My Beliefs- GDR

That is how I see it as well. It is my contention that we can make the comparison objectively but it then becomes a subjective conclusion about whether or not it is a universal truth when there is no intelligent observer around.Thanks again.Edited by GDR, : typo

By your definitions I don't agree that it is reasonable to conclude that humans created the Golden Rule. It would be reasonable to conclude that humans have been able to successfully put the Golden Rule into practice but that doesn't tell us anything about whether or not it is a universal truth that exists whether or not humans utilize it.As I understand your position on what is reasonable it seems to me that there is no reasonable position and so we are back to faith and belief regardless of what we believe or don't believe.

But it seems that you have just agreed that there are no reasonable conclusions. But I don’t see that the scientific knowledge should try and answer the same questions as religious belief. I don’t look to my religion to tell me how God does things. I hold my subjective religious beliefs which, moist simply put, is that God is responsible for the existence of life, that He loves us and wants us to reflect that love into the world. As a Christian I believe that God has spoken clearly through Jesus Christ and vindicated the life of Jesus by resurrecting Him, and that He continues to reach out to us through our hearts, minds and imaginations.I look to science to give me the answers as to how and when the world came into existence, how life has evolved to where it is today and even as to how it might evolve further, how altruism and morality evolved in our society and the myriad of other things that science works on.Other than belief that God did it, I don’t let my religious beliefs affect what I believe from my basic understanding of science. I have been accused of rejecting the science that says the resurrection is impossibility but I don’t buy that. Science simply tells us that natural laws as we currently understand them precludes it happening, but it does not tell us that those natural laws can never be suspended. Maybe they can and maybe they can’t.

I understand all that, but what I don’t understand is why you think that I have said anything different than that. I agree that I don’t know that there is a universal truth. Regardless of how strongly I believe that there is I agree that it is impossible to know. However, just because I can’t know the truth of what I believe does not mean that it isn’t a reasonable idea to respond on the basis of what we believe to be true. We do that in all sorts of aspects of our lives.

I believe it's going to be sunny tomorrow so I'll plan a picnic.

I had moved pat that a long time ago. I started out from that position. I agree that we can see the result of evolution and that it is going to look the same to us whether or not there is an intelligent planner or not, and is from that standpoint, irrelevant. It all looks the same to us. The discussion though is about what I believe and why I believe it. In my view our evolutionary history with its natural selection, the DNA trail is all so elegant that it gives the subjective appearance of being designed. I agree with Collins when he calls it The Language of God.In may case, as opposed to yours, where I have seen this as one of the things that points to the existence of an intelligent planner, it does become relevant in my life.

So you never plan anything unless you are absolutely certain of the facts that you are basing you plan on.

I have dogs. Certainly animals are able to have compassion. That is hardly new.If love and moralism is a universal truth then that is exactly what we should expect.We have already agreed that there may be a genetic copmponent to morality and that there is definitely a social component so I don't know know why you think I'd be surprised by that report.

I use the term believe to differentiate from what we know.I don’t know how to put a name to any method of knowledge acquisition that I have used, but I did lay out my rationale for why I believe what I believe in the OP and have expanded on that in subsequent posts. I don’t know why you would say this as when I said
There is no objective knowledge it was obviously in reply to a specific question about the Golden Rule and not meant in a general sense. Which then could be either the result of purely mindless natural evolution, or be the result of an intelligent agency. Again, I don’t know but my IMHO my views make sense of the world that I observe in general and they make sense of my own life as I experience it and, as I said, I have already thoroughly gone through the rationale for why I believe what I believe.Why do you believe that any of us as collections of mindless particles from a mindless origin can come to reliable conclusions? Fine, but that does not answer the question of origins for that natural evolution, nor does it eliminate the possibility of additional influence by the intelligent agency that is responsible for the natural process in the first place. I am not looking for what is unassailable. There are things that I objectively know such as the fact that I know that human life exists with intelligence and a sense of morality. That is evidenced. What is un-evidenced is the question of whether or not we are the result of an intelligent agency. We can only come to subjective conclusions in answer to that.My beliefs are fluid. I have changed my beliefs on new information or with new understandings. It isn’t to make it unassailable.I have no doubt that much of what I believe is wrong and that in many cases over the remainder of my life span my beliefs will change again with new insights or information.

By in large I have no idea, but if you want an opinion it is likely without. Other than for a couple of occasions in my life the difference is entirely imperceptible to me.

But obviously I believe that my beliefs do represent the most reasonable idea otherwise I wouldn’t believe them. You seem to keep inferring that my theistic beliefs impact what we can objectively know scientifically. I agree that I take what I know scientifically and then use that to help inform my theistic beliefs. Who knows what future progress there will be scientifically, but when we find out what it is I may have to adjust my theistic beliefs again. What on earth is wrong with that? I am not comparing what we know scientifically with what I believe theistically. What is it aboput my beliefs that can be shown objectively to be incorrect. I am fully aware that just because I can’t be proven wrong is not a justification for believing what I do.

Of course you can up with a more reasonable accurate truth if you are dealing with something that can be tested and verified.As to whether we believe in an intelligent origin for life or not is belief based on what we do know, what we experience, what we have heard and learned from others etc, but it isn't verifiable.

I agree that there is no objective evidence. You have concluded that because there is no evidence for God then there is no reason to conclude that He exists. Fair enough and if that is sufficient for you then that's fine.I believe that there is more to life than just what we can can "know" in a materialistic sense. You believe my reasoning to be faulty as I do yours. My reasoning is not scientific although what I can know scientifically does impact my subjective beliefs.

From your point of view there is no reason to have confidence in any subjective conclusions I come to, but on the other have any confidence in your subjective conclusions that in all likelihood Tom doesn’t exist?Your argument seems to that only what we know is to not hold a lot of value for what we believe. You say that you believe in the Golden Rule and that it can be demonstrated over time that the principle is positive for mankind. But we also know that the principle isn’t always going to bring about a positive result.Here is a definition for intuition.

quote:

---

: a natural ability or power that makes it possible to know something without any proof or evidence : a feeling that guides a person to act a certain way without fully understanding why

​

: something that is known or understood without proof or evidence

---

People use intuition all the time and sometimes it is right and sometimes it is wrong. I would say that Einstein had an intuition about relativity and it proved to be right. He had an intuition about QM and he turned out to be wrong, although now the jury is out on that, but you get my point. I assume that by knowledge acquisition you are saying that knowledge is limited to what we know and I would agree, but that does not meant that we can’t hold beliefs that are reasonable. We also know that we aren’t always going to agree on what a reasonable belief is.I have very little doubt about that God in some manner exists. As a human I can essentially only anthropomorphise Him in order to but it doesn’t really matter if He is a unique individual like you and me, or if He is a unified collective consciousness. Either way He remains from our perspective one God. I don’t know that, but I am very confident of it.

I keep repeating it because it is true and it is our subjective opinion about which option is more valid.I have never suggested that Satan is imperceptibly influencing you. At a minimum my contention is that we are imperceptibly influenced by God to choose love, mercy and justice - influences we can freely reject. Sure if you like. Maybe we are being influenced by the FSM. We subjectively form our own conclusions with the full knowledge that we can't "know" we are right. The fact is we exist the way do and there is some fundamental reason for it. It is just as baseless to come to the conclusion that we are the result of nothing but an infinite series of natural processes.