Science: Analytic Thinking Promotes Religious Disbelief

macpatti

I understand what you are saying about the baseball game, and that is a perfectly good point. But as far at the tomb opening, how many different accounts can their be whan only a handful of people were there? And correct me if I am wrong (seriously, correct me, because I do not have time to look right now), but don't the gospels have a difference of angels of 0, 1, and 2? That's a big inconsitency.

Actually, none of the accounts say there was no angel. None of the accounts say there was only one angel. One of the accounts mentions there were two. No contradiction. So, one person's account said there were two angels, but in the other accounts, discussion of angels was not given. Doesn't mean the others contradict that claim.

macpatti

As far as the huge miracles go, I'm not sure how many other sources it would take to convince me or other skeptics, but I know this. More than none, which is the current total.

This just seems illogical to me. You don’t know how many “other” sources you want for the events surrounding the biblical narratives but one thing you do know is that however many are included in the Bible are insufficient. If I showed you an account, "proof", of an earthquake in Jerusalem in the first century around the time of the death of Jesus you will certainly not become a Christian. You will simply say this was a natural event (since a fault line runs through the middle of Israel such is quite understandable) that Christians attached to their claim of a resurrection. I take the multiple accounts in the Bible, alongside the fact that there are no contrary accounts outside the Bible (not considering the fundamental absence of such sources to begin with) as sufficient. I simply reject your a priori rejection of the biblical accounts.

adrian_indy

I understand what you are saying about the baseball game, and that is a perfectly good point. But as far at the tomb opening, how many different accounts can their be whan only a handful of people were there? And correct me if I am wrong (seriously, correct me, because I do not have time to look right now), but don't the gospels have a difference of angels of 0, 1, and 2? That's a big inconsitency.

Actually, none of the accounts say there was no angel. None of the accounts say there was only one angel. One of the accounts mentions there were two. No contradiction. So, one person's account said there were two angels, but in the other accounts, discussion of angels was not given. Doesn't mean the others contradict that claim.

Were angels so common place that something like that would go unmentioned by all witnesses and/or their correct number?

macpatti

Were angels so common place that something like that would go unmentioned by all witnesses and/or their correct number?

Witnesses focus on different things in events or only see certain things. Just because angels are only mentioned in one account does not make it a contradiction. I don't think the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a "common place" event at all. I can't even imagine how overwhelming an experience that would be.

adrian_indy

As far as the huge miracles go, I'm not sure how many other sources it would take to convince me or other skeptics, but I know this. More than none, which is the current total.

This just seems illogical to me. You don’t know how many “other” sources you want for the events surrounding the biblical narratives but one thing you do know is that however many are included in the Bible are insufficient. If I showed you an account, "proof", of an earthquake in Jerusalem in the first century around the time of the death of Jesus you will certainly not become a Christian. You will simply say this was a natural event (since a fault line runs through the middle of Israel such is quite understandable) that Christians attached to their claim of a resurrection. I take the multiple accounts in the Bible, alongside the fact that there are no contrary accounts outside the Bible (not considering the fundamental absence of such sources to begin with) as sufficient. I simply reject your a priori rejection of the biblical accounts.

Illogical? You have made a bogus hypothetical argument from the start. How could a person even logically claim to know how many events it would take to convince them in a hypothetical, especially when some events would clearly be worth more than others. In order, from least spectacular and easily explainable to awesome and miraculous in nature, out of the three I would have mentioned, I would go with earthquake, supernatural darkness, risen dead. Of course the earthquake would be the least spectacular, like you said, it's a natural phenomenon. The supernatural darkenss would be harder, but maybe an eclipse or similar astrological occurance. But if you were to say that you had found numerous texts from other Roman, Jewish, and greek historians and philosophers all mentioning a strange rising of the dead in the streets of Jerusalem, that would be very strong proof indeed.

adrian_indy

Were angels so common place that something like that would go unmentioned by all witnesses and/or their correct number?

Witnesses focus on different things in events or only see certain things. Just because angels are only mentioned in one account does not make it a contradiction. I don't think the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus was a "common place" event at all. I can't even imagine how overwhelming an experience that would be.

How many witnesses were at the tomb?

macpatti

Illogical? You have made a bogus hypothetical argument from the start. How could a person even logically claim to know how many events it would take to convince them in a hypothetical, especially when some events would clearly be worth more than others. In order, from least spectacular and easily explainable to awesome and miraculous in nature, out of the three I would have mentioned, I would go with earthquake, supernatural darkness, risen dead. Of course the earthquake would be the least spectacular, like you said, it's a natural phenomenon. The supernatural darkenss would be harder, but maybe an eclipse or similar astrological occurance. But if you were to say that you had found numerous texts from other Roman, Jewish, and greek historians and philosophers all mentioning a strange rising of the dead in the streets of Jerusalem, that would be very strong proof indeed.

Most of the events we know about from the ancient world come through a very small number of witnesses, most, I would guess, through one. I think you are taking 21st century standards of “news” reporting and arbitrarily applying them to some biblical events. Many of those events we know about from the ancient world not only come through single witnesses but they also come with significant gaps of time between them and the accounts of them, not to mention the centuries that often lie between the original manuscripts and the copies that we possess. What continues to strike me as so interesting is that you avoid focusing on the resurrection of Jesus, the obvious center of all the accounts, and focus on an incidental detail only included in one or two of the biblical accounts. As you well know, I think, there not only are not “numerous” accounts of the dead walking around in Jerusalem in the first century, there are not numerous accounts of anything in the first century. You are setting a standard that no event can satisfy. If you apply your same logic to any event you would become a skeptic of all history. I think the historical support for the resurrection of Jesus is very strong. None of it will convince someone who doesn’t want to accept it, however. Wouldn't you agree?

macpatti

How many witnesses were at the tomb?

I don’t know how many witnesses were at the tomb. The Bible mentions several woman going to the tomb. It mentions the Apostles running to the tomb. It mentions at least two angelic “messengers” at the tomb. I don’t know if we can set a strict number of it. The Bible records a number of different post-resurrection appearances of Jesus to his disciples at various different times.

adrian_indy

Illogical? You have made a bogus hypothetical argument from the start. How could a person even logically claim to know how many events it would take to convince them in a hypothetical, especially when some events would clearly be worth more than others. In order, from least spectacular and easily explainable to awesome and miraculous in nature, out of the three I would have mentioned, I would go with earthquake, supernatural darkness, risen dead. Of course the earthquake would be the least spectacular, like you said, it's a natural phenomenon. The supernatural darkenss would be harder, but maybe an eclipse or similar astrological occurance. But if you were to say that you had found numerous texts from other Roman, Jewish, and greek historians and philosophers all mentioning a strange rising of the dead in the streets of Jerusalem, that would be very strong proof indeed.

Most of the events we know about from the ancient world come through a very small number of witnesses, most, I would guess, through one. I think you are taking 21st century standards of “news” reporting and arbitrarily applying them to some biblical events. Many of those events we know about from the ancient world not only come through single witnesses but they also come with significant gaps of time between them and the accounts of them, not to mention the centuries that often lie between the original manuscripts and the copies that we possess. What continues to strike me as so interesting is that you avoid focusing on the resurrection of Jesus, the obvious center of all the accounts, and focus on an incidental detail only included in one or two of the biblical accounts. As you well know, I think, there not only are not “numerous” accounts of the dead walking around in Jerusalem in the first century, there are not numerous accounts of anything in the first century. You are setting a standard that no event can satisfy. If you apply your same logic to any event you would become a skeptic of all history. I think the historical support for the resurrection of Jesus is very strong. None of it will convince someone who doesn’t want to accept it, however. Wouldn't you agree?

So, to get this straight, you claim christians have superior historical credentials to other more ancient religions, but claim I am being unfair in my skepticsim because I am asking where other writings corroberating (sp) these occurences in a time where literacy among the Jewish, Greek, and Roman elite was very high, because I am using a modern approach. However, you seem unable to shake your modern or even bronze age views of history in your brushing off of even more ancient religions, myths and stories in a time when those three things were invented when only the most elite could read and write, and papyrus, scrolls, and paper weren't invented. So if I am being unfair to christianity, you are being extremely unfair to the more ancient religions.

To the last part, woudn't you agree that someone who want's too accept it is equally if not more biased in this matter. You keep saying that the evidence is strong. Of what? His resurrection? How so and if it was strong, why would any church ever promote the idea of faith? And I'm not dismissing the resurrection of Jesus from the discussion, I am just going down the list of things I do not find believable. Trust me, I find that equally unbelievable we just haven't gotten back to it yet.

KimmyEB

I can't even sugarcoat this, or even form a thought other than: this is utter and complete bull****.

Can you articulate any rationale behind your opinion?

You are one human being, and cannot speak for everyone. To tell someone they have a hole in them by a lack of god, or because we need god to fill it, is at best arrogantly biased by your religion. I have no such "hole" in me. I have never, sought out to find a religion. I like to study them, but I study them the same as I would mythology--they interest me. Fantasy stories interest me. I grew up without religion, and have never been able to take it seriously, much less felt that I needed it. For you to say to someone that their opinion of what is most important to them in their life, and what they value, is incorrect...that just screams arrogance. Just because you cannot fathom an existence without a religion, doesn't mean others feel the same. Personally, I can only dream of a day when religion is no longer prevalent in humanity. Doesn't mean I get to tell others they feel the same. Okay, well, I can...but I'd be incorrect.

macpatti

So, to get this straight, you claim christians have superior historical credentials to other more ancient religions, but claim I am being unfair in my skepticsim because I am asking where other writings corroberating (sp) these occurences in a time where literacy among the Jewish, Greek, and Roman elite was very high, because I am using a modern approach. However, you seem unable to shake your modern or even bronze age views of history in your brushing off of even more ancient religions, myths and stories in a time when those three things were invented when only the most elite could read and write, and papyrus, scrolls, and paper weren't invented. So if I am being unfair to christianity, you are being extremely unfair to the more ancient religions.

To the last part, woudn't you agree that someone who want's too accept it is equally if not more biased in this matter. You keep saying that the evidence is strong. Of what? His resurrection? How so and if it was strong, why would any church ever promote the idea of faith? And I'm not dismissing the resurrection of Jesus from the discussion, I am just going down the list of things I do not find believable. Trust me, I find that equally unbelievable we just haven't gotten back to it yet.

I do believe Christianity has superior historical credentials to “more ancient” religions. I have never seen evidence to the contrary. If you have some, I’d like to see it.

Concerning your request for other writings, surely you know by now that we have no ancient Roman or Greek historical records written from/in Jerusalem/Judea/Israel in the first century. We have some references to events written by outsiders. We have some references to the Christians and some of their beliefs about Jesus but these are not eyewitness accounts. We do have an impressive collection of accounts of Jesus (and his resurrection, for instance) written by people who lived close to the events in time and space but you have chosen to decree those books are irrelevant. So, you are asking for sources that you know don’t exist and you are rejecting, a priori, writings that are relevant to the issue. The only Jewish source that is relevant is Josephus, whose writings we have already mentioned.

Of course I’m “biased” to believe the claims of Christianity since I am a Christian. As an atheist, however, you are also biased to reject the claims of Christianity. Additionally, your rejection of God makes miracles impossible before you even consider the evidence for them. Your world-view does not allow for miracles. I can say that, since I believe in God, I am at least able to consider the possibility of a miracle while you are not. Your approach to history is more narrow and restricted than mine, then.

Concerning faith, all the evidence I have cannot force you to believe that the empty tomb of Jesus and his appearances to his disciples after the resurrection have a divine meaning. To accept the resurrection of Jesus as a miracle of God is deeper than a historical argument. One might admit, for instance, that the evidence strongly supports that the tomb of Jesus was empty on Easter Sunday (not even the enemies of Jesus denied this, they claimed the disciples stole the body) and that the disciples of Jesus thought they saw Jesus after the resurrection (since it doesn’t make sense that they would die for a claim they knew was false) and yet still claim there is a natural explanation for both facts. I would argue that the most plausible explanation is that Jesus really did rise from the dead by divine power. To accept this conclusion, however, requires that an atheist (or whoever) change their entire way of thinking in order to embrace this conclusion. This decision is profoundly difficult to do (for more reasons than intellectual). Further, even if I can get someone to admit that the resurrection of Jesus is the best probable explanation of the historical facts surrounding Jesus, that admission is not necessarily the same thing we mean by “faith.” Religious faith is our conviction that certain things are true and revealed by God and we give our lives to those beliefs and their implications. A historians might agree to the probable inductive case made for the resurrection but refuse to make an existential decision about what life means, etc., based on that case. Consequently, we can never equate a historical argument and its effects with faith.

I think, then, that the deeper issue here is the rejection of belief in God. If God doesn’t exist, you obviously must conclude that miracles are impossible. The level of “evidence” doesn’t matter. If you believe in God, miracles are at least possible and you are able to take a more open-minded view of the evidence. To my mind, the existence of God is as necessary and “obvious” as the fact that effects need causes. If an effect does not need a cause then nothing can cause something. Such is nonsensical. If effects need causes then something must exist that is not an effect but causally grounds all effects. If nothing exists as supreme cause and is not an effect then you have a universe of effects caused by prior effects and therefore a universe of dependency with nothing to depend upon (nonsense again). There must be an independent, uncaused, self-existent, eternal, necessary cause of all dependent effects. Starting to sound like God?

macpatti

You are one human being, and cannot speak for everyone. To tell someone they have a hole in them by a lack of god, or because we need god to fill it, is at best arrogantly biased by your religion. I have no such "hole" in me. I have never, sought out to find a religion. I like to study them, but I study them the same as I would mythology--they interest me. Fantasy stories interest me. I grew up without religion, and have never been able to take it seriously, much less felt that I needed it. For you to say to someone that their opinion of what is most important to them in their life, and what they value, is incorrect...that just screams arrogance. Just because you cannot fathom an existence without a religion, doesn't mean others feel the same. Personally, I can only dream of a day when religion is no longer prevalent in humanity. Doesn't mean I get to tell others they feel the same. Okay, well, I can...but I'd be incorrect.

Thank you. Now I have a way of responding.
I tried clearing this up a few comments ago. What I intended to say by the "hole" is that I believe humans have a desire to understand love, good, bad, and meaning for life.

elmarko123

You could make the case about many christians that they never analyzed the bible in any great detail because they actually never sit down and read their own bible. They are the weekend christians. I don't think the analytical thinking study can be applied to the true believer, I've known many that are very intelligent. The problem with this study is that if seems to be just a step above calling believers stupid which just isn't the case.

The mystery of religion is faith...why some are willing to follow based on faith or blind faith, while others are not. That is the conversation that interestes me. Plenty of scholars and even scientists have read every line of theh bible and still believed. Why? I think that Neil Degrasse Tyson was speaking and said that something like 18% of all genius level scientists still believed in a god. Why would they? Now, it can't be a lack of an analytical mind or intelligence....they are geniuses.

Playing Devil's advocate here as I don't really know what my own opinion is on religion... But isn't Athiesim also a blind faith? You can't prove that God DOESN't exist.. Isn't love also a blind faith in a way? Do you not believe in love?

It depends on how you define atheism.

Implicit atheism is "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection - people born in the jungle are implicit atheists - as they are due to never hearing about a god - also, all babies are born without a belief system - it's taught (so this is the default position.

Explicit atheism is the concious rejection of the belief - but even with these two definitions it's insufficient.


Explicit atheism is subdivided further into three groups:

a) the view usually expressed by the statement "I do not believe in the existence of a god or supernatural being" - I'd put myself in this category - as while I don't believe in a god/gods I don't believe it's possible to know, neither do I hold a positive belief either way.

b) the view usually expressed by the statement "God does not exist" or "the existence of God is impossible" - this view claims to know something which is unknowable - therefore irrational

c) the view which "refuses to discuss the existence of a god" because "the concept of a god is unintelligible" - This a perfectly acceptable view, because I've also yet to hear a definition of "god" in which justification has been provided as to why those specific attribute have been applied.

Some atheists claim to know that god does not exist, while others are happy to simply reject religious claims - put it this way, all Christians are atheists of the hindu monkey god Hanuman - I just go one god further.

KimmyEB

You are one human being, and cannot speak for everyone. To tell someone they have a hole in them by a lack of god, or because we need god to fill it, is at best arrogantly biased by your religion. I have no such "hole" in me. I have never, sought out to find a religion. I like to study them, but I study them the same as I would mythology--they interest me. Fantasy stories interest me. I grew up without religion, and have never been able to take it seriously, much less felt that I needed it. For you to say to someone that their opinion of what is most important to them in their life, and what they value, is incorrect...that just screams arrogance. Just because you cannot fathom an existence without a religion, doesn't mean others feel the same. Personally, I can only dream of a day when religion is no longer prevalent in humanity. Doesn't mean I get to tell others they feel the same. Okay, well, I can...but I'd be incorrect.

Thank you. Now I have a way of responding.
I tried clearing this up a few comments ago. What I intended to say by the "hole" is that I believe humans have a desire to understand love, good, bad, and meaning for life.

I still can't speak for every human on the planet, but that makes more sense to me. I can speak from personal experience that I have never, ever sought out religion or a god to fill that void, and I know others who also haven't. I think we all have a natural desire to understand things, based on our own experiences and judgments.

EndofEternity

To endofeternity's comments:

1. First, to say you test religious claims by science is simply a category mistake. All “claims” are not scientific in nature. The scientific method is a deliberately reductive approach to reality. Science, in the modern sense, focuses on a restricted range of questions and a restricted methodology. For instance, you obviously can’t scientifically “test” whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon. You have to use a different set principles that are appropriate to historical inquiry. When it comes to religious claims, it is nonsense to think we can test whether God exists or whether God loves us by looking through a microscope or by running an experiment in a lab (just like it would be silly to “see” if a parent loves a child by looking in a microscope). God is a supreme explanation of all things and therefore is not a result of science but is, if properly understood, an unstated presupposition of science. Science assumes certain foundations that it cannot prove and from those foundations it proceeds to examine the world. I would argue that science presupposes various things like (a) the world is intelligible/it makes sense, (b) our intellect and senses have the ability to understand the world, (c) inductive and deductive logic are sound and give true insight into the nature of reality, etc. None of these are scientifically demonstrable since science assumes they are true in order to proceed or to even begin. I would argue that God is the only reasonable and compelling “ground” of all the assumptions of science.

2. Scientists have made many claims about the world that are now considered false. There is no reason to think this will not continue to be the case. It was once thought that Newtonian physics was the final word on motion while we now know this was far from the truth. Just because Christians have assumed the truth of certain scientific theories and have expressed their beliefs in and through the lens of prevailing scientific ideas does not mean those beliefs are necessarily tied to those theories. For instance, “scientists” once agreed that the earth was stationary at the center of the universe. Christians assumed their views were true and explained the world accordingly. Once those theories were replaced by others, Christians began to search for ways to express their beliefs within the new scientific framework. I would argue that all legitimate scientific frameworks/theories operate off of a set of metaphysical assumptions/convictions that ultimately imply God’s existence. For this reason, the changing models of science (and assuredly more are coming) do not undermine all knowledge and certainty, including that of God. As an example, Aristotle argued for God’s existence within the old Ptolemaic framework for understanding motion in the universe. St. Thomas Aquinas, almost a thousand years later, presented the same argument but excluded all the outmoded science (which, interestingly, was not outmoded in Aquinas’ day but he was able to see far enough ahead to eliminate the specifics of the old physics so that we may read his version of the argument without the clutter of the old science). Scientists continue to use the “assumptions” of their discipline even when the details change.

3. I think some people want the “truth” but apparently not all, at least not enough to pursue it rigorously. That is an interesting subject. What is truth? Is truth equal to matter or is truth a conscious comprehension of matter (and whatever else exists)? You seem to think that it is desirable to pursue the “truth” even though we might discover that life is meaningless, or whatever. What makes the discovery of truth more important or desirable than human happiness? Consider this. As an atheist, I’m guessing that you think that all that exists is matter in motion and that there is no directing cause of matter (at least nothing “spiritual”/immaterial/intelligent). I would think that a necessary consequence of this perspective is that the difference between an atheist and a theist is the arrangement of matter in his/her brain. Is that right? When I say God exists and you deny that, the ultimate reason for the difference is just a material difference. If what we say is determined by material conditions, our conscious awareness of “truth” is nothing but a byproduct of material causality. If you really believe that, I don’t know how you can say there is an “objective” truth about anything that humans can discover since we are only conscious of what the matter of our brains causes us to think. So my question simply is, what, as an atheist, do you say “truth” is?

4. The major problems with your analysis of hell, the afterlife, heaven, etc., are (a) they are a caricature of the Christian teaching and (b) they don’t match human experience. We all know deep within that this life is not all we want. The most mysterious feature of this universe is not the night sky, it is the interior of the human person. We all know that we long for a kind of happiness and fulfillment that all the universe can’t satisfy. We have a “God-sized” hole in the human spirit that cannot be completely filled by anything less than God. Everyone experiences this when we get something we think will give us complete happiness only to feel disappointment or continued longing beyond that experience/thing. Hell simply affirms that, on account of human freedom, we could opt out of the satisfaction and fulfillment of our deepest longings and therefore experience final despair. Heaven is the affirmation that our deepest desires can be fulfilled and that our quest for happiness is not in vain. The Christian belief in the Incarnation is the greatest basis of hope since we believe that by sharing in human nature God assures us that human nature is made for unending union with God himself.

5. I’m sorry that your religious experience deprived you of the true beauties of Christianity. (and I'm not saying that in a snarky way)

1. What makes you think I was referring to the question of God's existence? I was simply referring to the hilarious stuff the bible has to say in Genesis. It doesn't refute God or even refute all of Christianity. Genesis just sets a precedent in the bible from the get go of claim after claim after claim that we know to be wildly incorrect.

2. The great thing about science is that it adjusts its views accordingly to fit with what we know at the time about reality. Despite getting it wrong time and time again, scientists have given us computers, antibiotics, and spaceships. I think they might be onto something, even if they get things wrong from time to time. At least they admit it.

3. I never said anything about objective truths because as I said, I do not know for absolute certainty that there is no god. I am not a Sith lord. The word truth does not hold any mythical quality like God does. Language is merely a tool. Truth, as I used it, is simply a description of something that seems to conform to what we know about reality. In that sense, the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is not true. It would also be disingenuous to claim that it is true that there are no gods. We probably cannot know that, but we can assume, perhaps quite comfortably, that there are no gods based on what we know about the universe.

4. We do not all know. You are generalizing. I am quite content in this world, with this one life. Anything inconvenient with myself personally, I can work toward improving. Me being on this site, losing weight, is just one example. As far as my general existence is concerned, I want our planet to be less polluted, my fellow humans to be more progressive, our schools to be well-funded, and many other things. I cannot wish for these to become true and I probably cannot accomplish any of these things on my own, but I can work on it. I can even contribute to life-extension technologies and medical advancements that are being researched today if I am so concerned with my own mortality through donations, political advocacy, general word of mouth.

What freedom? We are in a deterministic universe and have very little freedom of choice in our lives. I didn't choose to be born a male with red hair, to be raised by parents who, while loving me greatly, would neglect to instill in me me good eating habits, adequate social skills, and a passion for learning that I wouldn't pick up until later in life. Most, if not all of the decisions I've made in my life have been determined by things that were out of my control, to a greater or lesser extent. That I have a skeptical mind and eventually turned away from religion was not as much a choice as you might think if you had grown up with my parents. And yet, according to many Christians, I will be sent to Hell anyway simply because I do not believe in God. I can't think of one single thing I or anyone else could ever, ever, ever possibly do that would warrant me or them burning in Hell for one single week, let alone all of eternity. Don't hide behind your own biblical interpretations either, please (not that your version is anymore benevolent or just). That's a battle you have to wage with the majority of your fellow Christians who do believe the fiery, torment-y version of Hell is where I'll end up if I don't turn away from my atheist ways.

I have not questioned your self-worth and happiness with God in your life, I would appreciate it if you didn't question mine (and billions of others) without God. If there's any hole in my spirit (as if that exists. It all comes back to evidence, doesn't it?) due to a lack of God, I fill it with the love for my family and friends, my passion for my various interests, and the awe-struck wonder I constantly find myself in when observing and learning about the universe.

macpatti

1. What makes you think I was referring to the question of God's existence? I was simply referring to the hilarious stuff the bible has to say in Genesis. It doesn't refute God or even refute all of Christianity. Genesis just sets a precedent in the bible from the get go of claim after claim after claim that we know to be wildly incorrect.

Without looking back, my recollection is that I brought up God’s existence because someone’s position on God’s existence has a lot to do with his/her openness to the possibility of miracles. I don’t know how much you know about Genesis and the rest of the Bible so your sweeping generalizations don’t mean much to me.

2. The great thing about science is that it adjusts its views accordingly to fit with what we know at the time about reality. Despite getting it wrong time and time again, scientists have given us computers, antibiotics, and spaceships. I think they might be onto something, even if they get things wrong from time to time. At least they admit it.

Science certainly adjusts itself, etc. On the other hand, science is incapable of answering certain questions. For instance, science can discover nuclear energy but it can’t tell us how we SHOULD use it. We can use that technology to blow up cities or light and heat cities. Technology in itself is neutral, morally speaking. Science is powerless to show why we should use technology in one way rather than another. A major point I’ve been trying to make is that your position that science is the answer to everything is simply false. There are truly meaningful human questions that cannot be solved through science.

3. I never said anything about objective truths because as I said, I do not know for absolute certainty that there is no god. I am not a Sith lord. The word truth does not hold any mythical quality like God does. Language is merely a tool. Truth, as I used it, is simply a description of something that seems to conform to what we know about reality. In that sense, the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old is not true. It would also be disingenuous to claim that it is true that there are no gods. We probably cannot know that, but we can assume, perhaps quite comfortably, that there are no gods based on what we know about the universe.

My point about “truth” was, as I recall, that determinism and materialism cannot support the notion of truth. More of that later since you raise the issue of determinism. Concerning the existence of God (I didn’t talk about the existence of “gods,” I have no interest in defending the belief in a plurality of gods and don’t think a case can be made for them), I did offer reasons in support of that, reasons that have not been addressed.

4. We do not all know. You are generalizing. I am quite content in this world, with this one life. Anything inconvenient with myself personally, I can work toward improving. Me being on this site, losing weight, is just one example. As far as my general existence is concerned, I want our planet to be less polluted, my fellow humans to be more progressive, our schools to be well-funded, and many other things. I cannot wish for these to become true and I probably cannot accomplish any of these things on my own, but I can work on it. I can even contribute to life-extension technologies and medical advancements that are being researched today if I am so concerned with my own mortality through donations, political advocacy, general word of mouth.

I can’t speak for your subjective state of mind. What I can speak about is the general experience of human beings as well as my own experience. I know the experience of wanting to know the truth about reality. I know the experience of wanting to love and be loved. I also know the experience of wanting these things to a degree and with a permanence that the finite, temporary world and life-span we have cannot supply. If you can honestly say that you find what you have right now absolutely fulfilling so that you want nothing more, then congratulations. However, you seem to have a desire to argue against what I believe as well as defend your own ideas. My guess is that these things are a sign that you want an intellectually coherent and satisfying understanding of reality and you are at least concerned enough that you may not possess that understanding to try to tear down what I believe. The best evidence I know about supports the conclusion that this struggle for fulfillment is fundamentally characteristic of all human beings and that no accumulation of finite things satisfies on every level. This implies that human existence includes an internal “dynamism” towards the truth of everything, the “ground” of all things, including goodness, beauty, truth, etc. Since this “dynamism” always reaches beyond the finite experiences of this life, I submit we are ultimately oriented towards a transcendent “ground.” I call that reality God. I still believe humans seek deeper understanding of questions that cannot be answered by physical experiences.

What freedom? We are in a deterministic universe and have very little freedom of choice in our lives. I didn't choose to be born a male with red hair, to be raised by parents who, while loving me greatly, would neglect to instill in me me good eating habits, adequate social skills, and a passion for learning that I wouldn't pick up until later in life. Most, if not all of the decisions I've made in my life have been determined by things that were out of my control, to a greater or lesser extent. That I have a skeptical mind and eventually turned away from religion was not as much a choice as you might think if you had grown up with my parents. And yet, according to many Christians, I will be sent to Hell anyway simply because I do not believe in God. I can't think of one single thing I or anyone else could ever, ever, ever possibly do that would warrant me or them burning in Hell for one single week, let alone all of eternity. Don't hide behind your own biblical interpretations either, please (not that your version is anymore benevolent or just). That's a battle you have to wage with the majority of your fellow Christians who do believe the fiery, torment-y version of Hell is where I'll end up if I don't turn away from my atheist ways.
I have not questioned your self-worth and happiness with God in your life, I would appreciate it if you didn't question mine (and billions of others) without God. If there's any hole in my spirit (as if that exists. It all comes back to evidence, doesn't it?) due to a lack of God, I fill it with the love for my family and friends, my passion for my various interests, and the awe-struck wonder I constantly find myself in when observing and learning about the universe.

You say we are in a “largely deterministic” world. Would you say it is “entirely deterministic”? If not, what is “Freedom” and where does it come from? If it is entirely deterministic, then everything you are saying and doing is “necessary.” You cannot do otherwise. If you are an atheist, that is as necessary as the law of gravity. If I am a theist (which I am), there is nothing I can do to change that. We are writing what we must write, we do not have freedom to write otherwise. Do you see what this does to “truth”? What you call truth is nothing more than a fancy way of referring to what matter causes your conscious states to be. If you are truly a materialist, I have no idea where you can get freedom, responsibility or truth from. If your conscious states about what “truth” is are nothing more than effects of matter, it doesn’t make sense to speak about the objective “truth” about the world.

EndofEternity

Science certainly adjusts itself, etc. On the other hand, science is incapable of answering certain questions. For instance, science can discover nuclear energy but it can’t tell us how we SHOULD use it. We can use that technology to blow up cities or light and heat cities. Technology in itself is neutral, morally speaking. Science is powerless to show why we should use technology in one way rather than another. A major point I’ve been trying to make is that your position that science is the answer to everything is simply false. There are truly meaningful human questions that cannot be solved through science.

Science is not an entity like God. It's a tool we humans use. You're referring to issues of morality with the implication being that human beings with nuclear capability in a universe without a Godly guiding hand might blow itself to smithereens since science cannot provide an answer. Of course it won't; it can't. Because we're evolved biological beings who have developed complex moral outlooks based on the things we needed to do to survive up until this point, we've been fortunate enough, given our rather bloody history, to only use two nuclear bombs against one another. I'd rather none at all, but there's a lot in human history that I wish we could have avoided. Remember, when we dropped those atom bombs, we were firebombing cities like Tokyo to oblivion. Given that context, and the possibility that the bombs might have shortened the war, the moral landscape of the situation the leaders were in becomes a bit more complicated. Not justifiable, but not black and white. After Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as well as the threat of nuclear annihilation during the Cold War, billions of people got to see the consequences of using nuclear power for evil instead of good. Hopefully, we will never see another mushroom cloud over a devastated city. I'm not saying humanity is perfect or even great. But we are capable of judging what is beneficial and what is harmful.

If you can honestly say that you find what you have right now absolutely fulfilling so that you want nothing more, then congratulations.

I never said that. Again, I'm not a big fan of the word 'absolute'. This life, this world, this universe is merely enough for me. I'd like Quidditch and faster-than-light travel but I'm content with those being (at least for now =D) in my imagination only. You want to talk about meaningfulness? I'm a bisexual male in the human species, which has had a very long and rough past when it comes to sexuality and gender. And as I sit here at my laptop, the outlook on LGBT people is beginning to shift for millions of humans. That's a bit meaningful to me, and I take pride in that as a human. Great pride, knowing that I don't have to attribute a single bit of this accomplishment to a god. I do want more. I want no human being on this planet to think that there's something wrong with being gay or with not feeling comfortable with your gender identity. I can contribute to the global effort in realizing this dream. That, my friend, is meaningfulness.

Given my thoughts on determinism you're about to read, perhaps you'll ask why I should feel any pride at all. Well, determinism is not the same thing as fatalism. All we know is what was, and how that informs our decision, free or not, at the present. What we endured before and the uncertainty that lies ahead gives me a reason, I think, to feel pride when my President goes on television and announces his support for gay marriage.

You say we are in a “largely deterministic” world. Would you say it is “entirely deterministic”? If not, what is “Freedom” and where does it come from? If it is entirely deterministic, then everything you are saying and doing is “necessary.” You cannot do otherwise. If you are an atheist, that is as necessary as the law of gravity. If I am a theist (which I am), there is nothing I can do to change that. We are writing what we must write, we do not have freedom to write otherwise. Do you see what this does to “truth”? What you call truth is nothing more than a fancy way of referring to what matter causes your conscious states to be. If you are truly a materialist, I have no idea where you can get freedom, responsibility or truth from. If your conscious states about what “truth” is are nothing more than effects of matter, it doesn’t make sense to speak about the objective “truth” about the world.

A deterministic universe will develop in the same way every time as long as the initial conditions are exactly the same, regardless of how we feel about it as humans and our romanticized ideas of free will. I think the idea is a social construct. Because we have different genes and different experiences, we get the idea of free will. "Free will" may just be our conscious judgement of perceived multiple possibilities and selecting one over the others, but this will is still determined by prior causes. The illusion of free will is so great that we may as well act like we have it, but whatever we choose would have happened anyway (this goes for responsibility too, although perhaps we might be more compassionate and humane as a result of this knowledge, if it is true). I'll be honest when I admit that the whole determinism debate is a more than a tad beyond me, but the universe seems to be pretty darn deterministic to me and I'll take the experts' word for it.

I'd say if you wanted to know what 2+2 is, you better seek out someone who knows the truth. The answer to that is four and we know this to be true. The question of the existence of gods is either true or false. I don't think we can know for absolute certain whether or not a god exists, so we cannot know the objective truth to that answer either. However, we can have an informed answer to that question, and our answer can become more informed the more we learn about the universe, I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if there is a god(s), but based on the lack of compelling evidence, I would have to say that I don't believe there is one.

So, if we can define truth as "being in accordance with the actual state or conditions," "seeking the truth" to the question of God's existence would be understand that you cannot know for sure. You would become an agnostic, but you could still be a theist/deist or an atheist based on what you believe based on your knowledge about the universe.

macpatti

EOE:
You have a very optimistic view of human evolution and morality. I'm rather surprised that you think humans have evolved to the point that we cannot destroy ourselves through nuclear means. Since I grew up in a time when it was largely believed that we would have a limited or even all-out nuclear war (between the US and Soviet Union), I find your analysis far more optimistic than the facts warrant. Given also that the 20th century was the bloodiest in the entire history that preceded it, I am even more doubtful. In any case, your response includes all kinds of moral inferences and implications but does not provide a justification for these things except as an evolved drive for survival. Why use moral language when we are simply trying to survive? Why say it is "bad" to kill the weak or destroy the elderly? Why not say, "It is more desirable for human survival that we..." Why use the language of "moral landscape"? If you try to speak only in terms of survival, I think you will quickly see that you lose something that humans tend to cherish: there are some things inherently more "good" than other things. This involves moral judgments and moral judgments are simply not the same thing as survival motivations. One might say that it is more advantageous for survival to not kill, lie or steal but it is quite another matter to say it is morally "bad" to do such things. The observation that something is not good for survival does not include with it a sense of moral duty only the factual observation of survival benefit.

Your analysis of the current "progress" in respect to sexuality issues "betrays," it seems to me, a set of value judgments. You think it is "bad" that people have been treated poorly because of sexual differences but I don't know how you can make this a moral obligation for others. Since the vast majority of people are heterosexual and homosexual relationships do not naturally produce offspring, homosexual persons are irrelevant for the survival of the species. A case might be made for this based on other principles but I simply don't see how survival can be the basis of such a "moral" position. Concerning determinism and fatalism, it seems to me that they reduce to the same thing. You may not think there is any "force" of fate at work in the world but the point is that one cannot "change" anything since whatever happens is determined by something other than your choices. The net effect is the same so that often these words are used interchangeably.

You think our notion of free will is a social construct. Isn't your notion that free will is a social construct a social construct, too? I sense in your treatment of determinism that you really don't want to take that position to its logical conclusion since, I think at least, you see that it will undermine any evaluation you make of my position on anything. If matter is determining your responses to me, from whence comes their "objectivity"? How can you say you are right in the way your matter is determining your response to me and my responses are "wrong"? It seems that the only logical conclusion is to say that it is simply impossible to know anything about reality since our conscious states are nothing but smoke coming from the "fire" of material interactions. Whether that smoke in any way corresponds to reality is simply impossible to determine since there is no way to show that the "smoke" that arises from our matter is not a pure illusion and that consciousness has nothing to do with the way reality really is.

Concerning the existence of God, I think God is the necessary condition for many of the things you write and think, you just don't see it. Your writing implies a moral basis but your view of the world does not allow for true morality (only survival desires that cannot yield a true basis for moral duty). Your writing shows a reluctance to accept the full range of problems resulting from determinism but determinism is a necessary consequence of atheism and naturalism, it seems to me (since there is no "immaterial" basis for conscience, consciousness, moral judgments, etc.). Your writing shows a longing for moral fairness and justice; a longing for "progress"; a sense of "hope" and optimism in the human future. None of these things can be justified in an atheist world. Science can't ground these things.

Concerning knowledge of God and other things, you still seem to operate off the assumption that we can know some things "for sure" but the existence of God is not one of them. If you focus on the foundations of human knowledge and certainty, you would have to be an agnostic about everything (for the reasons I've shown above and more). I maintain that God is the necessary transcendent ground of human freedom, conviction of truth, etc. You have no such transcendent ground and therefore you are left to "ground" the human notion of truth, freedom, hope, optimism, etc., on a materialistic world-view. Since this world-view is insufficient to support these convictions, you either have to deny them or hold them without sufficient justification. I sense that you are doing the latter.