Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Morbert

nagirrac wrote: »

If one were about to be on the receiving end of murder they surely would say the statement "murder is wrong" is a statement about the real world:rolleyes:.

According to empiricism, they would be wrong. Instead, it is an expression of what we think of murder.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

If I'm wrong you are perfectly free to explain the alternative reason why science doesn't explore these things and limits itself in this way. But of course neither you nor nagirrac have done that. Because there isn't another answer. That is the answer, that is why science does this.

You are correct as to why science limits itself, but imo you are wrong on why science does not explore subjects like philosophy and spirituality. I don't think it has anything to do with methodology, science does not explore these areas because science cannot answer right or wrong questions. For example, science may be able to explore the predicted outcome of an action but it cannot tell you whether you should take an action or not.

From other posts I know you like to quote Richard Fehnman. If you have not, I would recommend you read "The meaning of it all" where he explores these questions. As someone who worked on the Manhatten project, he is well equipped to discuss ethical and moral questions. Science can tell you how to build a nuclear bomb but cannot tell you whether you should or not. The latter question is just as important as the first or perhaps more important. Although he was an atheist, he states clearly that Christian ethics along with scientific endevour were the two great heritages of Western civilization. He even references Pope John XXIII in the conclusion of his book, saying "I can find no better expression of my beliefs of morality, of the duties and responsibilities of mankind, people to other people, than is in that encyclical".

So the question I have is why is it that an atheist scientist like Fehnman sees no inherent conflict between science and religion as they ask completely different questions, and although not a believer himself can have such strong regard for the value of religious ethics? Why would this view not be more influential on atheists than say a Dawkins or Hitchens who foster conflict between science and religion and essentially blame religion for all evil.

FISMA

FISMA wrote: »

I am not trying to question our forgetfulness, absentmindedness, or things along those lines. Rather, I am questioning the fundamental mechanism that we refer to as memory.

FISMA wrote: »

There is no scientific test to demonstrate that our memory works properly.

Again, as you know, I am not talking about forgetfulness, mental illness, or the plethora of issues that cause us to forgetf. Rather, a far more fundamental question. How can we test that what we think we remember is correct?

Zombrex wrote: »

This has come up before, either by yourself or another poster I can't remember. And the answer was we already know our memory doesn't work "properly"

I am not sure I follow you Zombrex. You believe that our memories do not work properly? Please provide an example for further discussion.

Zombrex

FISMA wrote: »

I am not sure I follow you Zombrex. You believe that our memories do not work properly? Please provide an example for further discussion.

Well ultimately it depends on what definition you are using for "properly" (properly according to what exactly?)

But if you mean "record our experiences to a high level of accuracy as they physically happened without missing detail or inventing fiction" then no our memories don't work properly.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

You are correct as to why science limits itself, but imo you are wrong on why science does not explore subjects like philosophy and spirituality. I don't think it has anything to do with methodology, science does not explore these areas because science cannot answer right or wrong questions. For example, science may be able to explore the predicted outcome of an action but it cannot tell you whether you should take an action or not.

Why can science not answer right or wrong questions if we as humans can?

Science is after all just a human endeavor. If we can answer these questions why can science not (and again please don't just say because science limits itself, I'm asking why you think it limits itself)

nagirrac wrote: »

So the question I have is why is it that an atheist scientist like Fehnman sees no inherent conflict between science and religion as they ask completely different questions, and although not a believer himself can have such strong regard for the value of religious ethics?

Well that is the wrong question to ask, given that I doubt Feynman would say that he knows objectively that it was wrong to work on the bomb.

But for a more detailed discussion of Feynman's views on religion read this

Particularly the bit where Feynman goes into why a true scientist would not believe in concepts like God in the way that a traditional religious person does precisely because science compels him to admit to what he does not and cannot know or answer.


http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/607099009/richard-p-feynman-on-the-conflict-between-science

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Why can science not answer right or wrong questions if we as humans can?

Particularly the bit where Feynman goes into why a true scientist would not believe in concepts like God in the way that a traditional religious person does precisely because science compels him to admit to what he does not and cannot know or answer.

We as humans can answer right or wrong questions because we have something called human cognition. To try to understand "right" or "wrong" answers to moral questions, we would need to understand how human cognition emerged. This is the question for science, how did human cognition emerge?

The honest answer is we know very little or as Richard Lewontin put it "Despite the fact that there is a vast and highly developed mathematical theory of evolutionary processes in general, despite the abundance of knowledge about living and fossil primates, despite the intimate knowledge we have of our own species' phiosiology, morphology, psychology and social organization, we know essentially nothing about the evolution of our cognitive capabilities, and there is a strong possibility we will never know anything about it".

We can't go back and study early hominids from 500,000 years ago, nor our distant ancestors, and have to rely on what has been written over the past several thousand years, long after cognitive functions were established. The best we can do is observe humans today and how they develop and learn, but that tells us nothing about how cognitive functions developed. There are basically three theories (generic meaning of theory, not scientific) on how a cognitive function such as morality developed, all of which have little to no scientific evidence to support them.

1) Morality came from God and was communicated to humans either directly by God or through messagers from God i.e. advanced spiritual figures.
The evidence for this lies in the teachings of these spiritual leaders. The basic cognitive functions would obviously have to have been there already in the human mind to absorb such morality.

2) Evolutionary Psychology theory which says that all human intelligence inlcuding cognitive functions and morality were "selected in response to adaptive problems faced by our distant ancestors". In short, for each problem faced, a distinct cognitive "device " was adapted. Although this sounds in step with Darwinian evolution, there is no scientific evidence that I am aware of to support it, and it has huge problems to overcome to even sound credible, not the least of which is the rapid pace of cognitive development in humans, and how integrated our mental functions appear, rather than having specific algorithms for each problem we face.

3) The alternative evolutionary theory is that propsed by Sterelny which is based on cooperation and plasticity of the human brain adapting to specific environments. This actually sounds quite plausible given we now know how plastic the human brain is, but again there is no evidence that I am aware of how cognitive functions or morality emerged. It is as speculative as the EP theory above, but seems more consistent with what occurs today in humans.

So, apologies for the long answer, but the answer is science cannot answer right or wrong questions that humans can because we do not know how humans developed this ability. It is one of the many mysteries of the human mind. Science cannot consider the God answer, and we have no means, at least currently, of studying how cognitive functions evolved historically in humans. That is not to say that science cannot solve this in the future.

As for Fehnman (the quote you posted is from the book I recommended, so I have read it), I find myself almost in full agreement with him. Where I would quibble is his claim that scientists do not think of God the way religious people do, that they cannot have the absolute certainty religious people do. Although I am in the category he refers to (a scientist who is not religious as such but has a belief in God), I don't think his claim stands up to scrutiny. I have never met anyone who was certain beyond doubt in their belief in God, when you actually examine their beliefs. I think most religious people have lots of doubts about God, their faith, etc., if they are being honest. Francis Collins explains this really well, I will try and find a quote, but basically although he is an evangelical Christian he says he doubts his faith all the time. Clearly there are fundamentalists who appear to have absolute belief, but even there I would question whether they are being honest or truly examine their beliefs.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

We as humans can answer right or wrong questions because we have something called human cognition.

And scientists don't?

nagirrac wrote: »

So, apologies for the long answer, but the answer is science cannot answer right or wrong questions that humans can because we do not know how humans developed this ability.

What?

If humans can answer these questions why can science not answer them. Science after all is simply a structured human endeavor, and last time I checked scientists were humans.

You basically said you cannot answer these questions unless you understand what human cognition is, and science doesn't. But then that is just another way of saying we don't understand what human cognition is (again science is, at least at the moment, a human process done by humans).

So how can we answer this if you have to understand human cognition in order to answer it?

Your answer is like saying humans can answer these questions but Belgians cannot.

keane2097

Nagirrac, you're not really making sense. If science cant answer right/wrong because it lacks a deep insight into human cognition then surely human cognition, which lacks the same knowledge, cant either.

To say that human cognition somehow gets around this roadblock youve put in front of science would seem to require some deep insight into how human cognition works, which youve a priori denied exists.

Zombrex

keane2097 wrote: »

Nagirrac, you're not really making sense. If science cant answer right/wrong because it lacks a deep insight into human cognition then surely human cognition, which lacks the same knowledge, cant either.

To say that human cognition somehow gets around this roadblock youve put in front of science would seem to require some deep insight into how human cognition works, which youve a priori denied exists.

+1

And as well if humans could some how get around this issue that science has then why hasn't science got around it, since science is just a human endevour.

This discuss with nagirrac is getting rather circular, the argument for why science doesn't include these methodologies is apparently because science limits itself and science limits itself because it does not include these methodologies :rolleyes:

Bob - Why is there a big "Do Not Enter" sign up
Bill - Because this is a restricted area, we can't go in.
Bob - Yeah but why can't we go in?
Bill - Well look, there is a big "Do Not Enter" sign up.
Bob - Yes, I see, but why is there a big "Do Not Enter" sign up
Bill - Because as I said it is a restricted areas, we cannot go in.
Bob - I KNOW, but why can we not go in?
Bill - Do you not see the sign ...

Nagirrac, if humans can answer these questions with confidence and accuracy why can what ever method they use to do that not be included in science? And please don't say because science is limited to empirical study. We all know that. But that restriction is not arbitrary. It could be changed if there was a reason to change it.

The question is why is science limited empirical study if this is not necessary, as you claim, to answer these types of questions.

And before you say it, no you haven't answered that question.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Nagirrac, if humans can answer these questions with confidence and accuracy why can what ever method they use to do that not be included in science? And please don't say because science is limited to empirical study. We all know that. But that restriction is not arbitrary. It could be changed if there was a reason to change it.

The question is why is science limited empirical study if this is not necessary, as you claim, to answer these types of questions.

Where did I say that humans can answer moral questions with confidence and accuracy? Again, we are talking about approching the truth, about reducing doubt. What I am saying is the only way humans can currently answer these questions is using their cognitive reasoning. I agree that being able to apply the scientific method to moral questions would be hugely beneficial, but neuoroscience and psychology have a long way to go before we reach that point, if ever.

The fact that moral questions cannot be empirically studied is the whole point, so you cannot leave it out of the discussion. Without empirical testing you cannot do science, period. I am not saying empirical study is not necessary, I am saying it is currently impossible in the area of morals. So the best we have is cognitive reasoning, and yes, mine is different to yours, and cognitive reasoning continues to evolve, but its what we have.

Read Fehnman again (the whole book) for clarity on this point. Science cannot currently speak to moral issues as without empirical measurement it cannot apply itself to the questions. There is a reason why Fehnman concluded that the best value system we have is Christian ethics. Our whole legal system is essentially based on Christian ethics, should we discard it and wait for science to inform us on what is wrong and right?

nagirrac

keane2097 wrote: »

Nagirrac, you're not really making sense. If science cant answer right/wrong because it lacks a deep insight into human cognition then surely human cognition, which lacks the same knowledge, cant either.
To say that human cognition somehow gets around this roadblock youve put in front of science would seem to require some deep insight into how human cognition works, which youve a priori denied exists.

Yes, you can make the philosophical argument that human cognition is fundamentally flawed. However, that's the whole point, it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Morality is a roadblock for science because it cannot be empirically measured and thus you cannot apply the scientifc method to moral questions.

So, we are left with moral axioms, human thought that has evolved over 500,000 years and continues to evolve. It is up to individuals and societies to judge moral questions, just as it is up to individuals and societies to attach value to art, music, or indeed how to use scientific knowledge.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, you can make the philosophical argument that human cognition is fundamentally flawed. However, that's the whole point, it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Morality is a roadblock for science because it cannot be empirically measured and thus you cannot apply the scientifc method to moral questions.

So, we are left with moral axioms, human thought that has evolved over 500,000 years and continues to evolve. It is up to individuals and societies to judge moral questions, just as it is up to individuals and societies to attach value to art, music, or indeed how to use scientific knowledge.

So what nagirrac ? philosophy can no more pronounce the truth of these matters than science can.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

So what nagirrac ? philosophy can no more pronounce the truth of these matters than science can.

There is clearly no absoute truth, philosophical or scientific. Philosophy can approach the truth and reduce doubt on moral questions based on cognitive reasoning, science cannot, that's my only point. This is not an effort to diminish the value of science on my behalf, it is to argue that moral values, developed over 500,000 years of human evolution, also have value.

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

Yes, you can make the philosophical argument that human cognition is fundamentally flawed. However, that's the whole point, it is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. Morality is a roadblock for science because it cannot be empirically measured and thus you cannot apply the scientifc method to moral questions.

So, we are left with moral axioms, human thought that has evolved over 500,000 years and continues to evolve. It is up to individuals and societies to judge moral questions, just as it is up to individuals and societies to attach value to art, music, or indeed how to use scientific knowledge.

This still leaves science and cognition on the same footing as far as I can see.

My point was that, for the line in bold, you can apply the same argument to human cognition. Science is not capable of saying what's morally true or false, or even if morals are objective or not, with certainty, but neither is human cognition.

The point at issue for days has been that questions which are scientifically unanswerable are unanswerable by any means. I don't think you've made a case that any reliable answers are possible from human cognition - or any other means that aren't strictly "science" - on these matters.

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

There is clearly no absoute truth, philosophical or scientific. Philosophy can approach the truth and reduce doubt on moral questions based on cognitive reasoning, science cannot, that's my only point. This is not an effort to diminish the value of science on my behalf, it is to argue that moral values, developed over 500,000 years of human evolution, also have value.

This is hard to argue either way until you define what exactly you mean by "morality". Apologies if this is old ground being raked over, it's a big thread, feel free to link me.

nagirrac

keane2097 wrote: »

My point was that, for the line in bold, you can apply the same argument to human cognition. Science is not capable of saying what's morally true or false, or even if morals are objective or not, with certainty, but neither is human cognition.

I agree human cognition cannot judge what is right or wrong with certainty, but it can remove doubt and bring us closer to the truth. This is what our whole legal system is based on for example. Science cannot apply any value as to wrong and right, it can provide information and knowledge to a specific topic, but cannot attach moral value to the knowledge.

I also agree morality is a very broad issue and every individual has a somewhat differnet take on it, based on their personal philosophy. There is no consensus among atheists for example, an atheist like Fehnman argues that Christian ethics are the best we have as a guideline on how to live one's life, whereas many "stronger" atheists would argue that believing in moral principles gives credit to religious belief.

keane2097

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree human cognition cannot judge what is right or wrong with certainty, but it can remove doubt and bring us closer to the truth. This is what our whole legal system is based on for example. Science cannot apply any value as to wrong and right, it can provide information and knowledge to a specific topic, but cannot attach moral value to the knowledge.

I also agree morality is a very broad issue and every individual has a somewhat differnet take on it, based on their personal philosophy. There is no consensus among atheists for example, an atheist like Fehnman argues that Christian ethics are the best we have as a guideline on how to live one's life, whereas many "stronger" atheists would argue that believing in moral principles gives credit to religious belief.

If there's no definition of morality or consensus on what morality means that we can start a discussion from, then the idea of coming closer to moral truth seems to me to be meaningless.

Would like to hear your thoughts on that?

Without wanting to veer onto a complete tangent, Sam Harris's notion of morality as being a way to reduce human suffering seems a decent broad definition and certainly one which science would have plenty to say on.

It occurs to me that not closely defining what we mean by morality could be seen as an attempt at keeping science from getting its paws on it.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

There is clearly no absoute truth, philosophical or scientific. Philosophy can approach the truth and reduce doubt on moral questions based on cognitive reasoning, science cannot, that's my only point. This is not an effort to diminish the value of science on my behalf, it is to argue that moral values, developed over 500,000 years of human evolution, also have value.

Well once you accept there is no absolute truth what have you really got to offer ?

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

Well once you accept there is no absolute truth what have you really got to offer ?

Partial truth?

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Partial truth?

Is there such a thing ?

Your whole argument seems to be much ado about nothing . Can we go back to your example - murder .

What can philosophy etc tell us about it that science can't ?

nagirrac

keane2097 wrote: »

Without wanting to veer onto a complete tangent, Sam Harris's notion of morality as being a way to reduce human suffering seems a decent broad definition and certainly one which science would have plenty to say on.

I would agree that morality is best defined as enhancing human well being. If I understand Sam Harris correctly he is saying that, given time, science will eventually provide us with a set of objective moral values. I would welcome this as much as Sam Harris does. One of the biggest problems to overcome is that "well being" is subjective and open to bias by the investigator. This explains why Sam Harris can argue that it is moral to drop bombs on civilians in the Middle East to (hopefully) enhance the long term well being of people in the West. We have also to try and balance the well being of future generations versus the well being of ourselves.

This is a very convoluted topic and I agree morality is relative. I would argue however that rationality, logic and subjective human empathy, all of which we have evolved as a species, should be the primary means to arrive at moral values. I am not saying science cannot help in that endevour, and as we develop methods to empirically test more moral questions, should help more.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

Is there such a thing ?
Your whole argument seems to be much ado about nothing . Can we go back to your example - murder .
What can philosophy etc tell us about it that science can't ?

Are you seriously asking if there is such a thing as partial truth? Partial truth is all we have, regardless of what field of human endevour we talk about. Science involves removal of doubt, getting closer to the truth.

As for distinctions between philosophy and science on murder, take the issue of justifiable homicide. Philosophy, religion and most importantly the law determine that murder is justifiable in certain circumstances, self defense when your own life is at stake for example. What would science tell us about this moral value?

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

Are you seriously asking if there is such a thing as partial truth? Partial truth is all we have, regardless of what field of human endevour we talk about. Science involves removal of doubt, getting closer to the truth.

As for distinctions between philosophy and science on murder, take the issue of justifiable homicide. Philosophy, religion and most importantly the law determine that murder is justifiable in certain circumstances, self defense when your own life is at stake for example. What would science tell us about this moral value?

Sorry I misunderstood you .

Science can tell us very little or nothing . That is unless you count scientific methods .

Look at the world before and since the Enlightenment and tell me which you would like to inhabit and whether the rise of science ( in the broadest sense ) and the decline of religion has not on the whole been a good thing.



.

nagirrac

marienbad wrote: »

Sorry I misunderstood you .

Science can tell us very little or nothing . That is unless you count scientific methods .

Look at the world before and since the Enlightenment and tell me which you would like to inhabit and whether the rise of science ( in the broadest sense ) and the decline of religion has not on the whole been a good thing.

What science tells us is utilizing the scientific method.

If you are asking what kind of society I would like to live in (and actually live in), it is one that respects science and religion as separate and allow them to peacefully cohabitate.

The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement in the late 17t century led by people who were religious or at least believed in God (Spinoza). Although it means very different things from country to country, I agree that separation of church and state is a good thing.

marienbad

nagirrac wrote: »

What science tells us is utilizing the scientific method.

If you are asking what kind of society I would like to live in (and actually live in), it is one that respects science and religion as separate and allow them to peacefully cohabitate.

The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement in the late 17t century led by people who were religious or at least believed in God (Spinoza). Although it means very different things from country to country, I agree that separation of church and state is a good thing.

They may have been religious or nominally religious ,but it was the process of evaluating things objectively and not through a religious bias that is responsible for all the progress since.

Gumbi

marienbad wrote: »

They may have been religious or nominally religious ,but it was the process of evaluating things objectively and not through a religious bias that is responsible for all the progress since.

I've heard Sam Harris say something like "well of course the Chirch was largely responsible for the scientific movement - they were the only game in town!".

marienbad

Gumbi wrote: »

I've heard Sam Harris say something like "well of course the Chirch was largely responsible for the scientific movement - they were the only game in town!".

And the risk of a bit torture now and then to keep everyone in line

J C

nagirrac wrote: »

Partial truth?

... here is an interesting video about an Atheist who came to faith in God ... this is Dr Francis Collins former Director of the Human Genome Project and currently Director of the National Institutes of Health in America.

Interestingly, it was coming face to face with death, as a trainee Medical Doctor, that made him start thinking about life and death ... and God ... and eventually Faith in Jesus Christ.

Here is an Atheist who has come to a belief in the existence of God ... and who therefore bridges both sides of the debate on this thread.

keane2097

J C wrote: »

... here is an interesting video about an Atheist who came to faith in God ... this is Dr Francis Collins former Director of the Human Genome Project and currently Director of the National Institutes of Health in America.

Interestingly, it was coming face to face with death, as a trainee Medical Doctor, that made him start thinking about life and death ... and God ... and eventually Faith in Jesus Christ.

Here is an Atheist who has come to a belief in the existence of God ... and who therefore bridges both sides of the debate on this thread.

Out of interest while I'm watching the video, is there anyone you could suggest who bridges both sides of the debate having gone in the opposite direction?

J C

keane2097 wrote: »

Out of interest while I'm watching the video, is there anyone you could suggest who bridges both sides of the debate having gone in the opposite direction?

I don't know ... I have found that once somebody is Saved ... they are Saved ... but that is another thread.

I'm sure that there are examples of people raised in Christian homes who have become Atheists in later life allright.