Religion or Science - How do they compare?

OK, but that is only if absolute morality is based on laws and what we do. I'm suggesting that absolute morality is simply the desire to desire the good of others as individuals or as societies, even when it affects us negatively.Our human laws are an attempt to provide a framework that encourages that outlook on life.

I think if I really understood the point you're making that I would agree with you.

I don't disagree that it is immoral but I say it is immoral because I believe that there does exist a moral code that would exist whether or not humanity exists. If we are simply a collection of mindless particles then we are free to come to our own conclusions about morality. Sure we can base those conclusions on what seems to work but still it is our individual and collective conclusions. In one sense I would say that there are no absolutes. When we talk about morality we generally refer to specific behaviours and actions that are wrong such as what you mentioned. I would say that those actions are the symptoms of a lack of morality. I would say that when our actions are the result of being self centred or selfish, to the detriment of others, then that would be immoral. If our actions are the result of being other focused, even at our own expense, then then that would be moral. Maybe there could be an example where murder could be moral. I disagree. If we look at an automobile assembly line we can see exactly how a car is built. It doesn't tell us anything about who or what was the cause of it being there in the first place.It is my belief, and yes it is belief and faith, that we are here because God wanted a society of creatures that are capable and ultimately successful in evolving into a society where the primary characteristic is unselfish love. The sciences have done a great job in helping us to understand how things are the way they are. It doesn't answer why. If the universe was created in a way that it did not require intervention in any evolutionary process then it seems to me that is a pretty clever design, more so than if it required physical intervention along the way. Nothing if we are simply the result of a mindless creation.

God If we are going to have the freedom to choose right and wrong then certainly human laws will vary from culture to culture. And yes, our laws have evolved over time and they have continuously progressed in many cultures, but significantly in our western culture to be more compassionate. If there is a universal morality then that is what we should expect. That is why I specified that it was belief. i have explained numerous times why I believe as I do. This is what you do all the time. You confuse process with agency. It again, is like saying that an assembly line is the total explanation of why a car exists. And you are suggesting that from this tiny dot came mindless particles
atoms, molecules, cells, and finally conscious beings with an understanding of morality. That takes more belief or faith than I can muster. If one accepts that the theistic position then the next question is what is the nature and desires of this external intelligence. From a Christian perspective I see the next question is whether or not Jesus was resurrected by this intelligence usually called God. I believe it to be historically true and so I go from there. In addition I have had experiences that I believe are the result of being nudged by God. That obviously can't be proved but it has been the conclusion I have come to. It's the free will argument that you've heard many times before. There always is a question of why. You answer by claiming that all of the whys are simply natural processes on their own.

I believe that we exist because there is an intelligence that is responsible for our existence. I call that intelligence God. It may well be a mistaken belief but it isn’t a total fabrication. People have always asked the question why do I exist. One answer is because of intelligence and another answer is the materialistic belief that you hold. I accept that cultures create their own moralities and that many societies have become more compassionate over time. (I would point out that where this has been most true is in cultures with a Judeo-Christian heritage.) However that has nothing to do with whether there exists a universal morality that exists apart from any cultural conclusions. I agree with all of that. I would add though that in the western world it was the church, as imperfect as it has always been, that was largely responsible for institutions such as hospitals and schools. I also agree that where religion has been the path to political power it is a disaster for both church and state. Absolutely not. If morality is imposed on our consciousness then morality as such ceases to exist. It is just what is and we wouldn’t have any understanding of it. It would be like telling a fish that it is wet. We exist, we have consciousness, we have an understanding of morality, there is the anthropic principle etc. It is evidence of something and we have come to different conclusions. I say it is evidence that we are the result of intelligence and you don’t agree. Let’s go back to the assembly line. I look at my car and wonder how it came to be. I research it and find that it was built on an assembly line. I have no conclusive evidence beyond that but I come to the conclusion that intelligence brought that assembly line into existence. Metaphorically, you would conclude that the assembly line just happened naturally without any intelligent input. Certainly there is considerable randomness to the evolutionary process. You accept the materialist position that there is nothing but the material. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) I am agnostic on whether or not God knew that we would wind up with humans with 10 toes and walk on 2 legs. I believe that the universe was created to allow for the evolution of creatures that would freely choose to love unselfishly and even sacrificially.
However the fact is that there are a virtually infinite number of things that had to be exactly as they are in order for life as we know it to exist. ( A lot like an assembly line.  ) It is either the result of chance or intelligence. Well, I wouldn’t say without a trace. Mankind has posited all sorts of ideas about a deity for longer than we have records. There seems to be something in us, that we are free to reject as you do, that we are teleological beings and that there is more than just what we observe. It appears that part of our nature is to try and sort that out. Also, as a Christian I contend that in the man Jesus He revealed everything about His nature. We also have other figures that have presented a similar message from Buddah to Moses to Mahatma Gandhi. You can patronizingly suggest that I believe as I do because it comforts me. I believe it because, although I have no doubt that I’m wrong on some points, I am convinced of the fundamental truth of what I believe, whether it be comforting or not. I can’t prove my form of Christianity just as you can’t prove your atheism. We both have come to our very different conclusions. Well, I would say the same about you which doesn’t advance the discussion very far. Maybe, maybe not. I think that God in general works through the ordinary things. But there is a why, no matter what we think that why is. Sure we can observe natural processes where life has evolved from simple organisms and you believe that those natural processes are self generating and explain everything in and of themselves. The fact that there are so many religions is simply humans trying to make sense of our existence and usually those religions involve a considerable amount of self interest which causes one to be suspicious. I agree that the Christian religion is manmade which is evidenced by the fact that hardly any 2 Christians will agree on everything. The Christian religion has formed around the belief that God through a progressive revelation revealed His nature and desires to the Hebrew nation, (which is not to say that the Hebrews were the only ones touched by God), and that His nature was perfectly embodied by the man Jesus. God vindicated the teachings and belief of Jesus by resurrecting Him. Christianity has struggled, as Paul did, to form a religion based on that over the years, and I suggest that it is still a progressive revelation and that over the centuries it continues to become more focused. Quite probably if you had been born 150 years ago into an English society that was predominately Christian you’d be a Christian today. However you are part of a society that is predominately secular and so it is just an accident that you are atheistic.

OK. We can have gone over the same arguments several times so I would like to try something else. Here is a link to an article on the scientific basis for empathy.
The Science Behind Psychopaths and Extreme Altruists
Like you say they have found portions of the brain which can be shown to affect our potential for good or evil. But it also shows that it isn’t the final answer. It can also be affected and even changed either way by environment. Here is a quote:

quote:

---

Our capacity to empathize and channel that into compassion may be innate, but it is not immutable. Neither is the tendency to develop psychopathic and antisocial personalities so fixed in childhood as to be unchangeable. In recent years researchers have shown the feasibility of nipping evil in the bud as well as strengthening our positive social instincts.

​

The possibility of preventing violent teenage boys from hardening into lifelong criminals has been put to the test at the Mendota Juvenile Treatment Center in Wisconsin, a facility that houses serious offenders but is run more as a psychiatric unit than as a prison. The adolescents referred to the center come in with already long criminal historiesteenagers who are a threat to others.

​

These are folks who essentially have dropped out of the human racethey don’t have any connection to anyone, and they are in a real antagonistic posture with everybody, says Michael Caldwell, a senior staff psychologist.
The center attempts to build a connection with the kids despite their aggressive and antisocial behaviors. Even when an inmate hurls feces or sprays urine at staff membersa common occurrence at many correctional institutionsthe staff members keep treating the offender humanely. The kids are scored on a set of behavior rating scales every day. If they do well, they earn certain privileges the following day, such as a chance to play video games. If they score badly, say, by getting into a fight, they lose privileges. The focus is not on punishing bad behavior but on rewarding good conduct. That’s different from most correctional institutions. Over time the kids start to behave better, says Greg Van Rybroek, the center’s director. Their callous-unemotional traits diminish. Their improved ability to manage their emotions and control their violent impulses seems to endure beyond the walls of Mendota. Adolescents treated in the program have committed far fewer and less violent offenses between two and six years after release than those treated elsewhere, the center’s studies have found. We don’t have any magic, Van Rybroek says, but we’ve actually created a system that considers the world from the youth’s point of view and tries to break it down in a fair and consistent manner.

​

During the past decade researchers have discovered that our social brain is plastic, even in adulthood, and that we can be trained to be more kind and generous. Tania Singer, a social neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, has pioneered studies demonstrating this.

---

This article, and I’d say that all of us through personal experience and observation would agree, claims that people can change for better or for worse. So, if people whose brain structure, (or however you want to phrase it) shows that they should have a tendency one way it isn’t immutable. It can be changed, and as you say it has changed as societies have evolved.I have done a little reading on epigenetics recently and it seems that our genetic expression can be modified without change to the genetic code itself. Our behaviour patterns can be changed by our family, friend, society etc. It strikes me that this is very close to Dawkins’ memes in his book The Selfish Gene.
So if we as individual can transmit memes to one another that can change a person’s tendency away from or towards empathy the isn’t it also conceivable that there could be a God meme that could also impact our behaviours in the same way. And further, isn’t it reasonable to think that the same meme would also give us the impetus to attempt to encourage others to be more empathetic.Maybe the still small voice of God’ is just one of Dawkins’ memes.

From CS Lewis

quote:

---

There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. Those who knock it is opened.

---

Once again you use process to claim prove the materialist view.Yes, humans can have a huge affect on the empathetic tendencies of other humans for better or for worse. My Christian view is that it is our calling as humans to infect the world with that empathetic view. I would also add that it is about that empathetic view encompassing sacrificial love.Your belief is that empathetic view simply evolved with no intelligent impetus. It is my view that it evolved as a result of a intelligence,(God), that created us with the desire that we would freely accept and find joy in that empathetic view. It is strictly a matter of belief whether or not God is part of that evolutionary process or not, either as an ongoing participant or as the initiator of the ability to evolve that way in the first place..

I don't see it as simply choosing salvation. I'd say it is more about choosing the motivation for how we live our lives regardless of any thought of salvation.I think that a strong scriptural reference for that is Matthew 25.

quote:

---

34 Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

---

If you notice the good guys had no idea that what they were doing was for Jesus. They just did it because in their heart it was the right thing to do. If we live lives of sacrificial love because that is where we find joy then that is what God honours. If we choose to live a life where we focus on our own needs then God will honour that choice as well.Also if you notice in that quote from Mathew there is no talk of getting their doctrine right. It is simply that God honours a good heart regardless of their doctrine.

Darwinism is about our physical evolution that adapts to our physical surroundings. I'm not concerned as to whether or not God intervened with the process or if all that was necessary to that process was in place from the time of creation and even back to the BB if necessary. I'm somewhat inclined to the latter but I simply don't know and am not concerned one way or the other.The other evolutionary aspect is how a consciousness that is capable of intelligence, morality and empathy evolved. No matter how much you say that you have conclusive evidence that it is strictly a mindless process from beginning to end it is strictly your belief, again confusing process with agency.As far as empathy and/or altruism is concerned we both agree that there are many influences that we can observe such as parenting, culture etc. None of that excludes there being an intelligence that also influences us as individuals or that influences those who influence us within the family or culture.As a Christian it is my belief that is in opposition to your belief that we are able to understand love and have it become part of our lives because God first loved us. Your belief is that it love has grown strictly from mindless processes from the conception of creation to now. You object to me using the term belief as when I do I don't have to have physical evidence for it and it is based on philosophical evidence which you discount. However, we all have philosophical beliefs.

I think Faith that you perceive that the primary point of Christianity is individual salvation or as is often put to be saved. Along with that is the belief that in order for this to occur it is necessary for one to accept the Christian faith.I don't see that as being in accordance with Scripture or in accordance with human reasoning. Is it reasonable to assume that some poor smuck in a slum in Karachi is going to spend eternity in hell because he/she doesn't commit to Christianity? From a scriptural POV what God wants is humble kindness and justice. Jesus tell us that the great commandment is to love others as we love ourselves. It isn't about our doctrinal beliefs.I suggest to you that the point about being saved is that we are saved because we have been given a job to do in the present world. That job is to reflect God's love into the world, however, that is true for everyone regardless of religious belief.Being a Christian does give us an understanding of where that love came from and what it looks like, particularly when we see the example of love that Jesus endured on the cross with all of the suffering and shame that went along with that. It also gives us a glimpse of what a resurrected or renewed creation might look like, and giving us ultimate purpose for our lives.I do agree that as Christians when we pray in accordance with the command to love that God is with us in our attempts to be more Christ-like.

...and you would object if I said that it was knowably true. You completely discount theology or philosophy and yet we all, including you, have our own personal philosophies and live our lives accordingly. I at least am honest enough to agree that it is belief.

Actually I haven't agreed that consciousness evolved. I am prepared to say that I don't know but if it is an evolved characteristic then that would be part of the original plan, (for lack of better wording),I don't see why that has any implication for why that would mean that an eternal intelligence would have had to evolve. I suggest that as humans we have to look beyond a world of linear time.

That is the problem with Biblical literalism. In order to maintain that position you have to accept compromises with what Jesus taught. The big problem though is that it makes it all about what the very things that Jesus spoke against.Biblical literalism turns Christianity into the same type of religion that Jesus spoke and acted against in the Hebrew traditions. In the case of the 1st century Jews there belief was primarily about how they could get Yahweh on their side in order to defeat the Romans. Your brand of Christianity is about how to get God on your side so that you can have salvation. In both cases it is all about the self. It's about how can I get God working for me.Jesus taught that it is about serving God for the good of His creation, but it is to be done not for selfish reasons but simply because that is what your heart is telling you to do. If the goal what you believe or what you do is your personal salvation then it is still self love as opposed to the sacrificial love of others that we are called to.Fundamentalist Christianity turns belief into a work. Again, it is the modern equivalent of the Pharisees. They believed that if the culture would follow the myriad of laws that they came up with, God would act in their benefit against their enemies. In the modern fundamentalist case it is about the law of believing that Jesus died for our sins and believing certain understandings of how to read scripture in order to get God to allow you to live an eternal existence with Him.Read again the sheep and goats story in Matthew 25. As I said before it is about serving others just because it is the right thing to do. Again, there is nothing in there about holding to any particular religious faith or doctrine.Read again the story of the Good Samaritan. The Samaritans were essentially despised by the culture that Jesus was a part of. I suggest that if Jesus was giving us that parable today it would be about the Good Muslim.Ultimately it is about where our heart is, not our doctrine or theology, and if we make personal salvation the focus of our faith then it is about the self and the exact opposite of what Jesus taught and how He lived.

Sure it does. It is about the integration of science and religion. I believe, (I don't know how else you would want me to put it), that the two can blend quite naturally with religion being largely philosophical and science determining how the natural informs the theology. That is your belief. All you can see is the outcome today. We can see that culture, family etc has an impact. We cannot tell whether there is a creative intelligence that has either set the process in motion or whether it is even playing a role in that process. I agree that it is a brain function but we both agree that there nurture has a huge role to play. I am prepared to accept the possibility that there is randomness in creation which does not mean that it is mindless. Given the size of the universe there would be sufficient randomness to be able to predict the eventual outcome of there being creatures capable of sacrificial love. I accept that as a possibility.Interestingly enough I just read a book by a guy who holds that view Freedom All the Way Up In the original design and through our conscience. Certainly, I have no physical evidence of that. It is a philosophical belief, as it is your philosophical belief that there is only brain function and human influence. I know you don't but I separate physical evolution from our ability to change the nature that we are born with.I think that likely physical evolution is designed at the outset and did not require further intervention although again that is belief.I do believe that the possibility of choosing sacrificial love or empathy is designed into our nature, but I also believe that God is in our conscience which is something that we all ignore to one degree or another, but also something that does give us a standard and does nudge us toward empathy.