|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Christianity is Morally Bankrupt | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't see that as being a parallel situation at all. The parallel is that this and the hypothetical situation you describe both involve doing something in a laboratory. If this shouldn't generally lead us to conclude that the process they're simulating was originally performed by intelligence, then I see no reason to do so in any particular case. N.B: because you'd like to is not really a reason.
We can see in nature the on-going process that results in limestone becoming marble ... We can? Where? Can you give me a reference, and I'll add it to my thread about geology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: The parallel is that this and the hypothetical situation you describe both involve doing something in a laboratory. If this shouldn't generally lead us to conclude that the process they're simulating was originally performed by intelligence, then I see no reason to do so in any particular case. N.B: because you'd like to is not really a reason. The difference is that in the one case we are going from one inanimate object to another. It is a different thing altogether to go from inanimate chemical to cellular life. (Mind you, I’ll still be very surprised if they pull it off but we’ll see.)
Dr Adequate writes: We can? Where? Can you give me a reference, and I'll add it to my thread about geology. I don’t pretend to know anything about geology. It is what I understood this wiki site to mean. I am happy to be corrected. If however it doesn't happen in nature then again it makes my point that it took intelligence to make it happen. Marble - WikipediaHe has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The difference is that in the one case we are going from one inanimate object to another. It is a different thing altogether to go from inanimate chemical to cellular life. But not in any way that affects the epistemological question.
If however it doesn't happen in nature then again it makes my point that it took intelligence to make it happen. Wait, have I inadvertently convinced you that marble is made by intelligent Metamorphosis Kobolds?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: But not in any way that affects the epistemological question. I don't agree. We aren't talking absolute knowledge. We are talking plausibility. Your marble example is more than plausible. The knowledge of how and why we exist at all is not anywhere near as simple. When we look at the complex structure of one single cell and then consider the evolutionary process that resulted in you we have to consider which is more plausible. Is this all the result of a chance combination of mindless particles or is there an intelligent agent or agents responsible for your existence? IMHO the latter is by far the most probable. I'm not saying that is an argument for the God of Christianity but it is a starting point.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't agree. We aren't talking absolute knowledge. We are talking plausibility. Your marble example is more than plausible. The knowledge of how and why we exist at all is not anywhere near as simple. When we look at the complex structure of one single cell and then consider the evolutionary process that resulted in you we have to consider which is more plausible. Is this all the result of a chance combination of mindless particles or is there an intelligent agent or agents responsible for your existence? IMHO the latter is by far the most probable. I'm not saying that is an argument for the God of Christianity but it is a starting point. But none of this addresses the point I was actually discussing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined:
|
GDR writes: Otto Tellick writes: The things that are held in common by the great majority of religions ... [support] the proposition that all these religions have arisen through human innovation to address natural issues that are common to the human condition. I agree that it is a valid argument but I contend that it is just as valid to suggest that it is true because of God working through the hearts, minds and imaginations of the human creatures He created. The problem with your contention is that, if there is really exactly one God to account for this commonality, then this God's ability to "work through the hearts [etc] of the human creatures he created" shows a remarkable - and I would say irreconcilable - degree of variability and inconsistency. {AbE: To clarify: the people presumably affected by this intervention don't even agree on the attributes, identity, or quantity of the supernatural being(s) exerting this influence.} (The underlying premises required for monotheism would preclude viewing this as incompetence or malice; I guess "mystery" is the only available term to describe the situation in a theistic view.) You want to attribute the commonality of basic human "virtues" to intervention and "personal" involvement from a specific, singular, all-powerful, creator God. But faced with the reality that most people on the planet don't actually accept or believe in the specific God you're trying to describe - or at least will be inclined to deny many of the particular claims you make regarding this God - you have to assert that "they don't know God", or possibly are "rebelling against God", even while you acknowledge that many of them are effectively no different from you in terms of virtuousness. That strikes me as a very difficult case to sustain. Edited by Otto Tellick, : (added bracketed comment, hoping to clarify) Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given.autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Otto Tellick writes: The problem with your contention is that, if there is really exactly one God to account for this commonality, then this God's ability to "work through the hearts [etc] of the human creatures he created" shows a remarkable - and I would say irreconcilable - degree of variability and inconsistency. {AbE: To clarify: the people presumably affected by this intervention don't even agree on the attributes, identity, or quantity of the supernatural being(s) exerting this influence.} (The underlying premises required for monotheism would preclude viewing this as incompetence or malice; I guess "mystery" is the only available term to describe the situation in a theistic view.) You want to attribute the commonality of basic human "virtues" to intervention and "personal" involvement from a specific, singular, all-powerful, creator God. But faced with the reality that most people on the planet don't actually accept or believe in the specific God you're trying to describe - or at least will be inclined to deny many of the particular claims you make regarding this God - you have to assert that "they don't know God", or possibly are "rebelling against God", even while you acknowledge that many of them are effectively no different from you in terms of virtuousness. You address two issues in that. The first is that there is inconsistency in the moral standards in different individuals, (and cultures for that matter), and secondly there is no real consistency of belief about the nature of any deity. You see this as being incompatible with my beliefs. I hope I have understood your point. It is my contention that these inconsistencies make the case for my understanding of the nature of God and His relationship with us and at the same time make atheistic beliefs improbable. If we are simply the result of mindless processes with all life evolving from a common beginning then I would expect that there would be far more consistency in what we understand of the world than what we actually observe. I think that theist and atheist alike will agree that we have a conscience. If that conscience has simply evolved from those basic naturalistic beginnings that we all have in common, then why is there such a wide divergence in our responses to that conscience. If however that conscience is the small still voice of God speaking into our hearts, then we have to look at it quite differently. If God desires that we should be truly a people that are moral in that they choose to genuinely care for others, even at the expense of the self, then we are only able to make that choice when we are truly free to reject that voice that is our conscience. As to understanding the specifics about God I once again believe that ambiguity is necessary for our free will. If we had absolute knowledge of God and his nature then once again we have the option of choosing morality severely impaired. For myself I freely acknowledge that I pretty certain that much of what I believe is wrong with the problem being that I don’t which parts of what I believe is in error. I also know this for the simple fact that as I continue to read and reason I find that my beliefs continue to be revised. Yes I agree that as a Christian I have no doubt that there are many atheists more moral than I am. However, I do believe that if a person genuinely turns to Christ as Lord, not in terms of intellectual ascent, but in terms of wanting to be the person that God wants them to be, then by faith I believe that God through His spirit will make that person more moral and less selfish than they would have been otherwise. Interestingly enough here is a Biblical quote from Matthew chap 9.
quote: Now you can understand why the church is full of us sinners. He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: But none of this addresses the point I was actually discussing. I guess you'll have to dumb it down as I don't get the your point.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: If we are simply the result of mindless processes with all life evolving from a common beginning then I would expect that there would be far more consistency in what we understand of the world than what we actually observe. I don't think there's much point commenting on what you believe about God because basically you can make up whatever you like then believe in it, but for the evolutionary perspective, there's no reason at all to suppose that there would be any consistency in what we understand about the world. In fact it would be astonishing beyond belief - if we did. What we understand about the world is a complex of experience, learning, culture, tradition and beliefs. None of that is standardised in any way - it's a mess.
I think that theist and atheist alike will agree that we have a conscience. If that conscience has simply evolved from those basic naturalistic beginnings that we all have in common, then why is there such a wide divergence in our responses to that conscience. I doubt very much that atheists would agree that we have a conscience - at least not in the way I assume you mean - but you'd need to tell us what a conscience is first.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess you'll have to dumb it down as I don't get the your point. That the ability of scientists to synthesize something in a laboratory has in itself no bearing on whether the original that they're copying had intelligence involved in its production.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Tangle writes: It isn't that I make it up as you just a tad condescendingly put it, but it is what I have come to believe based on the facts as I understand them, pretty much the same as everyone else. I don't think there's much point commenting on what you believe about God because basically you can make up whatever you like then believe in it, but for the evolutionary perspective, there's no reason at all to suppose that there would be any consistency in what we understand about the world. In fact it would be astonishing beyond belief - if we did. As far as consistency is concerned I don't actually disagree with you, but I was just pointing out to Otto that there is just as much or more reason to expect consistency in a totally naturalistic world as there is in a world born out of the mind of a pre-existing intelligence that offers free will.
Tangle writes: I doubt very much that atheists would agree that we have a conscience - at least not in the way I assume you mean - but you'd need to tell us what a conscience is first. Here is the web definition of conscience:
quote: Essentially I see it as our innate sense of right or wrong and that we all have. For you it has presumably come about as a result of centuries of socialization. In my view it is that still small voice of God combined with social influences but that at its root it is all from God. I don’t think that we differ on what conscience is, but we differ on why we have one.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Dr Adequate writes: That the ability of scientists to synthesize something in a laboratory has in itself no bearing on whether the original that they're copying had intelligence involved in its production. I agree but the converse is true as well. Many times on this forum I have observed atheists argue that science is close to being able to bring about life in a Petri dish and when they do they will have proven that we had naturalistic origins.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
I agree but the converse is true as well. Many times on this forum I have observed atheists argue that science is close to being able to bring about life in a Petri dish and when they do they will have proven that we had naturalistic origins. To what extent that's true depends on how they do it. If they simulated the early Earth, and life arose without any nudging on their part, then to see life arise would be evidence for the natural origin of life. If, on the other hand, the make life by sticking the bits together themselves, it wouldn't prove anything one way or the other (unless there are still some vitalists out there, it would sure show them).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
I agree that it would be evidence, but it would still leave the question of how those specific ingredients and in this specific environment all happened to exist in the first place.
He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
GDR writes: Essentially I see it as our innate sense of right or wrong and that we all have. For you it has presumably come about as a result of centuries of socialization. In my view it is that still small voice of God combined with social influences but that at its root it is all from God. I don’t think that we differ on what conscience is, but we differ on why we have one. We are very likely to differ on what we think a conscience is because because for me it's another religious invention like a soul or free will that has no meaning except in a literary or allegorical way. We know that our sense of morality is not the voice of god, instead it's a brain function carried on mostly in the pre-frontal cortex and temporo-parietal junction. Our sense of morality can be interfered with by drugs, surgery and even magnetic interference and it developes as we learn and grow. It's clever, but it's not magic or supernatural.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024