Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

New huge 'Victory Christian Fellowship' centre being completed in Firhouse, Dublin

Options
1…78101213…28

Comments

  • Options
    #272
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Húrin wrote: »
    My point assumes that he who is repulsed by God believes in God in the first place.

    If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?


  • Options
    #273
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Philosophy doesn't answer questions. People put forward their opinions and some other people agree. That doesn't mean they're right. To give a correct answer one needs to be able to test the answer for validity and that's where science comes in.

    Thats what I was trying to get at.


  • Options
    #274
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    God bless their souls if there are any :).

    A first glance I thought you were questioning the existence of souls there :)
    kiffer: I'd agree with you, albeit in subtler terms. However, there are some real gems in human understanding in there too.

    I've tried subtle on the internet... I found it tends to go over peoples heads or be missunderstood... Blunt is sometimes the way forward unless you are entering into somewhat more of a personal communication situation.

    Generally: Subtle in person, blunt online.

    They're drilling now... Why are they drilling... :(


  • Options
    #275
    Húrin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,045 ✭✭✭Húrin


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    http://www.christianpost.com/article/20090716/survey-one-third-of-scientists-believe-in-god/index.html

    Hint: 2/3 is a majority.

    So you are an atheist because most scientists are? Is this the much-talked about "thinking for yourself"?
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    No, but they are the only ones who can ever hope to acheive something close to objective consensus on questions raised, because of that god-bustin' little matter called evidence.

    All other fields of academia are flakey, subjective and circular arenas. Interesting and useful, but can never hope to fully answer the questions they vainly attempt to.
    That's a blatantly unfair dismissal of the majority of academic disciplines. Do you think that history is "flakey, subjective and circular" simply because it isn't science?

    All of them are just useful. Science is nothing more than useful - it has no pretensions to objective ultimate truth. It is a consensus subjectivity, always changing. Some other fields, such as art theory do not even bother with consensus.

    None of which makes appealing to the authority of "intellectuals" a worthwhile exercise.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Which of the two fields, science and philosophy, provides us with knowledge for bettering the human condition?

    I think that most fields of study contribute to bettering the conditions in which we live.
    Given this, is it not surprising that fewer natural scientists believe in god/s than other academics? Is this a mere coincidence?
    In my experience more scientists believe in God than people in humanities departments (though I have no stats).

    My opinion is that scientists and other academics are like all other people influenced by the dominant culture of their society. Thus in a predominantly non-religious society, most of them will be non-religious. The opposite is true also.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    I couldn't disagree more and what you say there is very indicative of why you have the theological position you do.

    Well, why do you disagree? What is the scientific consensus on what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose?
    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    Your God used to be a very prominent figure, as were most gods back in the old days? It's funny as human knowledge advances, god/s have been slowly vanishing from the physical world. Once they were up in the mountains, then we found nothing there. Suddenly they scurried away up into the clouds, that took us a long time to work out, but suddenly that was disproved. Then gods took off into the stars, but for all our telescopes and probes, not one trace of a god was found. So now gods live in their extraphysical world, conveniently out of the reach of our instruments. Yet, we continue to edge close to an explanation for the origin of our universe. What if we crack that one, Jakkass? Where will gods scurry off to then?

    The Christian God has always claimed to inhabit some metaphysical space, right from the Old Testament. He never claimed to be situated in a mountain or cloud.


  • Options
    #276
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Húrin wrote: »
    So you are an atheist...

    I'm not an atheist.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #277
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    I'm not an atheist.

    And that's what what you said either


  • Options
    #278
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?

    This is the trouble debating with Jakkass, Hùrin(although apparently not a christian) and others, I get the feeling they think the christian god is a suitable explanation for the reason for our existence and then we get bogged down or brought down to that level where there is no chance of any resolution because as atheists we neither know nor care about the details. What makes me atheists is not disdain for the Christian god but that the idea of a personal god is just ridiculous.


  • Options
    #279
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    If one is repulsed by an idea, one believes in the idea?

    Yeah. And if you aren't repulsed by the idea you don't really believe it...


  • Options
    #280
    Flamed Diving
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,609 ✭✭✭Flamed Diving


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    And that's what what you said either

    ?


  • Options
    #281
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Húrin wrote: »
    ....Well, why do you disagree? What is the scientific consensus on what promotes culture, morality and ethics, and human purpose?....

    Seriously as an intelligent person you're going to tell me that none of those are understandable through science i.e. that they are not natural?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #282
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Flamed Diving wrote: »
    ?

    You asked if Jakkass would point out to a child that the majority of academics don't believe in God.

    Jakkass asked for statistics

    you provided them

    Húrin jumped to the conclusion that you're an atheist because most scientists are.

    Which is not what you said :)

    edit: sorry it wasn't you who said the first thing it was Tim Robbins. nvm :P


  • Options
    #283
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Seriously as an intelligent person you're going to tell me that none of those are understandable through science i.e. that they are not natural?

    The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality. The constant insistence that science is appropriate to answer all questions about everything even questions which aren't largely scientific is the problem I have with your understanding.


  • Options
    #284
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality.
    No they can't because their claims are untestable. If you can't show that your answer is correct it's not an answer. The suggestion that morality came from the tooth fairy is exactly as valid as the suggestion that it came from the Judeo-Christian God. An interesting hypothesis but nothing more


  • Options
    #285
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Science in and of itself, cannot offer us a guideline by which to live by. It can tells us perhaps how we gained our morality if I will entertain that idea for a second, but it certainly cannot give us a model of behaviour. That is down to ideology and philosophy.


  • Options
    #286
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    The question is not that science cannot explain, but that other fields can offer better explanations of morality.

    For example?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    The constant insistence that science is appropriate to answer all questions about everything even questions which aren't largely scientific is the problem I have with your understanding.

    Define something in nature that is not scienctific or amenable to science? Besides what else have we got? Super-science? Ultra ultra science? What?


  • Options
    #287
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Húrin wrote: »
    I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.

    Personally I'm not repulsed by the Idea of a God. I'm repulsed by the morals and nature that many attribute to it. I'm repulsed by the Idea of Hell and Wrathfull God, but I quite like the Idea of Loving Compassionate God... Sadly the Biblical God is both of these, Somehow... But I believe in neither.

    I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

    I would suggest that human morality comes from the alturistic instinct evident in many animals, and reason informed by compassion... Does that count as self preservation?


  • Options
    #288
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 8,981 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Húrin wrote: »
    I mean to say that if you think that there is a creator of the universe, and you find him morally repulsive, then it is only reasonable to conclude that your moral instinct is wrong. This is because the creator was the author of morality and you are just getting it wrong.
    That's absurd.

    What if the creator is an ego-centric sadist?


  • Options
    #289
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Science in and of itself, cannot offer us a guideline by which to live by. It can tells us perhaps how we gained our morality if I will entertain that idea for a second, but it certainly cannot give us a model of behaviour. That is down to ideology and philosophy.

    It actually can give us a model of behaviour but what you're actually saying here is that in cases where there is no right answer, science cannot provide the answer. In that case ideology and philosophy can't either, although certain branches of philosophy like to think they can (I'm looking at you religion)


  • Options
    #290
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Húrin wrote: »
    ...I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

    Pop quiz! Which one of those has more weight in evidence?


  • Options
    #291
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    For example?

    Moral philosophy offers us a much better picture of our role, and it also offers a means of theorising about how to effectively deal with moral conflicts when we live in a pluralism. It offers ideas, and it offers a means of observing the results when these are put into practice. There is no means through the sciences that we can actually draw up a moral code, or deal with problems between different groups.

    We might be able to explain their origins using science, and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.
    CerebralCortex wrote: »
    Define something in nature that is not scienctific or amenable to science? Besides what else have we got? Super-science? Ultra ultra science? What?

    We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

    Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

    Edit:
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    It actually can give us a model of behaviour but what you're actually saying here is that in cases where there is no right answer, science cannot provide the answer. In that case ideology and philosophy can't either, although certain branches of philosophy like to think they can (I'm looking at you religion)

    We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #292
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Húrin wrote: »
    I would expect that atheists should assert that morality comes from the desire for self-preservation. Theists should assert that morality comes from some deeper metaphysical source.

    Morality did originally come from a sense of self preservation but those reasons no longer apply because we don't live in small isolated family groups anymore. But while theists assert that morality came from some deeper metaphysical source, the motivation to do good is still self preservation because they want to avoid punishment.

    So with the knowledge that I will never be punished for doing wrong unless I am caught by other human beings, I am behaving more morally than a theist because I am not doing anything out of self-preservation where a theist always has it at the back of his mind that doing wrong will result in divine punishment


  • Options
    #293
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CerebralCortex wrote:
    Pop quiz! Which one of those has more weight in evidence?
    The one that feels right?


  • Options
    #294
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

    Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

    All you've said there is that CS Lewis made an unprovable assertion by saying that there is an absolute moral standard, which was the point I was making. He answered answered anything, just put forward an untestable hypothesis that will always remain as such


  • Options
    #295
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    I'm saying that it is one option among many that will need to be considered when we are invesitigating how exactly morality exists. Some people claim it doesn't exist at all.


  • Options
    #296
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.

    No we wouldn't have to concede anything of the sort. You're talking about which ideology and philosophy are "best" and that will always be a matter of opinion. What you're skirting around here is that you think your philosphy is "best" because yours has absolute truth but I'm sorry to tell you mate that you'll have to join the queue with all the other people who claim to have the absolute truth


  • Options
    #297
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    Jakkass wrote: »
    I'm saying that it is one option among many that will need to be considered when we are invesitigating how exactly morality exists. Some people claim it doesn't exist at all.

    Yes absolutely we should consider it but there is a difference between considering it and proclaiming it to be the truth. In order to proclaim an assertion to be the truth you have to test it and the assertion that there is absolute morality and especially that it came from the Judeo-Christian God cannot be tested.

    In fact if anything it has been disproven because if there was absolute morality there would be no differences in moral positions whatsoever and that's clearly not the case


  • Options
    #298
    kiffer
    Registered Users Posts: 2,097 ✭✭✭kiffer


    Jakkass wrote: »
    We might be able to explain their origins using science, and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.

    The old science should stick with 'How' and religion/philosophy should stick to 'Why'?
    We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.
    ... Wait wasn't it your position in the BC&P thread that Gods morality is absolute as he is all knowing?
    Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will. At the very best it will only deal with origin.

    Edit:

    We would have to concede that there is no right answer in existence to begin discussing this. For the interest of fullness, it is better if we do not make assumptions that could restrict discussion. Especially when such assumptions are unwarranted.

    This is hard to do when you already assert that you have the right answer before we have even discussed whether or not there is one at all.


  • Options
    #299
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    Yes absolutely we should consider it but there is a difference between considering it and proclaiming it to be the truth. In order to proclaim an assertion to be the truth you have to test it and the assertion that there is absolute morality and especially that it came from the Judeo-Christian God cannot be tested.

    In fact if anything it has been disproven because if there was absolute morality there would be no differences in moral positions whatsoever and that's clearly not the case

    I'm sure you could have preempted this response, but you do realise that there is a difference between knowing something is true, and believing something is true, don't you?

    Let's carry on. As for it being disproven, I don't think your assumption is correct. Given that humanity has free will it is quite conceivable that humanity could fall away from any absolute moral standard.

    There is right and wrong in respect to physics, but it is quite conceivable that people can be mistaken about physics.


  • Options
    #300
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Jakkass wrote: »
    Moral philosophy offers us a much better picture of our role, and it also offers a means of theorising about how to effectively deal with moral conflicts when we live in a pluralism.

    What are you talking about?
    Jakkass wrote: »
    It offers ideas, and it offers a means of observing the results when these are put into practice.

    Sounds suspiciously like science. Or else I have no clue what I'm talking about.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    There is no means through the sciences that we can actually draw up a moral code, or deal with problems between different groups.

    I'll answer this with your words:
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We might be able to explain their origins using science,

    Jakkass wrote: »
    and I only say might because I am not sure about this either.

    Yes it's unfortunate that your blocked by superstition.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    We need to assess whether or not morality is actually "in nature" or whether or not morality has been drawn up through reasoning or whether there is an absolute standard by which we compare our morality to as in the work of C.S Lewis and other authors.

    You mean you need to because you're a christian. Unfortunate that. Natural selection so far is the only theory that at least to me explains why we behave the way we do.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    Science may offer the answer to this, but I am not sure that it will.

    It already has. You really need to read The Selfish Gene.
    Jakkass wrote: »
    At the very best it will only deal with origin.

    :confused: What?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #301
    CerebralCortex
    Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Dades wrote: »
    The one that feels right?

    :pac: No. Science silly.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement