Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Naturalism’s Moral Foundations

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Jeffrey DahmerJeffrey Dahmer: “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” [Biography, “Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within,” A&E, 1996.]

Naturalists like to stress that you don’t need God or religion to be good. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins even suggest that leaving God out of the equation actually allows one to be more moral because then our moral acts are authentic, motivated by deep conviction rather than by having a divine gun to our heads.

Even so, Dahmer’s logic is compelling. We need some external reference point — God — to justify being good. And that justification is significant in its own right. Without it, we can still rationalize particular evils, but we cannot dispense with the category of evil entirely.

I’d like to encourage in this thread other quotes like Dahmer’s — quotes by people who understood the logic of naturalism and the destruction of moral foundations that it entails.

Comments
V J Torley, I’m curious—have you read Alvin Plantinga’s Does God have a nature?, and if so did I get it right in 66, and do you agree or disagree with Plantinga here?Rude
February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PST
#150 vj Thanks. This makes your comment clear. Is it fair to restate this as: If God says something is good then it must be good because by definition God is an entity which knows the truth about everything and never lies. If so, then it would apply to any statement God made about anything. We have defined God as the entity that always tells the truth. This suggests that the answer to Alan's question: Is it necessary for God to “say” that something is good/right for that thing to be good/right? is "no". Just because God always speaks the truth it does not follow that God has uttered every truth. It is not God's verdict that makes something good. This would appear to be some factor external to God that makes it good, or at least there is nothing in your comment #143 that precludes this. The question then still remains - what makes something good/right?Mark Frank
February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PST
Hi Mark Frank (#149) Welcome back. I was a little too concise in my definition of God. I should have said: (5) Because God is a Being whose nature it is to know and love perfectly, then necessarily, if God says that something is good, then it is good. Since God, by nature, has perfect knowledge of all things (or all states of affairs, if you prefer that way of talking) then it is a matter of logical necessity that if God believes that some thing (or state of affairs) is good, it is in fact good. Since God is a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly, then as a matter of logical necessity, God cannot lie about what is good. We have already established that God cannot be mistaken about what is good. Hence, if God says that some thing (or state of affairs) is good, it follows that (i) God believes this; (ii) this belief is true; hence (iii) the thing (or state of affairs) is in fact good. I hope that answers your question. Sorry for not expressing myself more clearly in the first place.vjtorley
February 24, 2010
February
02
Feb
24
24
2010
12:01 AM
12
12
01
AM
PST
#143 vj I have been removed from the moderation queue. One great advantage is that gives me the opportunity to not only read but comment on your rather interesting comments. In #143 you make a number of assertions about things being necessarily so. I always have a problem with such statements because there are so many different types of necessity - ranging from Bachelors are necessarily unmarried through to my job means that necessarily I have to rise at 5:00 each day. What type of necessity did you have in mind when, for example, you say: (5) Because God is a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly, then necessarily, if God says that something is good, then it is good.Mark Frank
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
10:59 PM
10
10
59
PM
PST
Seversky, "To say that the moral law is God’s law is no final solution. Are these things right because God commands them or does God command them because they are right? If the first, if good is to be defined as what God commands, then the goodness of God Himself is emptied of meaning and the commands of an omnipotent fiend would have the same claim on us as those of the “righteous Lord.” If the second, then we seem to be admitting a cosmic dyarchy, or even making God Himself the mere executor of a law somehow external and antecendent to His own being. Both views are intolerable. At this point we must remind ourselves that Christian theology does not believe God to be a person. It believes Him to be such that in Him a trinity of persons is consistent with a unity of Deity. In that sense it believes Him to be something very different from a person, just as a cube, in which six squares are consistent with unity of the body, is different from a square. (Flatlanders, attempting to imagine a cube, would either imagine the six squares coinciding, and thus destroy their distinctness, or else imagine them set out side by side and thus destroy the unity. Our difficulties about the Trinity are much of the same kind.)…But it might be permissible to lay down two negations: that God neither obeys nor creates the moral law. The good is uncreated; it could never have been otherwise; it has in it no shadow of contingency; it lies, as Plato said, on the other side of existence…God is not merely good, but goodness; goodness is not merely divine, but God.” Excerpts from “The Poison of Subjectivism” by C.S. Lewis.Clive Hayden
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
10:12 PM
10
10
12
PM
PST
vjtorley,
But no word is more misunderstood in our society than the word love. One of the most useful books we can read is C. S. Lewis’ unpretentious little masterpiece The Four Loves. There, he clearly distinguishes agape, the kind of love Christ taught and showed, from storge (natural affection or liking), eros (sexual desire), and philia (friendship). It is agape that is the greatest thing in the world.
This is a great book, and as I'm sure you know, it's also available as an audiobook with C. S. Lewis himself doing the reading.Clive Hayden
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
10:07 PM
10
10
07
PM
PST
...more evidence for that which is not reducible to matter.Upright BiPed
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
09:38 PM
9
09
38
PM
PST
I'm with Clive and Allen. What is good or bad for an ant colony has little to do with what is good or bad for a human society. Perhaps the differences are the most instructive. The males of several species are at risk of being eaten by agressive females after copulation. Is this 'wrong'? While it might seem convenient to extend what we have been saying above, I'm actually more inclined to say that the farther away we get from our own species, the less sense 'morality' makes as a concept. Malaria (P. falciparum) is not evil. A more interesting question to me is whether it is possible to be an intelligent species and yet have a fundaentally different morality due to some underlying difference in biology. Answering yes would affirm that morality is ultimately grounded in some aspect of the species niche we grew up in, and whether we are able to transcend that niche.Nakashima
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PST
Mr. Nakashima (#134) Thank you for your post. This article might answer some of your queries regarding the genealogy of Jesus: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof4.html Enjoy!vjtorley
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PST
Allen_MacNeill (#92) writes:
Ask yourself this question:
Is it necessary for God to “say” that something is good/right for that thing to be good/right?
May I make a suggestion? This discussion of the Euthyphro dilemma is confusing logical issues, ontological issues (relating to being as such), and epistemological issues (relating to what we know and how we know it). Here is my attempt to tie these together. Logical facts: (1) The intrinsic goodness of a thing is logically prior to God's saying that it is good. A thing is what it is. God cannot say that X is good unless there is an X to start with. Ontological facts: (2) There exists a Being (God) whose nature it is to love perfectly. (3) The intrinsic goodness of God is ontologically prior to that of any created thing. Using a Platonic metaphor in the context of Aquinas' Fourth Way: things are creatures which participate in God's goodness. Theirs is borrowed beauty. (4) Because God is a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly, then necessarily, if something is good, God cannot say that it is not good. (5) Because God is a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly, then necessarily, if God says that something is good, then it is good. (6) Because God is a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly, then necessarily, if there exists a collection C of statements made by God (and nobody else), then whatever is affirmed to be good in C is in fact good. Epistemological facts: (7) Human beings are not liable to err about basic human goods: we all know that health, knowledge and art are good things. Corollary: we should therefore distrust anyone who says that we should not trust our ability to recognize these goods. (8) Humans often err about the goodness of particular acts. Opinions diverge, often wildly. (9) Human reason is not liable to err about basic metaphysical truths. Corollary: we should therefore distrust anyone who says that we should not trust our reason. (10) Human reason is capable of showing that an Ultimate Good (God) exists - i.e. a Being whose nature it is to love perfectly. (11) If there were good reason to believe that a particular book B was actually a collection of statements made by God (and nobody else), then whatever was affirmed to be good in that book would be in fact good. (12) Humans often differ about the correct interpretation of books, especially very old ones written in foreign tongues. Error is possible. (13) If one were endeavoring to properly interpret an old book, written in various foreign tongues, that purported to be a collection of statements made by God (and nobody else), it would be unwise to attempt this endeavor oneself. The possibility of error would be too great. (14) Error would be less likely if one consulted the community to whom this book had originally been given, and examined their moral precepts - namely, those moral precepts which members of the community are bound to observe (as opposed to precepts that corrupt individual members of that community may have observed or even enjoined upon others, at various times in history). If these universally binding moral precepts contained anything repugnant to reason, it would be rational to reject the book on which the community based its teaching. If not, then the book might still be what it purported to be. (15) If a book appeared (on a naive reading) to contain wicked, immoral precepts that were repugnant to reason, but the community treasuring this book did not enjoin its members to engage in any immoral practices that were repugnant to reason, then the occurrence of apparently immoral precepts in the book would be a difficulty, but it would not be a decisive reason to reject the book. See (12) above. For it is always possible that an individual's interpretation of the book may be mistaken. (16) If after a diligent search, one was not able to find any community which based its teachings on a sacred book whose universally binding moral precepts contained nothing repugnant to reason, then it would be rational to conclude that God had not yet issued such a book. (17) Nevertheless, it would still be rational to seek natural knowledge of God, and of moral goodness, to the best of one's ability. It would not be rational to become a subjectivist or a materialist, as these -isms are both abnegations of human reason.vjtorley
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PST
Seversky (#141) You made a very interesting comment in your post:
Love is an emotion which human beings experience but a human being is more than just that emotion. The same must apply to God if He is an intelligent agent. He may experience love but He is much more than just love.
With the greatest respect, you have it all wrong. To see why, I suggest that you read the following article by the Christian philosopher Peter Kreeft: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love.htm I'll quote a short extract (emphases are mine - VJT):
Without qualification, without ifs, ands, or buts, God's word tells us, straight as a left jab, that love is the greatest thing there is (1 Cor 13: 13). Scripture never says God is justice or beauty or righteousness, though he is just and beautiful and righteous. But "God is love" (1 Jn 4:8). Love is God's essence, his whole being. Everything in him is love. Even his justice is love. But no word is more misunderstood in our society than the word love. One of the most useful books we can read is C. S. Lewis' unpretentious little masterpiece The Four Loves. There, he clearly distinguishes agape, the kind of love Christ taught and showed, from storge (natural affection or liking), eros (sexual desire), and philia (friendship). It is agape that is the greatest thing in the world. The first and most usual misunderstanding of agape is to confuse it with a feeling. Our feelings are precious, but agape is more precious. Feelings come to us, passively; agape comes from us, actively, by our free choice... "Luv" comes from spring breezes; real love comes from the center of the soul, which Scripture calls the heart (another word we have sentimentalized and reduced to feeling)... God is agape, and agape is not feeling. So God is not feeling. That does not make him or agape cold and abstract. Just the opposite: God is love itself, feeling is the dribs and drabs of love received into the medium of passivity. God cannot fall in love for the same reason water cannot get wet: it is wet. Love itself cannot receive love as a passivity, only spread it as an activity. God is love in action, not love in dreams. Feelings are like dreams: easy, passive, spontaneous. Agape is hard and precious like a diamond. This brings us to a second and related misunderstanding. Agape's object is always the concrete individual, not some abstraction called humanity... A third, related, misunderstanding about love is to confuse it with kindness, which is only one of its usual attributes. Kindness is the desire to relieve another's suffering. Love is the willing of another's good.... A fourth misunderstanding about love is the confusion between "God is love" and "love is God." The worship of love instead of the worship of God involves two deadly mistakes. First it uses the word God only as another word for love. God is thought of as a force or energy rather than as a person. Second, it divinizes the love we already know instead of showing us a love we don't know. To understand this point, consider that "A is B" does not mean the same as "A equals B." If A = B, then B = A, but if A is B, that does not mean that B is A. "That house is wood" does not mean "wood is that house." "An angel is spirit" does not mean the same as "spirit is an angel." When we say "A is B", we begin with a subject, A, that we assume our hearer already knows, and then we add a new predicate to it. "Mother is sick" means "You know mother well, let me tell you something you don't know about her: she's sick." So "God is love" means "Let me tell you something new about the God you know: he is essential love, made of love, through and through." But "Love is God" means "Let me tell you something about the love you already know, your own human love: that is God. That is the ultimate reality. That is as far as anything can ever go. Seek no further for God." In other words, "God is love" is the profoundest thing we have ever heard. But "love is God" is deadly nonsense.
I'd also recommend these articles by Kreeft as well worth reading: http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/love-sees.htm http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics/fear.htmvjtorley
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PST
Innerbling @ 131
1. God is love as an entity and context
That is an appealing metaphor but it is incoherent. It is also belied by accounts in the Old Testament of God's behavior. Love is an emotion which human beings experience but a human being is more than just that emotion. The same must apply to God if He is an intelligent agent. He may experience love but He is much more than just love.
2. There exists no love that is separate from God’s presence
Why shouldn't there be love that is separate from God's?
3. From concept of love it necessarily follows that the loving must respect free will of others
As a general principle, yes, but I would argue that there are exceptions. A child exercising its free will might be placing itself in danger. The child's parent have a right and a duty to prevent that even if it means denying the child the exercise of free will.
4. Entities of free will can reject love
That is implied by the concept of free will.
5. Love can’t coexists with non-love
Why not?
6. Thus the unloving will separate themselves from God’s presence by their own hand.
Perhaps, but there is no reason to think that atheists are incapable of love or that their love is somehow less that the of Christians.
Hence the whole morality issue becomes issue of who wants to be in the presence of the God?
So, essentially, you are plumping for one horn of the Dilemma, the one that asserts that whatever God says or does is good and moral?Seversky
February 23, 2010
February
02
Feb
23
23
2010
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PST
Re Clive Hayden in comment #139: You are absolutely right. Even if we knew everything possible about cooperative group behavior, that would not necessarily tell us if such behavior was "good" or "right". To decide these things requires moral reasoning, not empirical observation. For example, among many social insects "cooperative group behavior" involves intense inter-group warfare and, in many cases, slave-taking. What is "good" for the individuals within a particular group can therefore be very "bad" for the members of other, less cooperative groups.Allen_MacNeill
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PST
Toronto,
I have to disagree. Nature and the empirical study of it may lend itself to a fine basis of a moral code. By modeling our behaviour on what works in other societies, ( e.g. gorillas, penguins, ant colonies), we can see what sort of individual behaviour is successful for cooperative group behaviour.
That begs the question, for nature would never tell you what should or shouldn't be adopted. You have to assume it first, before you begin your comparison of nature's behaviours. If you do not start with morality, nothing in nature can have any value over anything else.Clive Hayden
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
11:57 AM
11
11
57
AM
PST
Breaking News: Of all things the topic of David's existence is in the headlines. See: In ancient wall, scholar sees proof for Biblescordova
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
08:50 AM
8
08
50
AM
PST
scordova @136,
Naturalism serves as no moral foundation. But where can we derive the moral code then?
I have to disagree. Nature and the empirical study of it may lend itself to a fine basis of a moral code. By modeling our behaviour on what works in other societies, ( e.g. gorillas, penguins, ant colonies), we can see what sort of individual behaviour is successful for cooperative group behaviour.Toronto
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:54 AM
7
07
54
AM
PST
scordova @101, I’m not sure how the reality of a set of priestly families helps establish the genealogy of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of David according to Luke 3, not Aaron. Further, the genealogy is through Joseph, Jesus’ father. But we know by the same tradition that Joseph was not Jesus’ father. Are you saying that God used the Y chromosome of a Cohen, not the Y chromosome of Joseph? I am at a loss to understand your comment.
There have been doubts by archaeologists that King David even existed. David is in the line of Christs genealogy. It would be important to establish circumstantially that David was a real person, not just a fabrication by the Hebrews. It is circumstantial evidence that the genealogies (direct genealogy or parallel ones like the Cohen line) were meticulously kept, not fabricated. If records are meticulously kept, it suggests a certain regard for historical truth (versus fabricating whatever stories are suituable for political purposes). Maybe King David really existed, and David is in the line of Jesus. Maybe (gasp) Moses and Aaron really existed too, which would establish the tribe of Levi and his father Jacob, even farther back in time. Jacob was in the direct line of Christ. Thank you for asking. The point of the discussion was whether Naturalism can serve as a moral foundation. It seems the consensus answer is "no". Can there therefore be a Supernatural Foundation, where moral codes are described to humans from the creator of life? Is there circumstantial evidence the Intelligent Designer may have communicated with His creatures? I offered a speculation as to why I think so, but it is a personal idea of mine. I don't mean to represent that my speculation speaks for others at UD. The big deal would be to phylogenetically establish the correctness of : The Table of Nations. Y-chromosomal Aaron is a step in the right direction. The phylogentic structure of human DNA populations should accord with the hierarchy described. If so, it would lend credence to the genealogy of Christ all the way back to Noah. How much more believeable might the Bible be if that were true! Here is a chance for modern science to help us answer these questions. But first we have to fix our broken "molecular clocks" and empirically measure real human mutation rates (versus speculated rates on the assumption of chimp/human divergence). As I've said before, Solexa and Illumina technology may bring us closer to the truth. Naturalism serves as no moral foundation. But where can we derive the moral code then? Maybe from the Intelligent Designer himself, assuming the Intelligent Designer is the Judeo-Christian God (I expect to get a lot of argument from the ID proponents in the Muslim, Hindu, and Extra Terrestrial quarters). Maybe the Intelligent Designer is not as silent as we suppose. Maybe we just have to do more science, real science.scordova
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
07:41 AM
7
07
41
AM
PST
Nakashima-san, according to Scripture was Jesus the descendant of David via Nathan or via Solomon?tribune7
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
06:34 AM
6
06
34
AM
PST
scordova @101, I'm not sure how the reality of a set of priestly families helps establish the genealogy of Jesus. Jesus is a descendant of David according to Luke 3, not Aaron. Further, the genealogy is through Joseph, Jesus' father. But we know by the same tradition that Joseph was not Jesus' father. Are you saying that God used the Y chromosome of a Cohen, not the Y chromosome of Joseph? I am at a loss to understand your comment.Nakashima
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PST
scordova, Sorry for the lack of participation in this thread for a few days. So how do deal with the position "Shall not the Judge of all the world do justly?" Do you just say, well, Abraham lost that argument! BTW, will you respond re your comment @21? How did Dahmer get support from a book published seven years after he died?Nakashima
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PST
Seversky at 129: "No, we do not know where it all came from and it is a perfectly rational and respectable position to admit that." This is not what atheist says however atheists says that she finds no good reason to believe that there exists a god. Theist argument of "everything that begins to exist has a cause" is not good enough for her and she will rather assert that we are living in a irrational reality than admit that there is a god. Rationality and logic is only a pragmatic tool for her to use and can be thrown out at any time. This is not my worldview I don't find that logic and reason are only conditional pragmatic tools. Even if we observe something that seems to be irrational I have hope that rational explanation can be found and it seems to me that materialist has no foundation for such hope.Innerbling
February 22, 2010
February
02
Feb
22
22
2010
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PST
Euthyphro dilemma: "Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?" Premises: 1. Goodness is separate entity (good is separate from God i.e. no God needed) OR 2. Morality enforced by might (morality is whimsical) Christianity in my limited theological view: Premises: 1. God is love as an entity and context 2. There exists no love that is separate from God's presence 3. From concept of love it necessarily follows that the loving must respect free will of others 4. Entities of free will can reject love 5. Love can't coexists with non-love As in John 13:35: "By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another." 6. Thus the unloving will separate themselves from God's presence by their own hand. Hence the whole morality issue becomes issue of who wants to be in the presence of the God?Innerbling
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PST
Seversky,
What is sad is that, for some believers, their faith prevents them from allowing credit where credit is due. For them it is all the result of some other agency, whether God or his alias of The Intelligent Designer; for them, human beings are just some sort of puppet, created by God for the sole purpose of worshiping Him. And with that they are content.
Credit is due to human ingenuity, a mind that is rational and not just physical, and in a philosophy that under-girds human ingenuity that allows for a workable construct to a mystery. Nature will always be a mystery as an explanation, and the philosophy which holds that we can describe it accurately is due to a philosophy that believes in uniformity, not in the uniformity of observation. Mere observation tells us nothing as an explanation. Laws on nature are not laws because they are observed to repeat. They are not laws like laws of reason and logic that we actually understand. The "laws" of nature can only be described as odd occurrences. The real credit is due not to the positivist philosophy, but to the one which holds that there is a law giver that holds these odd occurrences in harmony and through time.Clive Hayden
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PST
Innerbling @ 127
Why does a person who believes that matter and physical laws comes from nothing caused by nothing need explanations and science?
No, we do not know where it all came from and it is a perfectly rational and respectable position to admit that. Regardless of its origins, though, there is a world around us which we need to understand and explain, if for no other reason that it can be a very dangerous place and ignorance can get us killed.
Why does she think observations are reliable? Why does she think physical laws are constant?
Some of our observations and explanations are reliable some are not. It makes sense to try and find out which is which and that is what science does. For there to be something rather than complete chaos there has to be laws or regularities or properties which constrain form. Have they always been like that? We can only infer from what we observe. We see apples fall to the ground and they have done that for as long as we have noticed it. Newton described it as an attractive force, Einstein in terms of the distortion of spacetime around massive objects. Those explanations work, at least up to a point, and have have confidence in them to that extent. If apples ever start hovering in mid-air or flying off into space all by themselves then we will have to think again.
Why does she think that some atoms can make reliable observations while others cant?
Atoms on their own don't make observations as far as we can tell but some extremely complex arrangements of atoms do. Why that should be we don't know. As for reliability, as before, the degree of confidence we have in them depends on their track record. That is all we can go on.
Why does she need morality?
Science is not about morality, it is about trying to understand and explain what is. Morality is about regulating the way people behave towards one another and, for some, other living things.
Why would she keep a view that becomes socially unfavorable?
The Universe is the way the Universe is regardless of what a society of intelligent apes on one flyspeck of a planet lost in a sea of stars and galaxies happen to think is socially or politically or religiously acceptable.
Why would she love her enemies? Why would she love at all?
Science does not love, it tries to explain and understand. One explanation for love is that we survive better in social groups and love helps bind those groups together. If we are all we've got in this vast Universe then it makes sense to stick together.
Why does she think she exists at all?
Because some one or something is asking that question.
As I see it one needs God to make sense of the reality around us including science. This far no materialist has given me an account how a materialist worldview can be rational even in principle.
God is one possible explanation but many of the various God-based explanations are incoherent or contradictory. As mentioned in a previous post, materialistic science has done pretty well so far, much better than any alternative, so it is perfectly rational to continue to work with it while it is doing such a good job.Seversky
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PST
scordova @ 125
But that equivocates (switches defintion) the notion of what it is understood to be atheistic.
Yes, it does, because that is exactly what some religious critics of science do. They fan the flames of the culture war by conflating the demonstrable case that science has advanced without the need to invoke the concept of God with the outspoken advocacy of atheism by some scientists
The way the claim of “atheistic science” is formed attempts to give credit to an ideology (atheism) when in fact it shouldn’t be taking credit.
Atheistic science has eradicated smallpox, landed men on the moon, revealed the intricate biochemical processes in the human cell, imaged individual atoms and galaxies so far away they are near the edge of the observable Universe and the beginning of time. Some of those who accomplished all this and much more hold religious beliefs, some do not. It doesn't matter. It has made - and makes - no difference to the progress of the science. In the Laplacean sense, science has had no need of that hypothesis. This is not the success of an atheist ideology, this is the success of naturalistic science. We are still ignorant of many things, we have made - and will continue to make - a lot of mistakes, we might easily be snuffed out by natural forces over which we have no control at all but, while we survive, we are entitled to be proud of what our science has achieved, unaided, as far as we can tell, by any extraterrestrial intelligence or God. What is sad is that, for some believers, their faith prevents them from allowing credit where credit is due. For them it is all the result of some other agency, whether God or his alias of The Intelligent Designer; for them, human beings are just some sort of puppet, created by God for the sole purpose of worshiping Him. And with that they are content.Seversky
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST
Seversky in 119: "In the sense that science, thus far, has had no need of God as an explanation it is a-theistic. In the sense that it is unable to justify a categorical denial of God’s existence, it is not atheistic." Scientist who accepts irrational worldview has no need for explanations for anything as the epicureans of old realized and accepted. Why does a person who believes that matter and physical laws comes from nothing caused by nothing need explanations and science? Why does she think observations are reliable? Why does she think physical laws are constant? Why does she think that some atoms can make reliable observations while others cant? Why does she need morality? Why would she keep a view that becomes socially unfavorable? Why would she love her enemies? Why would she love at all? Why does she think she exists at all? As I see it one needs God to make sense of the reality around us including science. This far no materialist has given me an account how a materialist worldview can be rational even in principle.Innerbling
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PST
StephenB @124,
Me thinketh that you protest too much. I thought I was clear that my reference was for “ephiphenominalists.” If that is what you are not, then you were not included.
But all atheists would have to be “ephiphenomanalists”, due to the belief that the mind is an emergent property of the brain. For us, there is no deity to get consciousness from.Toronto
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PST
Seversky: In the sense that science, thus far, has had no need of God as an explanation it is a-theistic.
But that equivocates (switches defintion) the notion of what it is understood to be atheistic. By that definition anything mechanical (cars, airplanes, etc.), are atheistic. Then one could use that to say, "look at what atheism has done and how it has advanced technology"? That is a disingenuous characterization. What if I said, "science has no need for the assumption of Zeus, in that sense it is a-Zeusitic, therefore a-Zeusim has been a very successful paradigm." The way the claim of "atheistic science" is formed attempts to give credit to an ideology (atheism) when in fact it shouldn't be taking credit. That's about as genuine as arguing that a-Zeusism has contributed to the great advancement of technology. It's a disingenuous argument that tries to give credit to atheistic philosophy which it doesn't deserve.scordova
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
11:06 AM
11
11
06
AM
PST
---Toronto: "How do you define a materialist? Is it someone who does not use a deity to explain existance?" No. By materialism I mean the philosophy that rejects all immaterial realities and reduces all of existence to matter/energy, ruling out God, angels, minds, souls, spirits, or even justice, or anything else that cannot be explained as the activity of molecules in motion. If you don't care for my definition, try Wikipedia. ----Toronto: "It’s not something I feel ashamed of in any way that would require me to hide the fact from those who believe in a deity." Me thinketh that you protest too much. I thought I was clear that my reference was for "ephiphenominalists." If that is what you are not, then you were not included.StephenB
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
09:59 AM
9
09
59
AM
PST
StephenB.
No. If you say you are not a materialist, I take you at your word.
How do you define a materialist? Is it someone who does not use a deity to explain existance?
The same thing can be done with ethics, religion, and Buddhism, which allows the “believer” to maintain a practical atheism, while claiming to rise about it.
The implication in the above statement is that atheism is something that "needs" to be risen above. I see atheism as strictly a different way of viewing our existance. It's not something I feel ashamed of in any way that would require me to hide the fact from those that believe in a deity.Toronto
February 21, 2010
February
02
Feb
21
21
2010
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PST
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply