you are more apt to find God's existence more probable, because only the concept of God offers a way to ground these values.

If you don't care much about morality, God's existence will seem less probable to you, because the explanatory power the arguments bring to the intensely real problem of morality seems distant.

So, basically, you can't seem to find a way to explain morals, so therefore god?

For those who don't care whether objective morality is real or not, theistic claims lose their strength.

God could exist without objective morality and vice versa.

The existence of many religions which are similar to Christianity is evidence that there is some common revelation as well as mans perversion of the religious system. The existence of very similar religions can be explained by the descriptions of the supernatural such as Pharaohs courts which had magicians and accepting the reality of the occult in the ancient world with Balaam and Balak.

You are using the concept of falsifiability to define whether arguments from God's existence are probable or not, which was developed in the 20th century by Karl Popper. Why should religious belief conform to this standard? You havn't proved it.

Why should anything not conform to the standard? You do know why the standard exists, right?

Also, a more probable interpretation for similar religions is copying. If there were many independent revelations, then why aren't there any of them today, as the world becomes less religious?

[FallentoReason]

@jstrodel

In regard, then, to the sacred tradition of humanity [i.e. science], we learn that it consists, not in propositions or statements which are to be accepted and believed on the authority of the tradition, but in questions rightly asked, in conceptions which enable us to ask further questions, and in methods of answering questions. The value of all these things depends on their being tested day by day.

[jstrodel]

Darkstar why is it propaganda?


FallenToReason that may be how scientists study science, but the vast majority of people who study science study it as an authoritative tradition, rather than as a set of ideas that are personally discernable to them.

[Mystical]

Put this in your pipe and smoke it, (sorrry couldn't help quotin summerqueen!)


Baal was one of the most widely worshiped gods in ancient Canaan *, where he was associated with fertility and rain. He was the son of El, the supreme god of the Canaanites, and the husband and brother of Anat, the ferocious goddess of war.

Fertility and Storm God. Baal is a common Semitic * word that means "lord" or "owner." The title was given to the local god of nearly every city in Canaan. Because of the importance of rain to life in the dry lands of the Near East, these local gods were usually associated with fertility and the cycle of wet and dry seasons. Baal developed into a single, widely known god, called Lord of the Earth and Lord of the Rain and Dew. Clay tablets found at the ruins of the ancient town of Ras es-Shamrah (in present-day Syria) contain a series of stories about how Baal became the rain god and gained power over the waters of earth.
http://bibleencyclopedia.com/baal.htm
http://www.fact-index.com/b/ba/baal.html

Then tell me what you think about unoriginality and muteability.

[FallentoReason]

FallenToReason that may be how scientists study science, but the vast majority of people who study science study it as an authoritative tradition, rather than as a set of ideas that are personally discernable to them.

Mr. Clifford wasn't a scientist, therefore, he couldn't have been talking about his own field. No, rather, he was justifying why we can rest assured that the scientific method is reliable. Such a notion is of course obvious in real life; what started as a ground-breaking theory later became the principle for creating e.g. microwaves, biofuel, airplanes etc. therefore it is evident that this "sacred tradition" has a way of weeding out the false and holding onto the truth which then manifests itself through human invention and innovation.

[Darkstar]

Darkstar why is it propaganda?

Because it has nothing to do with truth; it is just a smear tactic. You said that if you care about being a good person, you are more likely to believe in god, if not, you are more likely to reject it. This is a sweeping ad homenim attack against all atheists, and not even a well disguised one.