No Shit Sherlock

[Ravenstar]

 

 

 

Let's talk about secular morality. 

 

• No, we're not omniscient
• However, we can objectively see that certain actions are beneficial to society as a whole
• We can see that certain actions harm members of society
• There's lots of middle ground, give and take, that's why we have political parties for one.  How ought we to govern is an important debate

With religion, it is 'thus says the lord.'  Which lord again?  How do you know that your lord is the one?  How do you know that he hasn't told others his will?  To kill children?  How do you know?

 

The answer is, you don't.

 

This is the christian/muslim/religionist stance.  They fool themselves into thinking that they know because their god knows, when in reality the god they know is only their own imaginary friend.

 

This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science.

 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one ever contributed to the betterment of society as science."

 

Are you saying that the Christian faith had zero influence on the rise of science in history?

 

Look what happened in the dark ages.  Compare that to the enlightenment era.

 

 

My question was not a compare and contrast question.

 

Again: Are you saying that the Christian faith had zero influence on the rise of science in history?

 

Yes… I do.  Christian PEOPLE were scientists.. christianity (the faith) and the Bible did NOT contribute to science. There is no science in either the text or the ideology of christianity. It's superstitious crap. 

 

The dark ages are a testament to that. If you know your history you know that the dark ages were brought on by the spread and rise of christianity and the enlightenment happened because there was a rediscovery of the classical age texts and ideas (Greeks and Romans).

 

The ancient Greeks were WAY more learned and scientifically proficient… 500 years BCE, than Europe during the middle ages. Creepers.. the Egyptians were more educated 3000 years ago.

[RipVanWinkle]

It's too bad end3 isn't here to tell us that the dark ages didn't happen or that Xtianity had nothing to do with the dark ages. After all he was there. bill

[sdelsolray]

 

 

 

 

Tell me, does "zero" equal "not as much as" in your reasoning?

 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science."

 

I agree that science has made our lives much better. My disagreement is ignoring the fact that

going back centuries, it was Christians who helped pioneer advances in science that led us

to the modern age.

 

 

 

https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Age_of_Enlightenment.html

 

"The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment) is the era in Western philosophy, intellectual, scientific and cultural life, centered upon the 18th century, in which reason was advocated as the primary source for legitimacy and authority."

 

What did the papacy do during the dark ages to advance scientific endeavor?  Nothing.  What has human reasoning done?  It let us to where we are now.  Reason > Religion.  Thinking, reasoning, debating, and holding no ground sacred from attack is what got us here.

 

 

I'm not talking papacy. I'm talking Christians who pioneered the rise of science.

 

Some had red hair.  Obviously, science was pioneered because some people had red hair.

Everyone who ate pickles before 1850 is dead.  Therefore, pickles cause people to die.

Do you see how silly those statements are?

Again, correlation does not demonstrate causation.

 

You aren't "talking" anything.  You're making a mere assertion - that humans who pioneered science could only do so, or only did so, because of their religion.

 

Since that is your claim, please provide relevant empirical evidence demonstrating causation (not mere correlation) to support your claim.

 

I am waiting for your relevant empirical evidence demonstrating causation (not mere correlation) supporting your claim.

 

Of course, I strongly suspect you won't provide it because I doubt such causation evidence exists.  Your claim has been made thousands of times by theists such as yourself.  None has come forth with relevant empirical evidence demonstrating causation.  None.  Ever.  This is why your particular claim is classified as a PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times).  

 

Without such relevant empirical evidence demonstrating causation, your claim that Christianity caused (or that certain scientists solely because of their Christianity caused) scientific development, advancement and/or discoveries at any time in history is rejected.

 

If you make the claim again in a subsequent thread, I will identify you as a disingenuous liar.  Note:  Apparently, you already raised this claim in an earlier thread and, according to the reporter, your claim was refuted at that time.  I have not investigated that history.  Perhaps you are already worthy of being labeled as a disingenuous liar.  Perhaps not.

[midniterider]

Here's an interesting read:

 

http://www.aren.org/prison/documents/religion/Misc/History%20of%20the%20Warfare%20of%20Science%20with%20Theology%20in%20Christendom--Andrew%20Dickson%20White.pdf

[Ravenstar]

OOoooooooo!!!!   I like it…. Thanks!

 

Might take me a bit - it's a lengthy paper. That's okay, sound bites don't inform much.  

[midniterider]

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one ever contributed to the betterment of society as science."

 

Are you saying that the Christian faith had zero influence on the rise of science in history?

 

 

From the snippets I've been reading here and there about the dark ages it seems the Catholic church did have an influence on science. But they had an influence on everything. They were a political power. They made policy and started wars. But religion (belief,  faith) itself has done nothing for science.

 

I understand that there were Christians in the past and of course in the present who are scientists and contribute to the betterment of society with their science. But their religion produces nothing.

 

But, now in the 21st century, what do Jesus and the bible contribute to science or the scientific community? What does the church contribute to society that can be  called science? What new scientific discoveries have been made with prayer, praise and religious faith? What new medical breakthroughs have been given to us by religion? What science projects for the betterment of humanity are the various Christian denominations working on?  What have cosmologists, biologists and physicists discovered about our universe by reading the bible?

[Guest end3]

To End3:

 

Any workable definition of "sin" must acknowledge that "sin" is a philosophical concept.  As such, it is neither testable nor provable by science.  As BAA has already attempted to explain to you, science confines itself only to the physical, the material, and the natural.  (Before you start lecturing me on how Psychology explores that which is immaterial, such as ideas and thoughts, I will concede that it does.  I will give you that point so long as you acknowledge that the brain is physical, material, and natural).  Attempting to prove the existence of "sin" via science is futile and impossible.  You may as well try to tag Karma with a turbidimetric enzyme and run an ELISA on it.  It can't be done, because Karma (like "sin") exists only the the non-physical, non-material, non-natural realm.  Attempting to prove a philosophical concept by means of science is simply not possible, as others have pointed out.  Logic and reason may be of some assistance to you on this point; science will NOT.

 

Moreover, what passes between the generations via genetics are genotypic and phenotypic traits.  My father has brown eyes; my mother's eyes are green.  That I have hazel eyes demonstrates that I express a genetic blend of both alleles.  While philosophical concepts (such as "sin") are often passed from parent to child, they are not done genetically.  My parents are christian; they passed the concepts of christianity down to me (forced them down my throat is slightly more accurate, but not to the point).  However, you could take as many DNA samples from myself and both my parents that you want; you could run as many PCRs, Western Blots, and any other DNA analyses you want.  The hard truth is that you will not find any gene in any of our samples that codes for christian belief and/or sin.  This is a result of there not being a genetic transmission of philosophy.  This is where the cultural (nurture) half of the equation comes into play.

 

Others have mentioned this, so I will not belabor the point; but your claim that we are all evil displaces your claim that god commanded the genocide of the Amalekites due to their "genetic predisposition to evil" (which, science has so far found to NOT exist).  If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god, then god's particular hatred of the Amalekites was simply arbitrary.  It is more likely that the Amalekites were in the way of the Israelites plans and they used "god" as an excuse for genocide, just as the Nazis and the Serbs did.

 

Lastly, I have to admit that I am surprised that you, as a believer, would dare bring the topic of genetics onto this forum.  Have you done no research on the Vmat2 gene?  Google it.  You might gain a better understanding of why you can't give up your convoluted and contradictory beliefs.

 

Cheers, End.

Help me understand something here Prof. Per our natural world, a "decision" by me is a chemical/physical process?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

[Guest end3]

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

[RipVanWinkle]

"I understand that there were Christians in the past and of course in the present who are scientists and contribute to the betterment of society with their science. But their religion produces nothing."

midniterider

 

 

My understanding is that the Catholic Church was ok with science until it started discovering things that were inconsistent with church dogma. In the beginning they thought science would confirm their

myths. Surprise! Surprise! bill

[Roz]

Still no attempts to prove that his god is any more credible than the muslim version, the JW version, the SDA version, etc. 

 

Let me predict how his argument will go.  

"Look!  Decision making involves chemical functions in your brain!"  

"That means that there's science involved in god ordering the killing of infants and granting the rape of virgin girls!"  

 

Those 19 men had brains that performed the same chemical reactions.  They decided to do what they did because Allah told them to.

Let's say there's a muslim counterpart to End3.  Mus'End.  

Mus'End now says that those 3000+ people must've had genetic predispositions that will 'lead them to sin against Allah.'

They had to die, because Allah created humanity with brains that operate on chemical reactions.

 

How is the above any different from his defense now? 

[bornagainathiest]

 

To End3:

 

Any workable definition of "sin" must acknowledge that "sin" is a philosophical concept.  As such, it is neither testable nor provable by science.  As BAA has already attempted to explain to you, science confines itself only to the physical, the material, and the natural.  (Before you start lecturing me on how Psychology explores that which is immaterial, such as ideas and thoughts, I will concede that it does.  I will give you that point so long as you acknowledge that the brain is physical, material, and natural).  Attempting to prove the existence of "sin" via science is futile and impossible.  You may as well try to tag Karma with a turbidimetric enzyme and run an ELISA on it.  It can't be done, because Karma (like "sin") exists only the the non-physical, non-material, non-natural realm.  Attempting to prove a philosophical concept by means of science is simply not possible, as others have pointed out.  Logic and reason may be of some assistance to you on this point; science will NOT.

 

Moreover, what passes between the generations via genetics are genotypic and phenotypic traits.  My father has brown eyes; my mother's eyes are green.  That I have hazel eyes demonstrates that I express a genetic blend of both alleles.  While philosophical concepts (such as "sin") are often passed from parent to child, they are not done genetically.  My parents are christian; they passed the concepts of christianity down to me (forced them down my throat is slightly more accurate, but not to the point).  However, you could take as many DNA samples from myself and both my parents that you want; you could run as many PCRs, Western Blots, and any other DNA analyses you want.  The hard truth is that you will not find any gene in any of our samples that codes for christian belief and/or sin.  This is a result of there not being a genetic transmission of philosophy.  This is where the cultural (nurture) half of the equation comes into play.

 

Others have mentioned this, so I will not belabor the point; but your claim that we are all evil displaces your claim that god commanded the genocide of the Amalekites due to their "genetic predisposition to evil" (which, science has so far found to NOT exist).  If all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of god, then god's particular hatred of the Amalekites was simply arbitrary.  It is more likely that the Amalekites were in the way of the Israelites plans and they used "god" as an excuse for genocide, just as the Nazis and the Serbs did.

 

Lastly, I have to admit that I am surprised that you, as a believer, would dare bring the topic of genetics onto this forum.  Have you done no research on the Vmat2 gene?  Google it.  You might gain a better understanding of why you can't give up your convoluted and contradictory beliefs.

 

Cheers, End.

Help me understand something here Prof. Per our natural world, a "decision" by me is a chemical/physical process?

 

 

While I'm waiting for you to respond to my replies, I'll help you out, End.

 

Your question is going in the right direction, but the answer won't be what you want.

This is because a question pertaining to the natural world can only produce an answer about the natural world.  By asking a question only about natural and physical things, you've also limited the answer to be about only natural and physical things.  

 

You can't expect a question about chemical/physical processes to give you a spiritual answer.  

The two don't mix.  They're oil and water.  That's why you need to properly understand that there's no crossover between the natural and the supernatural, the physical and the non-physical.  Ok, the Bible and other religious writings freely mix natural and supernatural events, but that's because they operate under different rules to science.

 

You can't expect a spectroscope to give you a reading of spiritual 'energy'.

That's why Egon Spengler's hand-held spirit-o-meter in Ghostbusters, is totally fictional.  Nor will any peer-reviewed paper on Epigenetics tell you anything about sin.  Sin is an entirely religious and supernatural understanding of a person's spiritual condition.  There's no machine, instrument or detector that can tell you anything about a person's spiritual relationship with God.  (Scripture is quite clear about sin being an totally supernatural quality of the human race, btw.  I can demonstrate this, if you like.)

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

 

Again, End3, morality is a non-physical, not-material thing.  Science can evaluate the chemical reactions involved in decision making, but has no interest in positing any claims concerning morality.  You continue to confuse science with philosophy.  Furthermore, I'm not sure how neuropeptides bouncing around my brain equates to any kind of a relationship; you'll need to explain that a bit further.  Perhaps you could begin by defining what you mean as a relationship.

[bornagainathiest]

 

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

 

 

End, you're asking a scientist to define morality in purely scientific terms?

 

Morality (like sin) isn't something science can directly address.

That's because there's no such thing as a morality-meter to gauge a person's 'goodness' or 'badness', any more than there's a spirit-o-meter to gauge the quality of person's spiritual walk with God..  You're asking the wrong questions.  Science can only address physical and natural forces, effects and phenomenon.  That's ALL it can do.  If you keep on asking badly-defined and off-beam questions, you'll end up with confused and inappropriate answers.  Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.

 

We (the Prof, me and others in this thread) can help you out here... assuming you want to be helped.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

 

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

 

 

End, you're asking a scientist to define morality in purely scientific terms?

 

Morality (like sin) isn't something science can directly address.

That's because there's no such thing as a morality-meter to gauge a person's 'goodness' or 'badness', any more than there's a spirit-o-meter to gauge the quality of person's spiritual walk with God..  You're asking the wrong questions.  Science can only address physical and natural forces, effects and phenomenon.  That's ALL it can do.  If you keep on asking badly-defined and off-beam questions, you'll end up with confused and inappropriate answers.  Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.

 

We (the Prof, me and others in this thread) can help you out here... assuming you want to be helped.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

See, I really don't agree from a natural standpoint. Ultimately there would be a path or mechanism or sets of mechanisms that would define END3 making X decision or raising my right arm.

 

So with that said, please elaborate.

[Roz]

Still trying to tie in the physical chemical reactions of the mind with philosophical constructs such as morality, then trying to tie it all to the bible and how god must've been moral to order rape and murder while trying to blame the victims.

[thereisnoperfect]

And as I understand it, we still know very little about how decisions get made. There's recent work that suggests we make decisions well in advance of conscious awareness. 

 

But that science is in its early days. It's certainly not solid enough to build anything on--yet.

 

And I can't imagine what you could build on it that would make me go, "Oh, then yay for god to kill all those people"--especially when, as we have pointed out many times throughout the tedious thread, there are so many other solutions an omniscient/omnipotent being could have used.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Tell me, does "zero" equal "not as much as" in your reasoning?

 

"This is why there's millions of different religions, and not a single one has ever contributed to the betterment of society as much as science."

 

I agree that science has made our lives much better. My disagreement is ignoring the fact that

going back centuries, it was Christians who helped pioneer advances in science that led us

to the modern age.

 

 

By doing things like torturing people that questioned the geocentric model.  Just one example of how christianity was so open to advancing science.

 

 

 

Have you never read about Copernicus?

 

 

Yes.  I have, IronHorse.

 

Copernicus may have been a Christian, but his faith wasn't the driving force behind his scientific exploration of the universe.  No.  He was following the principles set down by Miletus of Thales... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thales ...which were being circulated in Europe during the time Copernicus lived, that is, the early Renaissance.  

 

Please take note of the text I've highlighted.

"Thales attempted to explain natural phenomena without reference to mythology and was tremendously influential in this respect. Almost all of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers follow him in attempting to provide an explanation of ultimate substance, change, and the existence of the world without reference to mythology."

 

See that, IronHorse?

Copernicus used Thales' methodology to understand the universe.  He rejected any mythological or religious 'truth' and tried to use his new Heliocentric model of the cosmos to explain only what could be observed, not what was written in scripture.  

 

But Copernicus wasn't the first to follow the ideas of Thales.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erastosthenes This man also rejected religious, superstition and divinely-inspired 'truth', opting to understand the physical world around him only by observation and analysis.  Using only his eyes and his brain, he calculated the circumference of the planet Earth to within 1% of accuracy, almost two centuries before a certain Jesus was born.

 

Neither Erastothenes, nor Thales were Christians, btw.

Yet their writings and that of other ancient non-Christian philosophers and scientists of were rediscovered in the Renaissance and then used to form the foundation of the Enlightenment.  Ok, certain European scientists may have been Christians, but their Christian faith was not the main driver of the scientific discoveries of the last four centuries.

 

Are we clear on that?

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

Personally, I don't think the science will ever be there in that capacity for the human body. But AI, I think certainly.

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

 

 

End, you're asking a scientist to define morality in purely scientific terms?

 

Morality (like sin) isn't something science can directly address.

That's because there's no such thing as a morality-meter to gauge a person's 'goodness' or 'badness', any more than there's a spirit-o-meter to gauge the quality of person's spiritual walk with God..  You're asking the wrong questions.  Science can only address physical and natural forces, effects and phenomenon.  That's ALL it can do.  If you keep on asking badly-defined and off-beam questions, you'll end up with confused and inappropriate answers.  Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.

 

We (the Prof, me and others in this thread) can help you out here... assuming you want to be helped.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

 

See, I really don't agree from a natural standpoint. Ultimately there would be a path or mechanism or sets of mechanisms that would define END3 making X decision or raising my right arm.

 

So with that said, please elaborate.

 

 

Well, you've just said it yourself, End.

 

"From a natural standpoint."

 

If this includes anything that science defines as being outside of the accepted scientific description of nature, then you have a flawed idea of what the word 'natural' means.

 

So, you could hold on to your own, unique definitions of things - and be at odds with the Prof, me and the rest of the scientific establishment.  Which would mean that you'd just keep on asking flawed questions, based on your flawed understanding and keep on getting confused and confusing answers to your malformed questions.

 

Or you toe the line and bring your understanding of what the word 'natural' means into line with the orthodox, established meaning of that word.  

 

It's your call.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Neverlandrut]

 

 

 

There is evidence that chemical processes in the brain are involved in decision making.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071106124858.htm

Yes, so how is any definition of morality, i.e. "decision making" not a relationship that can be evaluated by science given the understanding.

End, you're asking a scientist to define morality in purely scientific terms?

 

Morality (like sin) isn't something science can directly address.

That's because there's no such thing as a morality-meter to gauge a person's 'goodness' or 'badness', any more than there's a spirit-o-meter to gauge the quality of person's spiritual walk with God.. You're asking the wrong questions. Science can only address physical and natural forces, effects and phenomenon. That's ALL it can do. If you keep on asking badly-defined and off-beam questions, you'll end up with confused and inappropriate answers. Garbage in, garbage out, so to speak.

 

We (the Prof, me and others in this thread) can help you out here... assuming you want to be helped.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

See, I really don't agree from a natural standpoint. Ultimately there would be a path or mechanism or sets of mechanisms that would define END3 making X decision or raising my right arm.

 

So with that said, please elaborate.

Your belief in God could be nothing more than a neurochemical process. No?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Just out of curiosity, End3, have you done any research on the Vmat2 gene as I suggested?

 

Here's what wiki has to say about it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

[Guest end3]

Just out of curiosity, End3, have you done any research on the Vmat2 gene as I suggested?

 

Here's what wiki has to say about it:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

Yes sir, I looked. And the implications other than separating the sheep and goats? (humor)

[Neverlandrut]

End3, now you are reducing morality and decision making to mere chemical (natural processes), and they probably are just that. But will you please elaborate on how that helps your case for god? If everything about our morality is nothing more that the sum of neurochemical processes, why not also our beliefs/lack of beliefs in god(s)? Is your belief in god, given that it is a non-physical mental construct just like morality, also nothing more than the sum of neurochemical processes? See, this is another example of how you are using two different standards to evaluate the two things your are trying to connect, science and god. You are arguing well and logically on the points of science but refusing to apply that same type of thinking to god because you simply presuppose his existence and good nature. You are failing to see that your belief in and about god are unfounded. Presupposing something is true and cannot possibly be wrong (god's existence and goodness), causes you and others to grasp at straws in science for anything that seems support your presupposed view. This is, by definition, confirmation bias which is no path to truth because it will always look at what seems to support it's view and ignore everything else that does not support it's view. As I said before, just because you can make two ideas fit together doesn't mean they belong together.

 

I've noticed you have not addressed any of my points. Maybe you are just too busy with these other guys who are doing very well at demonstrating valid objections to your claim. I'll team up with Prof here and say when you argue science, you are on his turf. When you argue philosophy, you are on mine.

[bornagainathiest]

I'm going to drop my request that respond to my earlier points, End.

 

We seem to be covering some of that ground now.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA