The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam Vimes: What does a member of American Atheists know about how I believe that I don't? He's pretty much speaking to the converted.

I don't think that atheists have any better knowledge of how I can come to believe than I do. I think it's presumptuous that people who don't even claim to believe can make such claims in a reasonable fashion.

My point exactly. He goes into neurological evidence such as the phenomenon I mentioned to you a few days ago that when people are asked what god would think about something the part of their brain associated with their own opinions lights up. The people think that they're gauging someone else's opinion (god's) but a different part of the brain is used for that. These people can be 100% sure that they're gauging god's opinion in the same way they would gauge Barrack Obama's but the MRI scans don't lie.

The thing is that you have this idea of human thought as some kind of divine gift, using the brain but independent of it, that we are souls within physical bodies but more and more science is showing our minds to be biological machines that evolved through natural selection and that are very similar to the brains of other animals who also display, for example, empathy, altruism and a sense of fairness. As with any machines our brains can be studied and quantified and the mechanisms by which certain thought processes occur can also be quantified. Things like out of body experiences can be recreated in a laboratory by bombarding the temporal lobe with magnetic waves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0

Science is not like philosophy Jakkass. When a scientist says that certain thought processes have been mapped and are understood that is because there is physical evidence to support that position (as long as he's donig his job properly). It's not just someone's opinion. But again, the fact that you are trying to rubbish the position of these scientists shows that, just like J C, you will deny science when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

Jakkass wrote: »

2. Yes. The Genesis account tells me that God created the world, but it does not tell me how God created the world.

Actually it does tell you how he did it, we just know now that the description is wrong metaphorical

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We all deserve to be punished, yes, but it doesn't have to be that way.

No it doesn't. God explicitly made it that way. If I make mistakes, if I fall short of god's standard, it's because god specifically designed me in such a way that I could not possibly live up to his standard. If I as a designer design something that cannot possibly live up to the standard that it is meant to, that is not a reflection the thing I designed, it's a reflection on me.

Jakkass wrote: »

I can't find any good reason as to why a Creator cannot exist or indeed is improbable.

I hate to keep bringing this up but theists keep using this ridiculous argument so here we go again:I can't find any good reason as to why the flying spaghetti monster cannot exist or indeed is improbable

I've just given you a good reason and you have told me that you'll look at it later, despite this being at least the third time I've linked you to it. Maybe you can't find a good reason because you refuse to look for one?

liamw

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that you have this idea of human thought as some kind of divine gift, using the brain but independent of it, that we are souls within physical bodies but more and more science is showing our minds to be biological machines that evolved through natural selection and that are very similar to the brains of other animals who also display, for example, empathy, altruism and a sense of fairness.

Indeed, and we also know there's a survival advantage to being able to 'imagine' a soul or spirit inside of us. In the past we could imagine ourselves jumping into a predators mind and predicting it's thoughts or movements and outsmarting it.

Actually it does tell you how he did it, we just know now that the description is wrong metaphorical

And you can guarantee before Darwin, Jakkass would have been delighted to interpret it all literally. Now, that it doesn't suit, he can twist the meaning and reconcile the beliefs .. phew.

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

My point exactly. He goes into neurological evidence such as the phenomenon I mentioned to you a few days ago that when people are asked what god would think about something the part of their brain associated with their own opinions lights up. The people think that they're gauging someone else's opinion (god's) but a different part of the brain is used for that. These people can be 100% sure that they're gauging god's opinion in the same way they would gauge Barrack Obama's but the MRI scans don't lie.

I've explained to you rather clearly that we are giving our opinion on what God thinks. This isn't a solid reason to suggest that God exists, even if there was a difference between Him and Obama. God and Obama are very different beings altogether. Perhaps we have a different category of thought for when we think about God than when we think about Obama. Indeed, it is their opinion about how God would think.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The thing is that you have this idea of human thought as some kind of divine gift, using the brain but independent of it, that we are souls within physical bodies but more and more science is showing our minds to be biological machines that evolved through natural selection and that are very similar to the brains of other animals who also display, for example, empathy, altruism and a sense of fairness. As with any machines our brains can be studied and quantified and the mechanisms by which certain thought processes occur can also be quantified. Things like out of body experiences can be recreated in a laboratory by bombarding the temporal lobe with magnetic waves:

I think reason is a gift from God yes. I certainly would like to use my thought to glorify God. I don't believe that it comes independently of the brain however. Rather God had made me with a purpose, using what I have. I've been given certain strengths I think, and I think all people have been given certain strengths, but they've been given them for a reason rather than no reason at all.

As for evolution. You keep bringing this up, and I have argued that I have no issue with evolution giving us the capacity of moral thought, but it does not serve as a moral code by any means, and that is spot on. Evolution doesn't teach me to live an honourable life, rather God does.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Science is not like philosophy Jakkass. When a scientist says that certain thought processes have been mapped and are understood that is because there is physical evidence to support that position (as long as he's donig his job properly). It's not just someone's opinion. But again, the fact that you are trying to rubbish the position of these scientists shows that, just like J C, you will deny science when it contradicts your religious beliefs.

I am wary of scientists who are using science to pursue an atheist agenda. There's most likely something attached, or something left out.

J C and I have a lot in common in that we actually look for the why instead of ignoring it. As I say, I have a lot of respect for J C and I think that he should be dealt with respect even if he holds YEC beliefs.

I'm glad that I started to question the atheist side in this argument, because this thread isn't just a J C questioning free for all. Atheist positions need justification. Why is it reasonable that God doesn't exist, or that God didn't create the world? I'm genuinely interested in staying on this topic and actually dealing with it for once.

I don't deny science, I just hold the view that evolution doesn't provide a moral code. It's a biological theory, not a moral theory or a moral philosophy. Evolution may explain why we are biologically capable of holding moral codes, but it certainly does not tell us what is right and wrong in and of itself. I believe that there are moral absolutes. Evolution might explain how we can biologically facilitate morality, but it doesn't go any further.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Actually it does tell you how he did it, we just know now that the description is wrong metaphorical

It really doesn't. It tells me that God had the intention to create these things, and he spoke it and it was so. It doesn't tell me how it became to be so.

liamw wrote:

And you can guarantee before Darwin, Jakkass would have been delighted to interpret it all literally. Now, that it doesn't suit, he can twist the meaning and reconcile the beliefs .. phew.

Do a bit of reading, people have discussed other possibilities concerning the Genesis account well before Darwin:
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis/

It's well and good saying that you are dissatisfied with J C, or wolfsbane, and although I disagree with them, I disagree with you too. Your view needs to be substantiated. What caused all this to occur? It's not good enough just to say that they have a bad argument, you should present yours too.

Just because you think J C and wolfsbane are wrong doesn't mean that you are right surely?

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...why do you think Prof Dawkins is so 'wedded' to BOTH Atheism and Evolution then???
...it is no accident ... and you know it!!!!

So because you know of an atheist who is an evolutionist, evolution is wedded to atheism

How do you explain Kenneth Miller, the catholic from the Dover trial? Watch him here rubbish Michael Behe's claim that a mousetrap is irreducibly complex:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rW_2lLG9EZM

J C wrote: »

...and do all of these interesting people support Atheism's 'crowning glory' ... Materialistic Evolution????

They might, they might not. The disciplines are not related but they most likely do since, contrary to denialist opinion, there is actually no controversy about evolution other than the ill-informed noise made by creationists. Are you trying to imply that because these people accept evolution, that if you disprove evolution you'll somehow also disprove their disciplines

J C

Malty_T wrote: »

Laurence Krauss and Kenneth Miller challenged the ID theorists to show that they have more papers rejected than either Miller or Krauss individually. (Miller and Krauss were hoping to discuss the reviews and comments of the paper). The ID theorists were unable to do so.
The Fact is that creationists haven't even had as many papers rejected as your average publishing scientist. Yet they cry "unfairness" more than anyone else??

...this is total rubbish ... any action of God is a priori excluded from consideration by materiailstic science!!!

...so Creation Science and ID papers CANNOT be considered under the rules of materialistic science as currently constituted ... so it would simply be a waste of time submitting such papers ... so it is best, unless and until materialistic science changes its rules to include the consideration of the possible actions of God, to not bother submitting such papers.

Creation Science already has a very robust peer-review system set up ... and I would respectfully suggest that ID Proponents should consider doing the same. Beating their heads off a materialistic-inspired 'stone wall' is both demoralising and a danger to their careers!!

J C

Jakkass wrote: »

J C: 1. I recognise that Jesus died for me, that and that He was the blameless Son of God, and that I have received new life in Him through the Resurrection.

2. Yes. The Genesis account tells me that God created the world, but it does not tell me how God created the world.

1 ... is good.

2 ... Genesis gives the mechanism of Creation ... a fiat creation of God's Divine Will.
... Genesis also gives us the timeline of Creation ... Creation Week.

... so which part of the 'how' do you think that Genesis doesn't explain about The Creation?

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

The evidence suggests that humans are fallible beings. This is why I find Christianity more reasonable.

Actually dude neuroscience begs to differ here.
It borders more on the line of we are born as perfect as biologically allowable, but our brain creates illusions that cause us to develop hatred and such.
Eastern religious and philosophical thought has the 1-upmanship here over western thought.

It appears that a lot of people don't want to realise this simple fact. It's just being honest and familiar with yourself to say that yes, I have made mistakes

We realise this but if you're being honest the evidence suggests the way that you're approaching the problem is the wrong way.
Need to listen more to Master Dalai Lama, you do.:)

And will you stop this crap of "rather than no reason at all"!

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually dude neuroscience begs to differ here.
It borders more on the line of we are born as perfect as biologically allowable, but our brain creates illusions that cause us to develop hatred and such.
Eastern religious and philosophical thought has the 1-upmanship here over western thought.

We're perfect? I think it's sensible to suggest that we have all done wrong, and that is where Christianity is reasonable. I don't see the need to pretend that we are right all the tine, because that simply is false.

"As perfect" this implies that we are not perfect. Why is it so hard for people to step up to the reality and admit this? We've all done wrong, I have done things wrong, you've done things wrong. This is the only realistic way to look at it really.

Apparently accepting the truth is demeaning these days. I think it's life affirming to realise that although I am not perfect and that I have made mistakes, I can live a fulfilling life. It also makes it clear that we shouldn't be boastful or arrogant. All of us are working through this world in some way or another.

Malty_T wrote: »

We realise this but if you're being honest the evidence suggests the way that you're approaching the problem is the wrong way.
Need to listen more to Master Dalai Lama, you do.:)

What evidence? It's just excuse making. We're not perfect and we won't ever be. One can either choose the realistic option, or attempt to pretend that there isn't anything that we have ever done wrong.

Malty_T wrote: »

And will you stop this crap of "rather than no reason at all"!

It's not "crap" in the slightest to suggest that we could be here for a reason rather than dismissing it.

liamw

Jakkass wrote: »

Do a bit of reading, people have discussed other possibilities concerning the Genesis account well before Darwin:
http://biologos.org/questions/early-interpretations-of-genesis/

I'm sure they have! The Bible has been interpreted thousands of ways. That's becuase it's written so ambiguously.. almost as if by some primitive goat herders thousands of years ago.

If you read that part of Genesis literally, you can't deny that it suggests that God created everything in a week. And I really wonder how many Christians didn't interpret it as such. Science presented the fact of evolution, Christians realised they couldn't interpret it literally anymore and backtracked.

Turtwig

Jakkass,

Serious question : If God teaches you to live a moral life, then if I were to transport you in my time machine (WIP) back to the times of the OT. Would you carry out his orders such as killing the Caanites' children? As such killing is deemed moral, I'm sure you would have problem in obliging God. Or for that matter carrying out any of those laws in the OT that I deem repugnant, which luckily for you,Jesus's fulfillment of the prophecies makes null and void. If you were living back before Jesus would you have been willing to follow God?
I know, I wouldn't.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

Serious question : If God teaches you to live a moral life, then if I were to transport you in my time machine (WIP) back to the times of the OT. Would you carry out his orders such as killing the Caanites' children? As such killing is deemed moral, I'm sure you would have problem in obliging God. Or for that matter carrying out any of those laws in the OT that I deem repugnant, which luckily for you,Jesus's fulfillment of the prophecies makes null and void. If you were living back before Jesus would you have been willing to follow God?
I know, I wouldn't.

I think it'd be better if we started a new thread for this, it's a good question, but one I'd like to have other Christians offer their opinions on. Would you mind doing this?

Although I must admit, this is a rather selective reading of Jewish thought to suit your own agenda. The Old Testament to me is one of the finest religious texts we have if we consider it all.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not "crap" in the slightest to suggest that we could be here for a reason rather than dismissing it.

It is because you keep arguing that you think our view of existence means that there is no objective purpose to life.Which is obviously not my view (and I don't think many others share it either). If you'd really like I could spell out my views of reality to you but that would be a long post and it would take some time..

We're perfect? I think it's sensible to suggest that we have all done wrong, and that is where Christianity is reasonable. I don't see the need to pretend that we are right all the tine, because that simply is false.

"As perfect" this implies that we are not perfect. Why is it so hard for people to step up to the reality and admit this? We've all done wrong, I have done things wrong, you've done things wrong. This is the only realistic way to look at it really.

Apparently accepting the truth is demeaning these days. I think it's life affirming to realise that although I am not perfect and that I have made mistakes, I can live a fulfilling life.

Missed the point again.
I'm not saying we're perfect. I'm saying that reasons Christianity claim for our developing misgivings and mistakes are further from the truth than various eastern philosophies. Sorry, but this is one battle you guys are truly losing.

We're not perfect and we won't ever be.

Such a depressing attitude. I know that whether something is true or not doesn't depend on how likeable or depressing it is. Here's the problem though, can you offer an reason why we can't better ourselves?

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

It is because you keep arguing that you think our view of existence means that there is objective purpose to life.Which is obviously not my view (and I don't many others). If you'd really like I could spell out my views of reality to you but that would be a long post and it would take some time..

I don't see why there wouldn't be. I don't see why this universe would exist for no reason, it's absolutely illogical by my book. I also don't see why we shouldn't even consider why things exist the way they do.

I think you are misinterpreting my use of objective. I mean objective as in universal, not subjective as in individual.

Malty_T wrote: »

Missed the point again.
I'm not saying we're perfect. I'm saying that reasons Christianity claim for our developing misgivings and mistakes are further from the truth than various eastern philosophies. Sorry, but this is one battle you guys are truly losing.

Christianity puts forward that as people decided to glorify themselves, rather than God that we fell away from His standard. It explains adequately why humans are they way they are.

I don't see how we are still losing if this idea of how we are the way we are resonates with the amount of people that it does. Just because you or others don't share a particular view, doesn't make it a) unreasonable, or b) deficient in comparison to other views.

I will grant you that it isn't a fluffy theory about why we are the way we are, but it's a frank and honest one. Not all hope is lost, that's the reason why we have the Gospel. There has to be a need for the Gospel if there is going to be any reason why Jesus even came.

If you are going to argue that Eastern philosophies are more reasonable, you should at least let us know what you're citing.

Malty_T wrote: »

Such a depressing attitude. I know that whether something is true or not doesn't depend on how likeable or depressing it is. Here's the problem though, can you offer an reason why we can't better ourselves?

Not really, humans have fallen short of God's standard, but there isn't any reason that they can't live according to the hope that He has offered us. All we have to do is accept that we are wrong and be willing to follow God.

Humans being reconciled with their Creator is what gives true and lasting hope. This is what I have found in my life.

If it were depressing, I don't know why on earth we could even call it the good news. The Good News is that Jesus has paid for our sins in full, and has given us a meaningful path in life. It's what motivates me.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I've explained to you rather clearly that we are giving our opinion on what God thinks. This isn't a solid reason to suggest that God exists, even if there was a difference between Him and Obama. God and Obama are very different beings altogether. Perhaps we have a different category of thought for when we think about God than when we think about Obama. Indeed, it is their opinion about how God would think.

The neurological evidence begs to differ. Here you are still denying science because it goes against your religious beliefs. I've already explained that the whole "giving our opinion on what God thinks" thing was just you misunderstanding the research, that "giving your opinion on what god thinks" and "giving your opinion on what Obama thinks" should light up the same part of the brain but they don't. Read about it:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18216-dear-god-please-confirm-what-i-already-believe.html

"The experiments in which we manipulate people's own beliefs are the most compelling evidence we have to show that people's own beliefs influence what they think God believes more substantially than it influences what they think other people believe," says Epley.

Finally, the team used fMRI to scan the brains of volunteers while they contemplated the beliefs of themselves, God or "average Americans". In all the experiments the volunteers professed beliefs in an Abrahamic God. The majority were Christian.

In the first two cases, similar parts of the brain were active. When asked to contemplate other Americans' beliefs, however, an area of the brain used for inferring other people's mental states was active. This implies that people map God's beliefs onto their own.
Imagination link

Other researchers say the findings reinforce earlier studies suggesting that thinking about God is intimately linked to the imagination.

These experiments "support previous findings that representations of God seem intimately related to the self, also in terms of brain function", says Uffe Schjødt of Aarhus University in Denmark, whose research published earlier this year showed that praying uses similar brain regions as talking to a friend.

"These findings help explain why supernatural religious agents are often attributed a physical form and issue edicts that resemble the social practices of the culture from which they emerge," says Jordan Grafman of the US National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke in Bethesda, Maryland, whose team earlier this year linked emergence of religion with the development of "theory of mind", the capacity to recognise that other living things have independent thought and intentions.

You always go on about how closed minded others are but here you are dismissing this scientific research out of hand because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. If that's not closed minded I don't know what is

Jakkass wrote: »

I think reason is a gift from God yes.

Science begs to differ, hence the conflict.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for evolution. You keep bringing this up, and I have argued that I have no issue with evolution giving us the capacity of moral thought, but it does not serve as a moral code by any means, and that is spot on. Evolution doesn't teach me to live an honourable life, rather God does.

You keep saying that evolution does not serve as a moral code despite the fact that no one ever said it did. Evolution can explain why we evolved the capacity for empathy, altruism, fairness etc etc. Evolution does not itself serve as the moral code but it does explain the origins of the moral code that religious people believe can only have come from god. The reason we are compelled at a sub conscious level to help our fellow man and not to harm him can be explained quite easily through evolution. It says nothing about whether those actions are objectively moral or not, it just explains why we have these compulsions and we can then use reason to give a rational basis for them and to overrule them in some cases, such as our tendency for in-group morality and out-group hostility (chosen people anyone?) which was beneficial when we were primitive primates but not so much in modern society.

Jakkass wrote: »

I am wary of scientists who are using science to pursue an atheist agenda. There's most likely something attached, or something left out.

The thing is that this is not an atheist agenda, this is simply where the evidence is leading them. If the evidence led them towards a particular religion being true they would follow it that way. What you've just said there is classic creationist rhetoric, that if scientists say things that conflict with your religious beliefs it must be because of an atheist agenda. Sorry mate it doesn't, it just so happens that a sizeable chunk of evidence is mounting that conflicts with your world view and it's not just biased scientists pushing an agenda.

Jakkass wrote: »

J C and I have a lot in common in that we actually look for the why instead of ignoring it. As I say, I have a lot of respect for J C and I think that he should be dealt with respect even if he holds YEC beliefs.

Do you honestly think that everything J C says is said with the utmost integrity and honesty and that he's not just dodging questions and spouting pseudo-science in the hopes that no one notices his position is ludicrous?

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm glad that I started to question the atheist side in this argument, because this thread isn't just a J C questioning free for all. Atheist positions need justification. Why is it reasonable that God doesn't exist, or that God didn't create the world? I'm genuinely interested in staying on this topic and actually dealing with it for once.

After all these years talking to atheists are you actually saying that, are you actually using the "there is no god" straw man after all this time? Well let's deal with it anyway:

The most common atheist position is that we have no idea how the world came into being. We have nothing to justify. You on the other hand have a hypothesis that it was created by a god and we have asked you to support that hypothesis. The burden of proof is always and forever on the person making the claim. You don't get to make up whatever you want and place the burden of disproof on everyone else.

But if you want a direct answer I'll tell you the thing that most strongly suggests to me that gods are an invention of man and that is the fact that there are so very many religions in the world that all have so very many totally dedicated followers. It has also been shown that children left to their own devices will spontaneously invent religions. Even if there is a god there is no way to objectively determine which religion, if any, is right and the invention of religion appears to be a natural function of the human mind. This position is supported by the video I linked you to btw.

My atheism is not actually a rejection of god, it's a rejection of religion and it has nothing to do with questions of morality or the origins of the universe or any of the big questions. It doesn't mean I believe the universe popped out of nothing. I reject religion because it appears to be nothing more than people making stuff up and saying it's the word of god, a position that you and I share (to varying degrees) about every world religion except one. There might well be some kind of higher power but I have seen nothing to suggest that any world religion is closer to defining the characteristics of such a being than any other. If we found that different people independently of each other all spontaneously invented exactly the same religion that would go a long way to suggesting that that religion is true but obviously that doesn't happen. There are usually some common elements, eg many of them say their god is a source of morality and many have a creation story and most have miraculous tales to back them up but the stories and the morals and the miracles are always different and often contradictory.

The question of the origin of the universe remains unanswered and I am perfectly happy to admit that. That doesn't mean I am not curious, it just means that I am not prepared to accept an answer to the origin of the universe before it can be shown to be true. I don't want just any answer, I want the right answer and I find ancient tales of miracles thoroughly unimpressive and useless in answering the question.

Jakkass wrote: »

It really doesn't. It tells me that God had the intention to create these things, and he spoke it and it was so. It doesn't tell me how it became to be so.

It does give certain details that we know cannot be true. If it didn't there wouldn't be any creationists.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's well and good saying that you are dissatisfied with J C, or wolfsbane, and although I disagree with them, I disagree with you too. Your view needs to be substantiated. What caused all this to occur?

I have absolutely no idea

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because you think J C and wolfsbane are wrong doesn't mean that you are right surely?

No of course it doesn't but neither does the fact that I have absolutely no idea how the universe came into being give people license to make stuff up and declare it to be true. I don't have to have the answer to all the questions of the universe to know that someone else's answer does not fit with reality

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You keep saying that evolution does not serve as a moral code despite the fact that no one ever said it did. Evolution can explain why we evolved the capacity for empathy, altruism, fairness etc etc. Evolution does not itself serve as the moral code but it does explain the origins of the moral code that religious people believe can only have come from god.

I'll actually shake your hand here. I don't believe this rules out God, but it is probable that God by evolution gave us the capacity for moral action according to His standard. That's the best compromise we're going to get all day.

wrote:

Do you honestly think that everything J C says is said with the utmost integrity and honesty and that he's not just dodging questions and spouting pseudo-science in the hopes that no one notices his position is ludicrous?

I disagree with your views also. I think J C is being genuine in what he believes even if I think it is probably not how God brought all things to be. We at least agree that God was behind creating everything as we know it.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

I'll actually shake your hand here. I don't believe this rules out God, but it is probable that God by evolution gave us the capacity for moral action according to His standard. That's the best compromise we're going to get all day.

At least you've realised what we're actually saying when we say that evolution explains the origins of morality but, while it doesn't rule out a god, it does make it improbable because it makes it so that there is no reason to posit the involvement of a god in the process other than you like to think he was involved. I could claim that gravity works by god pulling people down and no one could disprove that but that doesn't mean that I have good reason to make that statement. What the evolution of morality shows is that it can happen through natural selection, that it is not supernatural by necessity. You can go on believing that god was involved in the process pushing it along if you want, no one can prove you wrong but you can no longer hold the position of "I can't see how morality can have arisen without god". because evolution explains how it can have happened. God might have been involved but he doesn't have to have been.

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with your views also. I think J C is being genuine in what he believes even if I think it is probably not how God brought all things to be. We at least agree that God was behind creating everything as we know it.

What do you say to someone who, despite being corrected literally hundreds of times on the same issues, continues to parrot them as if they're untouchable and rock solid, most often with little more than a declaration that the person who has corrected them is in denial and a string of smilies? Unlike him these people aren't just telling him he's wrong, they're explaining in detail exactly why he's wrong and he just ignores them and continues to spout the same old nonsense. Irreducible complexity and complex specified information are junk science as has been demonstrated every time they tried to skip past the scientific process and use the courts to get their nonsense into schools but they just won't stop! Maybe creationists aren't dishonest, maybe they actually manage to convince themselves of this nonsense but that only goes to show how the apostles could have done the same

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

At least you've realised what we're actually saying when we say that evolution explains the origins of morality but, while it doesn't rule out a god, it does make it improbable because it makes it so that there is no reason to posit the involvement of a god in the process other than you like to think he was involved.

We were doing so well Sam. So well!

I think it is more likely that God was more likely to be involved than not because I do not believe that the conditions for life could have been achieved without some form of organisation and some form of structure from an organiser. I believe it's extremely unlikely that these conditions just happened to fall into place.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What the evolution of morality shows is that it can happen through natural selection, that it is not supernatural by necessity.

We didn't agree on this. We agreed that biological evolution made it possible for us to be capable of moral thought. What you are discussing now is the idea of a Moral Zeitgeist which is something entirely different to biological evolution.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You can go on believing that god was involved in the process pushing it along if you want, no one can prove you wrong but you can no longer hold the position of "I can't see how morality can have arisen without god".

It appears that our breakthrough wasn't as successful as I thought it would be. I can show that God or at least an objective source is required for effective moral conclusions to be raised. Moral relativism is ineffective and illogical in moral discourse.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

because evolution explains how it can have happened. God might have been involved but he doesn't have to have been.

Evolution explains how we are capable of holding to moral systems. It doesn't provide a moral framework. I thought we agreed on this.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What do you say to someone who, despite being corrected literally hundreds of times on the same issues, continues to parrot them as they're untouchable and rock solid, most often with little more than a declaration that the person who has corrected them is in denial and a string of smilies?

Sam your views on many subjects aren't "untouchable or rock solid" to me yet you continue to make them. Disagreement doesn't necessarily render someone's point wrong. I can understand that in the case of J C since it is dealing with modern science that he may well be wrong however.

You've used this one on me in the past though which is why I am particularly wary of it. Objectively wrong != I disagree.

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

without some form of organisation and some form of structure from an organiser.

But who or what organised the organiser??

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

We were doing so well Sam. So well!

I think it is more likely that God was more likely to be involved than not because I do not believe that the conditions for life could have been achieved without some form of organisation and some form of structure from an organiser. I believe it's extremely unlikely that these conditions just happened to fall into place.

So again your views conflict with science. If you look into it you'll see it's not nearly as unlikely as you might think

Jakkass wrote: »

We didn't agree on this. We agreed that biological evolution made it possible for us to be capable of moral thought. What you are discussing now is the idea of a Moral Zeitgeist which is something entirely different to biological evolution.

Only if you approach the question with a prior belief that god was the source of it. In some ways we have a "higher" moral ability than other animals and we definitely have a higher reasoning ability but there is no reason to believe there was anything supernatural involved.

Jakkass wrote: »

It appears that our breakthrough wasn't as successful as I thought it would be. I can show that God or at least an objective source is required for effective moral conclusions to be raised. Moral relativism is ineffective and illogical in moral discourse.

We've had this conversation and let's just say it was left inconclusive. Your declaration that moral relativism is ineffective and your desire for there to be an objective source does not mean there is one. If there was an objective source all our moral opinions would be the same but they are clearly not. Evolution provides a much better explanation for the fact that we have largely similar views such as killing is wrong but a lot of small differences, just like our bodies all have the same overall shape but are all different.

Jakkass wrote: »

Evolution explains how we are capable of holding to moral systems. It doesn't provide a moral framework. I thought we agreed on this.

We did. I didn't say otherwise. You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying here. Evolution explains our ability to reason and compulsions such as empathy, altruism and fairness and reason itself provides the moral framework. Unfortunately many people don't grasp this and think that we need to appeal to a higher power to give authority to the position that I don't want you to kill me which goes a long way to explaining why we invent gods in the first place

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam your views on many subjects aren't "untouchable or rock solid" to me yet you continue to make them. Disagreement doesn't necessarily render someone's point wrong. I can understand that in the case of J C since it is dealing with modern science that he may well be wrong however.

You've said it yourself. People can have differing opinions but J C is denying 150 years of scientific evidence. Not the same thing.

Jakkass wrote: »

You've used this one on me in the past though which is why I am particularly wary of it. Objectively wrong != I disagree.

Eh no I haven't mate, although you have previously misconstrued my position as such

philologos

Sam Vimes wrote: »

So again your views conflict with science. If you look into it you'll see it's not nearly as unlikely as you might think

Science is agnostic on the subject, you are twisting it to appear atheist.

There is a difference between scientific speculation on something and scientific fact. For example this article in the New Scientist says this:

Instead, he argues that first, we had to evolve the necessary brain architecture to imagine things and beings that don't physically exist, and the possibility that people somehow live on after they've died.

It isn't fact that God doesn't exist. Rather this is mere speculation. There's a difference between speculation based on science and fact.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Only if you approach the question with a prior belief that god was the source of it. In some ways we have a "higher" moral ability than other animals and we definitely have a higher reasoning ability but there is no reason to believe there was anything supernatural involved.

If one believes that God is a reasonable source for all existence one can view it in this way. Your view is that we have a "higher" moral ability than other animals, my view is that we were created to reflect the Creator. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We've had this conversation and let's just say it was left inconclusive. Your declaration that moral relativism is ineffective and your desire for there to be an objective source does not mean there is one. If there was an objective source all our moral opinions would be the same but they are clearly not. Evolution provides a much better explanation for the fact that we have largely similar views such as killing is wrong but a lot of small differences, just like our bodies all have the same overall shape but are all different.

It's entirely ineffective, in that if we are to employ this mechanism morality is just a construct. In reality I can make whatever I want to be good, and whatever I want to be evil if I adhere to moral relativism.

Whereas from my perspective there is a standard that we should all aim to reach, and it is in regarding this standard that we have an effective framework to come to know what is right and what is wrong.

Sam, we were doing so well but we've already agreed that evolution isn't a moral code. It gives us the ability to be moral agents, but it doesn't give us any standard as to what is moral or what isn't.

Evolution doesn't explain moral systems, rather our capability to have such moral systems. I thought we agreed on this!

Sam Vimes wrote: »

We did. I didn't say otherwise. You don't seem to be understanding what I am saying here. Evolution explains our ability to reason and compulsions such as empathy, altruism and fairness and reason itself provides the moral framework. Unfortunately many people don't grasp this and think that we need to appeal to a higher power to give authority to the position that I don't want you to kill me which goes a long way to explaining why we invent gods in the first place

You've been moving backwards and forwards on this position. Are you saying that evolution explains our capability to have moral systems, or are you saying that evolution actually explains these moral systems themselves. I agree with you in the former, but I certainly don't agree with you in the latter.

As for inventing gods. We'd have to have some valid reason to dismiss God's existence before we'd even get into discussing "inventing gods".

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Eh no I haven't mate, although you have previously misconstrued my position as such

You've claimed to have "corrected" me on several issues in the past in the A&A forum when you were merely disagreeing with me. Disagreement doesn't mean "correction".

Turtwig

Jakkass wrote: »

If it were depressing, I don't know why on earth we could even call it the good news.

I really don't know why either.

I don't see why there wouldn't be. I don't see why this universe would exist for no reason, it's absolutely illogical by my book. I also don't see why we shouldn't even consider why things exist the way they do.

I never said, nor do I believe, that the universe exists for no reason.
We do consider the why but you seem to love sticking "God" as "the why"; what if were something else?

I think you are misinterpreting my use of objective. I mean objective as in universal, not subjective as in individual.

Eitherway, I do not think it matters. I believe there is a universal purpose to everyone and everything's life.

Christianity puts forward that as people decided to glorify themselves, rather than God that we fell away from His standard. It explains adequately why humans are they way they are.

It may explain this in a spiritual sense. Indeed, this may be the reason why there are so many different faiths, lack of faiths, and different forms of spirtualism. However, from a material point of view, the biblical explanation of falling away from God does not explain the evolutionary progression of the mind and morals. In this sense, Christianity's assumption that the physical mind is initially flawed is lacking - as we age we become more and more susceptible to delusion regarding our very selves.

I don't see how we are still losing if this idea of how we are the way we are resonates with the amount of people that it does.

Losing in the sense of no evidence backing up the claim.

If you are going to argue that Eastern philosophies are more reasonable, you should at least let us know what you're citing.

A couple of years ago, the Dalai Lama extended an invitation to scientists, particularly neuroscientists, to examine claims of buddhist teaching with regard to the modern understanding of neuroscience. It may just be a subtle form of apologetics for buddhism, but it does make for some very riveting and interesting readings.

Turtwig

Sam Vimes wrote: »

You've said it yourself. People can have differing opinions but J C is denying 150 years of scientific evidence. Not the same thing.

Ah now Sam, Darwin may have been lacking evidence for his particular theory 150 years ago, but JC is contradicting scientific evidence from over 300 years.:D

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

A couple of years ago, the Dalai Lama extended an invitation to scientists, particularly neuroscientists, to examine claims of buddhist teaching with regard to the modern understanding of neuroscience. It may just be a subtle form of apologetics for buddhism, but it does make for some very riveting and interesting readings.

Please provide the source. I'd be interested in reading.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

I never said, nor do I believe, that the universe exists for no reason.
We do consider the why but you seem to love sticking "God" as "the why"; what if were something else?

What is my reason for living according to your source?

Malty_T wrote: »

However, from a material point of view, the biblical explanation of falling away from God does not explain the evolutionary progression of the mind and morals. In this sense, Christianity's assumption that the physical mind is initially flawed is lacking - as we age we become more and more susceptible to delusion regarding our very selves.

We're dealing with flawed / fallible as in making mistakes. I thought I made that quite clear when I asked if you if you had done anything wrong. It's this kind of wrong that I am referring to. Context is key. I don't believe that we are perfect, or that we will ever be perfect as human beings. I believe we can gain a relationship with a perfect God however.

Malty_T wrote: »

Losing in the sense of no evidence backing up the claim.

Human nature is the evidence. Again, considering that Christianity is held by many intelligent people, I doubt that it is "losing" in the case of evidence.

We're flawed as individuals. It might be very frank, but it's certainly true. I would have thought that it was obvious that we were fallible. It seems that people want to deny this out of a false hope that they are perfect.

J C

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The best way to explain that nowadays is through psychology, that our brains are prone to hyperactive agency detection for example. It explains what makes us believe in gods and explains why this belief can be so comforting and seem so real to us. There doesn't have to have been a source for the universe but if there was, it most certainly doesn't have to have been a god but more and more every day modern psychology and biology is explaining what makes us overlook this and jump straight from the actually unsupported idea that nothing can come from nothing (except god of course) to believing in one specific holy book. I suppose it can be summed up in the quote from Charles de Secondat (apparently): "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides."

This is probably the third time I've linked you to this video but it remains very interesting and explanatory:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iMmvu9eMrg

... "If triangles had a god, he would have three sides." ... and if Atheists had a God ... he wouldn't exist or would be each one of themselves!!!!!:D

...a thought-provoking video about the dynamics of all religions ... including the religion of Atheistic Humanism!!!!
...this guy, however falls into the trap of seeing the flaws in other people's religion ... while apparently being oblivious to the exact same issues with his own brand of 'peoples opium'!!!

...of course Christianity is a Saving Faith ... and it therefore is not a religion per se ... although some Christians choose to join / stay within a particular religious denomination many Saved Christians choose to remain Free Thinkers ... and outside the religious mainstream.

Dr Thompson then itemises the legal path that was followed to ensure that Atheist Humanism and it's invalid 'pet' theory of Spontaneous Evolution would effectively become the only state-sponsored religion in America!!!

wolfsbane

I've missed you all. A belated Happy New Year. I'm returning tomorrow, DV.

philologos

Malty_T wrote: »

But who or what organised the organiser??

Contingent and necessary.

The universe isn't necessary, I.E it could have existed or it could have not existed due to the fact that it has a finite age.

God is said to be eternal. I.E That God didn't come into existence, but that all things were dependant on God's existence, or that God's existence was necessary.

Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction in his philosophy as do many other philosophers such as Moses Maimonides and Avicenna.

Sam Vimes

Jakkass wrote: »

Science is agnostic on the subject, you are twisting it to appear atheist.

There is a difference between scientific speculation on something and scientific fact. For example this article in the New Scientist says this:


It isn't fact that God doesn't exist. Rather this is mere speculation. There's a difference between speculation based on science and fact.

Jakkass, please, the next time you find yourself feeling the urge to tell someone that science is agnostic on the topic of god or that science hasn't disproven god or that atheists say there is no god please just stop yourself. Very very few people make such claims and I am not one of them.

What you said was "I do not believe that the conditions for life could have been achieved without some form of organisation and some form of structure from an organiser". That position conflicts with science that says that those conditions could have been achieved without an organiser. Not that it was, that it could have been. Even the "agnostic" position of science conflicts with your position on this matter.

Jakkass wrote: »

If one believes that God is a reasonable source for all existence one can view it in this way. Your view is that we have a "higher" moral ability than other animals, my view is that we were created to reflect the Creator. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Except that science is supporting my view a hell of a lot more than it is yours.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's entirely ineffective, in that if we are to employ this mechanism morality is just a construct. In reality I can make whatever I want to be good, and whatever I want to be evil if I adhere to moral relativism.

Statements like this make me wonder if there's any point using up keystrokes in responding to you. To pick one of a massive number of possible responses to the above statement, how long do you reckon a society would survive if the people made up their own version of morality that allowed them to harm whoever they wanted? And how enjoyable and safe would it be to live in such a society?

Jakkass wrote: »

Sam, we were doing so well but we've already agreed that evolution isn't a moral code. It gives us the ability to be moral agents, but it doesn't give us any standard as to what is moral or what isn't.

Evolution doesn't explain moral systems, rather our capability to have such moral systems. I thought we agreed on this!

Please stop saying that. Please read back over what I said and keep reading it until you understand why that is an invalid response to what I said. You have misunderstood me

Jakkass wrote: »

You've been moving backwards and forwards on this position. Are you saying that evolution explains our capability to have moral systems, or are you saying that evolution actually explains these moral systems themselves. I agree with you in the former, but I certainly don't agree with you in the latter.

I put it in bold and you still didn't see it. I said that reason itself explains the moral systems. In a nutshell, we don't kill each other because a society where people kill each other at the drop of a hat is not a good place to live. I want to enjoy my life, raise a family, spend time with friends and pursue interests etc etc etc, all the things that people do, and I can't do that if I'm afraid to leave my house because my neighbours are all trying to kill me for the €20 in my wallet. A certain amount of such behaviour can be tolerated in a society but if it gets too much, if people cannot trust each other, society collapses. If we couldn't work together without murdering each other on a whim we would have to go and live in caves all on our own and kick our kids out as soon as they were big enough to wield a knife and kill me for the deer carcase I just killed. People can't make up their own morality because a society where people make up their own morality simply doesn't work. There probably were such societies in the past but we never heard of them because they inevitably died out. I don't see what is so difficult to grasp about this.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for inventing gods. We'd have to have some valid reason to dismiss God's existence before we'd even get into discussing "inventing gods".

Which of the millions of postulated gods from history are we talking about dismissing here? I ask because you dismiss only one fewer than I do.

Jakkass wrote: »

You've claimed to have "corrected" me on several issues in the past in the A&A forum when you were merely disagreeing with me. Disagreement doesn't mean "correction".

Again, that's not what happened

philologos

Statements like this make me wonder if there's any point using up keystrokes in responding to you. To pick one of a massive number of possible responses to the above statement, how long do you reckon a society would survive if the people made up their own version of morality that allowed them to harm whoever they wanted? And how enjoyable and safe would it be to live in such a society?

Not very long, which is why I'd speculate that people hold to moral absolutes even if they don't realise it. People usually outwardly condemn many things as being universally wrong.