Help me get this straight

[Zzyzx]

.
Correct me if any of the following are wrong in your case or in the case of Christianity in general

1. You (generic term) deny that a series of small changes can produce big changes over time (evolution and speciation) but accept that an invisible, undetectable "god" poofed the universe into existence.

2. You doubt the honesty and accuracy of scientists worldwide studying anthropology concerning the origin and development of humans but trust the word of unidentified religion promoters who wrote thousands of years ago claiming to know that humans were "created" in present form

3. You dismiss the conclusions of astronomers and astrophysicists who study the universe but accept the claims of preachers who do not study such things and accept the conclusions of ancients who thought the Earth was the center of the solar system and the universe

4. You trust the word of ancient writers who claim that dead bodies came back to life but doubt the word of forensic biologists who say that death is irreversible

5. You propose that scientists and Atheists conspire against religion but do not acknowledge the possibility that religion fanatics conspire to promote your favorite religion

6. You declare that thousands of proposed gods are false but claim to have chosen a favorite that you know is real (with odds of 0.0005 of being correct)

7. You claim that your God is infinitely intelligent but also claim to know about its desires and requirements or its thinking and emotions

8. You critique and criticize the work of scientists who spend decades in advanced study without having studied the subject yourself beyond high school or television level

9. You claim that Christians follow a superior moral code even though statistics on rates of incarceration, divorce and abortion by Christians demonstrate otherwise

10. You accept the benefits provided by science (including modern medicine) but reject any findings that conflict with your chosen religious beliefs

11. You reject tales of competing gods performing superhuman feats but accept tales of your favorite God doing the same things (performing "miracles")

12. You declare that competing religions are phony or false or misguided but are convinced that your chosen religion is real and provides "the one true path to salvation"

13. You realize that humans are imperfect / flawed / "evil" but claim they were created by an omniscient, omnipotent God who could do no wrong and make no mistakes

14. You reject information from geologists that indicates that the Earth is billions of years old but accept opinions of preachers and ancient religion promoters who claim it is thousands of years old

15. You claim that "science does not have all the answers" so religion must be true (God of the Gaps)

16. You demand evidence for anything that conflicts with chosen religious beliefs but furnish no evidence (beyond testimonials and opinions) that support those beliefs

Questions for debate:

A) Do any of the above make sense?

B) Do any of the above NOT apply to your religious beliefs / theological position?

[Pompey]

Instead of responding point-by-point, let me clarify.

My main point is that some questions do not have scientific answers. Why are we able to do science at all? Why is there something rather than nothing?

I certainly do not believe we can have specific answers to these, or that we can "know," but I do believe we can deduce some important framework regarding what the truth might be. My point is that if we only derive out knowledge from things that can be run through the scientific method, we will be omitting ourselves from the very important conversation of many questions. Simply being comfortable saying I don't know if you can't get an answer from the scientific method is a cop-out to me; it's not commendable, it's lazy & narrow minded.

You may simply disagree, but there isn't much to argue here. You either think scientism is the answer, and the almighty scientific method is the only path to knowledge, or you think it's not, that there is value to logic itself and some kind of value in experience (the latter of which should of course be considered with a grain of salt). Personally I think the scientific method is the greatest tool humans have, but it is not the only tool. We can still reasonably deduce some things about the "big" questions, and that is done on the philosophical spectrum. Science would have nothing to test if it wasn't philosophers who first brought the questions to the table.

I don't believe for a second that philosophy is dead. If it is, it is a sad and terrible thing for human progression.

Are any of those questions of significant or critical importance or impact on your or my life?

Absolutely. they are the most significant and critical questions, because if I do not face them I am choosing to accept absurdity and promptly ignore it. I am deeply interested in these things and they are definitive to my life. I don't claim to know the answers, but the pursuit of these answers is the driving force behind most of the other knowledge I gain on the journey.

[Divine Insight]

Simply being comfortable saying I don't know if you can't get an answer from the scientific method is a cop-out to me; it's not commendable, it's lazy & narrow minded.

But that's the only truthful answer that can be had. If "I don't know" is the truth then why not accept the truth? Why pretend that you can know something that is unknowable?

Since when is confessing to the truth being "lazy"?

You may simply disagree, but there isn't much to argue here. You either think scientism is the answer, and the almighty scientific method is the only path to knowledge, or you think it's not, that there is value to logic itself and some kind of value in experience (the latter of which should of course be considered with a grain of salt). Personally I think the scientific method is the greatest tool humans have, but it is not the only tool.

What other dependable tool is there?

We can still reasonably deduce some things about the "big" questions, and that is done on the philosophical spectrum. Science would have nothing to test if it wasn't philosophers who first brought the questions to the table.

I already conceded philosophical pondering as a valid means of creativity.

But the idea that it can be anything more than this is simply unsupportable.

I don't believe for a second that philosophy is dead. If it is, it is a sad and terrible thing for human progression.

But what if it's the truth? It certainly appears to be the truth. Can you argue against of the specific examples I have already given?

If you have arguments against those, please share them.

Are any of those questions of significant or critical importance or impact on your or my life?

Absolutely. they are the most significant and critical questions, because if I do not face them I am choosing to accept absurdity and promptly ignore it. I am deeply interested in these things and they are definitive to my life. I don't claim to know the answers, but the pursuit of these answers is the driving force behind most of the other knowledge I gain on the journey.

Pursing answers is not in question.

Thinking that you can actually achieve meaningful "Philosophical Answers" is the issue here.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 21 by Divine Insight]

notice I said "saying I don't know if you can't get an answer from the scientific method." Saying you don't know when you don't is absolutely commendable, but giving up as soon as the scientific method is out is giving up too soon.

For example, and this works for the value of philosophy as well, is in ethics. A mindset that claims to know nothing outside of the scientific method can claim to not be held to moral standards. Rape is a part of the animal kingdom, if I see someone I wan't to mate with, what in the scientific method tells me I should not? What tells me I should donate my money to a child who needs education in South America?

You give ammo to theists who claim atheists have no sense of morality in your arguments for the exclusivity of the scientific method. You write yourself completely out of the ethics conversation.

How do we know that rape is wrong? Ethics. Philosophy. NOT the scientific method.

[scourge99]

Instead of responding point-by-point, let me clarify.

My main point is that some questions do not have scientific answers.

I agree.

For example, there is no scientific answer for "should i buy my wife roses tonight?" or "what color of car should i purchase"

Why are we able to do science at all?

because the universe acts in a consistent predictable fashion. Its really that simple.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

I have no idea. But if there was nothing then there wouldn't be a something (you and I) to ponder the question. Perhaps we will discover an answer in the future. Perhaps not.

I certainly do not believe we can have specific answers to these, or that we can "know,"

and how do you KNOW that we cannot have answers to these? Do you claim to be omniscient or to predict the future?

You don;t just get to go around asserting such bold claims and not expect to be challenged on them.

The truth is you DON'T KNOW whether these questions can be answered by science or not but you ASSERT irrational certainty that you do know. That is something you need to reflect upon.

My point is that if we only derive out knowledge from things that can be run through the scientific method, we will be omitting ourselves from the very important conversation of many questions.

I agree. No one is proposing we apply thre scientific method to everything and anything. But it seems like its a popular strawman of religionists.

Simply being comfortable saying I don't know if you can't get an answer from the scientific method is a cop-out to me; it's not commendable, it's lazy & narrow minded.

I think we are open to ANY method, be it scientific or other that can demonstrate itself as reliable and consistent.

You may simply disagree, but there isn't much to argue here. You either think scientism is the answer, and the almighty scientific method is the only path to knowledge, or you think it's not, that there is value to logic itself and some kind of value in experience (the latter of which should of course be considered with a grain of salt).

i think the only person guilty of scientism is the strawman you've erected.

Personally I think the scientific method is the greatest tool humans have, but it is not the only tool. We can still reasonably deduce some things about the "big" questions, and that is done on the philosophical spectrum. Science would have nothing to test if it wasn't philosophers who first brought the questions to the table.

what other tool exactly should we rely upon?
Holy book tales? Unverifiable personal testimony of tall tales and extraordinary supernatural personal experiences? Intuition?

In what circumstances do you propose we apply these methods and how reliable and accurate are they?

I don't believe for a second that philosophy is dead. If it is, it is a sad and terrible thing for human progression.

science is built on philosophy. Philosophy is not dead. But navel gazing only gets one so far. For example we can imagine and conceive of impossible and illogical things.

[Divine Insight]

How do we know that rape is wrong? Ethics. Philosophy. NOT the scientific method.

I disagree with you entirely.

On the contrary, there are many "Observable Reasons" to understand logically why rape is scientifically "wrong".

In fact, the very idea of what humans consider to be "wrong" can be entirely understood scientifically.

It's not like there is some "absolute wrong" or "absolute morality" that magically hovers over reality. On the contrary, leave it up to the universe and the universe will naturally harm and destroy anyone, even the most innocent of babies.

If there no such thing as "Natural Disaster Rape" it's only because scientifically it's fundamentally impossible for any natural disaster to actually "rape" a human. But if it could, it most certainly would.

All of morality can be understood via "Scientific Observation". And don't forget that observing human behaviors and the reactions that individual humans have to being raped is totally acceptable (and constitutes the Scientific Method).

In fact, if you didn't have the scientifically observable information that most humans are harmed and become emotionally distraught when they have been raped, then you'd have absolutely no "Philosophical Reason" to assume that they should be upset by being raped.

So as far as I'm concerned, our knowledge that rape is "wrong" is entirely a scientifically observable feature of human existence.

Is most certainly is scientifically determinable that to rape a human would be considered to be "wrong" by almost any human who experiences being raped.

It's even scientifically demonstrable that there exist some humans who would actually enjoy being raped provided they aren't physical damaged beyond repair in the process. In fact, this latter observation proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that rape isn't necessarily always "wrong".

It's certainly not a philosophical absolute as you seem to be suggesting that it should be.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 23 by scourge99]

For example, there is no scientific answer for "should i buy my wife roses tonight?" or "what color of car should i purchase"

How about ethics? see above post.

because the universe acts in a consistent predictable fashion. Its really that simple.

Uh... ok.... why does it act in this fashion? Same question restated. You gave the most unsatisfactory answer possible and said it was "that simple." This is the kind of narrow thinking I'm talking about.

and how do you KNOW that we cannot have answers to these? Do you claim to be omniscient or to predict the future?

How strange, you quote me saying i don't believe we can know, and then you accuse me of saying I know we can't, and that I'm acting omniscient. Perhaps you need to re-read the line. You accuse me of irrational certainty, where the exact opposite is found in my post. Very strange.

I agree. No one is proposing we apply thre scientific method to everything and anything. But it seems like its a popular strawman of religionists.

indeed. some "religionists" go way too far with this, I agree.

i think the only person guilty of scientism is the strawman you've erected.

I am reflecting the view that the scientific method is the only path to knowledge, which is what I believe to be a fair interpretation of the people I am responding to. If not, I'm sure they will correct me.

what other tool exactly should we rely upon?
Holy book tales? Unverifiable personal testimony of tall tales and extraordinary supernatural personal experiences? Intuition?

In what circumstances do you propose we apply these methods and how reliable and accurate are they?

Philosophy. Ethics. People have different opinions about the fine details, but the importance of ethics is agreed upon. We use the tool we have: philosophy, experience, etc. Sometimes people fail, but the philosophy behind ethics have been very effective. We have a long way to go to get humans to stop killing each other, but we have come a long way. I would say they are very effective tools, and even if they weren't, it's all we got.

[Divine Insight]

science is built on philosophy. Philosophy is not dead.

This is "technically true" but a bit misleading.

Yes, it's true that science is "built" on philosophy, but it also incorporates observation and testing as mandatory additional information.

"Pure Philosophy" is what is dead. Pure philosophy based on pure thought without any additional information is what's dead.

But yeah, "Applied Philosophy that also requires observed evidence" (i.e. science) is indeed alive and well.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 24 by Divine Insight]

Honestly this sounds very forced. I don't buy it at all.

On the contrary, there are many "Observable Reasons" to understand logically why rape is scientifically "wrong".

Logic is a philosophical tool, not a scientific one. The entire scientific method is based upon philosophy that that method accurately gives us knowledge.

Where is your scientific data that equals rape is "wrong?" I did not ask whether is was distressful. Distress is not an ethical category. Where is your data that rape is wrong?

What is right and wrong? How did you arrive at your answer? If it is through science please supply the experiment that determined what is right and wrong. Please do not confuse right and wrong with stress.

Is helping an elderly woman up from falling right or wrong? neither? an indifferent act?

Your water is not holding.

[Divine Insight]

Philosophy. Ethics. People have different opinions about the fine details, but the importance of ethics is agreed upon. We use the tool we have: philosophy, experience, etc. Sometimes people fail, but the philosophy behind ethics have been very effective. We have a long way to go to get humans to stop killing each other, but we have come a long way. I would say they are very effective tools, and even if they weren't, it's all we got.

Philosophy has no bearing on how humans behave.

Almost all humans who do nasty thing do so in spite of the fact that they know it is philosophical considered to be wrong, socially unacceptable, and even illegal.

Most people who do nasty things know full well that what they are doing is nasty.

The only exception to this may be religious people who do nasty thing in the name of their religion or God thinking that although the act would normally be nasty their God supposedly wants them to do it.

Other than this, almost all people who do nasty things either know they are doing something nasty, or they are too mentally ill to make rational judgements.

So philosophy isn't going to do much for causing humans to behave themselves anyway.

[Pompey]

[Replying to post 28 by Divine Insight]

Philosophy also keeps an innumerable amount of people from performing terrible acts, because it teaches them ethics. Even defining "terrible" is a question of philosophy. Using the vast minority of humans (the criminals) living within an educated civilization does not work. For the vast majority, philosophy seems to be working amazing for the average citizen.