The wisest man in the world is the one who realizes he knows nothing.

[McBell]

We both know, many evolutionists like Dawkins would never consider any alternative no matter the evidence,

No you don't.
You do not "know" that any more than you "know" god exists.
You merely make the claim because you have to attack Dawkin himself because you have nothing to refute his claims.

 

[Town Heretic]

But, agnosticism is the belief that "knowledge of God is not possible". f it is It doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in God or, necessarily, doesn't hold a believe either way.

I was thinking of agnosticism in its historic application to the individual, which is more of a "don't know" than "can't know". But again, the moment you begin making moral choices and distinctions the philosophical point is lost within the practical application.

Nevertheless, though, why is God necessary for beliefs in morality.

I didn't say it was necessary. I've said you can't hold a neutral moral position in relation to God, that the moment you begin to act, to make moral decisions, you set a context. All that is necessary for moral choice is an understanding of distinction between a moral and an immoral action. That requires a standard, which leads nicely into your next point.

I am a moral person, but I don't think that morality is absolute.

Moral by what light and standard? Absent the absolute, morality is essentially indistinguishable from personal preference. So how can I, within that context, understand you? And should you set out a particular standard within that premise I can't, rationally, expect that you're held to it given your foundational premise. If you choose to do a thing tomorrow that is self-serving and contrary to the noble standard you have decided upon today, I can't in objecting to the alteration suggest it to be fundamentally opposed to your premise.

Now I may not be able to know with certainty that the fellow who tells me he is a Presbyterian will act in accord with the moral distinctions of his faith, but it is reasonable to expect him to or he is at odds with his own understanding.

It is subjective and contextual in that immorality is not black and white, and circumstances change everything. So, I fail to see how belief in God or faith would have to be considered for moral decision making.

Morality is ultimately about service to or opposition to the good and what constitutes it. So if you lie to the Nazi at the door and swear that you aren't harboring Jews, you do good. If you tell the truth and expose them to slaughter, you do evil.

 

[Unification]

OK. But, do you think that withholding belief is the best option until sufficient evidence (whatever that might come from) is found?

It's not possible to withhold belief. Scientists have to "believe" they can find evidence in order to make any progress. Faith in the things not seen yet.

Ie: Many are pursuing blindly believing that they can find "life" elsewhere. There is faith that life elsewhere exists.
It's not seen(evident) yet but the pursuit continues.

If they all withheld their beliefs that life existed elsewhere, their exploration would cease to exist, as there would be no belief. No belief, no pursuit.

It also depends on what "sufficient evidence" is.

Ie: It's "most likely" and "widely accepted" that dinosaurs became extinct by a meteor. That's not sufficient evidence for me. I don't find it wise to just accept something because the majority/crowd does and says "that's the best bet we have." Using your principle, Everyone should have the mentality, "We do not know how dinosaurs became extinct, therefore, we will withhold all widely accepted beliefs."

Even with "evolution." It's sufficiently evident that the human body evolved. That is fine. But there is that thing called a "mind" that science cannot physically provide sufficient evidence for. Should we scrap "evolution" or just say that we have sufficient evidence that the human body evolved and have no sufficient evidence for the mind currently?

 

[Robert.Evans]

This is a very famous idea attributed to Socrates by Plato. Today, with all of the animosity towards the scientific method (“science”) I see on RF, I think it is an important concept to discuss. People claim that scientific consensus is constantly changing or evolving, and, thus, provides no concrete answers. Religious beliefs, teachings, dogma and scripture, on the other hand, claim to provide ultimate and unchanging truths. But, isn’t that a bad thing? Socrates (or Plato) seems to have understood, thousands of years ago I might add, that those who claim to “know” absolute truths or adhere to scripture as being “absolute” or the “direct word of God” were ignorantly fooling themselves. In accepting scripture as fact, one forfeits their search for understanding. Is there any kind of honor or value in doing this? Is faith based on subjective, unverified experience more dangerous than its worth?

I’ve always said that I don’t want to settle on something that might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable in the future. I feel that is what the scientific method and science in general sticks to. Evolution, for example, is for all intents and purposes indisputable. The best opponents have to offer is pointing out holes in the theory that seem to get smaller and smaller by the day. And, they fail to present an alternative theory based on verifiable evidence rather than just jumping to the conclusion of God. I am in no way claiming that the scientific method is the only source of information/knowledge, but it does seem to be by far the most reliable and prudent.

In the interest of prudence, is it better to withhold belief in anything until it can be sufficiently verified with independent evidence? What do we gain by jumping to conclusions about the nature of reality rather than allowing the evidence to direct us. Some say that science cannot explain how the universe came from nothing, but why is that a problem? Scientific understanding is still so young and underdeveloped, we still have so far to go with it. So, why can’t we just settle with the temporary answer of “we just don’t know yet”?

We all have what God gives us Churchill

 

[leibowde84]

It's not possible to withhold belief. Scientists have to "believe" they can find evidence in order to make any progress. Faith in the things not seen yet.

Ie: Many are pursuing blindly believing that they can find "life" elsewhere. There is faith that life elsewhere exists.
It's not seen(evident) yet but the pursuit continues.

If they all withheld their beliefs that life existed elsewhere, their exploration would cease to exist, as there would be no belief. No belief, no pursuit.

It also depends on what "sufficient evidence" is.

Ie: It's "most likely" and "widely accepted" that dinosaurs became extinct by a meteor. That's not sufficient evidence for me. I don't find it wise to just accept something because the majority/crowd does and says "that's the best bet we have." Using your principle, Everyone should have the mentality, "We do not know how dinosaurs became extinct, therefore, we will withhold all widely accepted beliefs."

Even with "evolution." It's sufficiently evident that the human body evolved. That is fine. But there is that thing called a "mind" that science cannot physically provide sufficient evidence for. Should we scrap "evolution" or just say that we have sufficient evidence that the human body evolved and have no sufficient evidence for the mind currently?

It seems that your argument lies on the claim that no belief = no pursuit. Can you explain why you think that is the case when speaking about things like aliens and God? I, for example, don't beli

We all have what God gives us Churchill

Or, it could be the case that we all have what we all have and God is not part of the equation.

If you use the claim that all we have is due to God to support a claim that God exists, you are merely using circular reasoning.

 

[Unification]

I don't accept the premise that the resurrection of a human being is inherently more 'supernatural' than a single cell accidentally morphing into a human being through millions of lucky accidental significant improvements-
nor do I think it is any less well documented.

Yet I and the vast majority of people of faith I know, acknowledge that faith, that we can't prove it, most even acknowledge doubts from time to time.

Whereas in the latter case...



Do you think that's the subtle not-really-fact definition of fact Dawkins is using here?

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact"
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that). "

We both know, many evolutionists like Dawkins would never consider any alternative no matter the evidence, there is far too much emotion and personal atheist ideology involved.

And that's the crux of the matter, it's not religion v science. We have science the method- then theism and atheism as two distinct contexts for it

when it comes to acknowledging our own beliefs and biases- critical objective thought- many atheists refuse to acknowledge that atheism is even a belief- how then separate it from their work?

moreover, atheism inherently seeks to explicitly refute God by claiming an answer- which squeezes God from the equation.

In contrast 'Nature is the executor of God's laws' frees people like Lemaitre and Planck to break through these barriers- be they static universes, classical physics, or today's classical evolution-

but the atheist barrier in this last theory is even greater than those before.

Dawkins may. It's hard to speak for another.

I look at it with any human. Even a popular religious theologian with many followers for example.

When someone is vested in something, they have a reputation and image to protect. If they don't, they will lose their flock, reputation, credibility, "tithe money," perhaps even "career."

No matter how hard science or common sense is knocking on said theologians mind, he will likely refuse at all costs and continue to justify what he's preached his entire life.

Same with a popular "atheist" or any human being.

It's always one extreme side. I'll take the middle road which is even more logical, that without a doubt the human body evolved... as for the "being/mind" of the human... from "God/Absolute/Aliens" or whatever one wishes to call it.

 

[Unification]

It seems that your argument lies on the claim that no belief = no pursuit. Can you explain why you think that is the case when speaking about things like aliens and God? I, for example, don't beli

Or, it could be the case that we all have what we all have and God is not part of the equation.

If you use the claim that all we have is due to God to support a claim that God exists, you are merely using circular reasoning.

That's a clever revert back to "God" and "aliens." Taking the critique and attention off of belief and science.

It depends on what someone is pursuing. What are they looking for? A Hubble telescope or anyone won't find an exoteric deity(s) sitting on a throne in the cosmos somewhere or aliens.

Sometimes it's the one not even pursuing anything that becomes pursued. An influx of random thoughts and ideas manifest in the mind. This goes for any human and with anything.
New scientific discoveries, newfound inner peace, new pursuits, etc.

 

[Unification]

But, agnosticism is the belief that "knowledge of God is not possible". It doesn't mean that one doesn't believe in God or, necessarily, doesn't hold a believe either way. Nevertheless, though, why is God necessary for beliefs in morality. I am a moral person, but I don't think that morality is absolute. It is subjective and contextual in that immorality is not black and white, and circumstances change everything. So, I fail to see how belief in God or faith would have to be considered for moral decision making.

It seems that the only way may be to believe in "good" and have faith in "good."

Perhaps to nature, morality is absolute. Perhaps the human being seems to have a split personality nature disorder between "good" and "animal."

 

[McBell]

It seems that the only way may be to believe in "good" and have faith in "good."

Perhaps to nature, morality is absolute. Perhaps the human being seems to have a split personality nature disorder between "good" and "animal."

Nature is amoral.
So no absolute morality there either.

 

[allfoak]

The judgement of morality must be tempered with mercy.

What some would consider common dinner conversation would make the Queen faint.

 

[Unification]

Nature is amoral.
So no absolute morality there either.

Perhaps.

Would we be able to call that statement absolutely right or wrong?

Science has its constant/absolute physical laws but the universe/nature has been showing to have different laws that vary across different parts of the universe/nature.

Would it be flawed to state that since science may be amoral, nature must also be amoral given how little we have knowledge of nature? Kind of like the wise man admitting he doesn't have knowledge that the universe/nature is amoral or not.

 

[McBell]

Would we be able to call that statement absolutely right or wrong?

No.
What is this desperate need of yours for an absolute all about?

Science has its constant/absolute physical laws but the universe/nature has been showing to have different laws that vary across different parts of the universe/nature.

Again with throwing in the word "absolute"...
Please name a physical law that is "absolute"?

Would it be flawed to state that since science may be amoral, nature must also be amoral given how little we have knowledge of nature? [/quiote]
It is not science or religion that is moral or immoral.
It is people who are moral or immoral.

Kind of like the wise man admitting he doesn't have knowledge that the universe/nature is amoral or not.

Until shown otherwise, I say that the universe itself is amoral.
Though there are both immoral and moral entities within the universe.

 

[Unification]

No.
What is this desperate need of yours for an absolute all about?


Again with throwing in the word "absolute"...
Please name a physical law that is "absolute"?

Fair enough. Then your statement is not right.

"Desperate need" is your assumption.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

 

[Robert.Evans]

Or, it could be the case that we all have what we all have and God is not part of the equation.

If you use the claim that all we have is due to God to support a claim that God exists, you are merely using circular reasoning.

So?
When you speak of first causes what other option is there?

 

[leibowde84]

So?
When you speak of first causes what other option is there?

Circular reasoning is flawed logic. That is why I pointed it out. If that is your line of reasoning, the claim that "everything comes from God" doesn't actually support the claim that God exists. They must be supported separately.

When I speak of a first cause, I, personally, BELIEVE that God is that first cause. But, there is obviously an infinite number of possible alternatives we, as human beings, have yet to discover. The mere fact that there is no known alternative right at this moment in no way means that they don't exist. That is another logical fallacy ... arguing from ignorance.

A claim that God is the first cause is not supported by any lack of known alternatives, as our understanding of the physical universe is currently so limited.

 

[McBell]

Fair enough. Then your statement is not right.

Which statement?

"Desperate need" is your assumption.

True.
It is an assumption.
Interesting how you avoid answering the question though.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed."

Only in a closed system...
So no, does not work.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Circular reasoning is flawed logic. That is why I pointed it out. If that is your line of reasoning, the claim that "everything comes from God" doesn't actually support the claim that God exists. They must be supported separately.

When I speak of a first cause, I, personally, BELIEVE that God is that first cause. But, there is obviously an infinite number of possible alternatives we, as human beings, have yet to discover. The mere fact that there is no known alternative right at this moment in no way means that they don't exist. That is another logical fallacy ... arguing from ignorance.

A claim that God is the first cause is not supported by any lack of known alternatives, as our understanding of the physical universe is currently so limited.

It sounds like a crisis of confidence in your faith to me. By necessity, God exists. Everything follows the pattern. It is far easier to say that he does than he doesn't. Why have such doubts?
Also, I did explain. A first cause has no answer other than it is there. Whatever you want to call it, with intelligence or not, it is there and all things are from it and part of it.

 

[leibowde84]

It sounds like a crisis of confidence in your faith to me. By necessity, God exists. Everything follows the pattern. It is far easier to say that he does than he doesn't. Why have such doubts?
Also, I did explain. A first cause has no answer other than it is there. Whatever you want to call it, with intelligence or not, it is there and all things are from it and part of it.

Doubts are reasonable and should be encouraged so to avoid blind faith. For all we currently know, the first cause could have been completely material.

 

[Unification]

Which statement?


True.
It is an assumption.
Interesting how you avoid answering the question though.


Only in a closed system...
So no, does not work.

Every statement ever made by any human would neither be right or wrong without absolutes. Everything you've ever said and everything that I've ever said would be opinions and assumptions.

The question was avoided because there was never a "desperate" need.

Science is based on a set of absolute values. Mathematics. Laws. If there is no need for anything absolute, then we can conclude that mathematics and science have no absolutes and that nothing in the universe is neither right nor wrong. That is why absolutes are "needed" for the scientific system.

A closed system has absolutes, so they are "needed." Going beyond that particular closed system, would signal that energy can be created and can be destroyed...would signal along the lines of a "Creator" outside of that system.

As for absolute morals, they are only needed if we want to live in peace, individually and collectively.

I do admire your internal, open minded system.

 

[Unification]

Doubts are reasonable and should be encouraged so to avoid blind faith. For all we currently know, the first cause could have been completely material.

Blind faith is no longer needed for that.

Material or physical, whichever one wants to call it... has an absolute it must meet for science and that is having mass. It's already been shown that there are "stuff" with no mass and when all particles are smashed in an excellerator, they are condensed to a pure light/energy and cannot be broken down any further. . all that's left is light and void with no form.

At best, it's already concluded that it wasn't "material." That pure light was the only initial that created/formed all of the particles in and of and out of itself.