Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christianity is Morally Bankrupt
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 226 of 652 (695379)
04-04-2013 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by GDR
04-04-2013 7:14 PM


Re: It's important
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by GDR, posted 04-04-2013 7:14 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 04-05-2013 1:28 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 227 of 652 (695395)
04-05-2013 1:28 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dr Adequate
04-04-2013 10:25 PM


Re: It's important
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 - Wikipedia

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2013 10:25 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2013 3:46 AM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 228 of 652 (695397)
04-05-2013 3:46 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by GDR
04-05-2013 1:28 AM


Re: It's important
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by GDR, posted 04-05-2013 1:28 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 2:06 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 229 of 652 (695498)
04-06-2013 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by Dr Adequate
04-05-2013 3:46 AM


Re: It's important
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2013 3:46 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 3:26 AM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 230 of 652 (695500)
04-06-2013 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by GDR
04-06-2013 2:06 AM


Re: It's important
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 2:06 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 12:31 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2331 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


(1)
Message 231 of 652 (695504)
04-06-2013 6:05 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by GDR
04-04-2013 7:29 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by GDR, posted 04-04-2013 7:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 12:29 PM Otto Tellick has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 232 of 652 (695519)
04-06-2013 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by Otto Tellick
04-06-2013 6:05 AM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
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:
9 As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him. 10 While Jesus was having dinner at Matthew's house, many tax collectors and "sinners" came and ate with him and his disciples. 11 When the Pharisees saw this, they asked his disciples, "Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and 'sinners'?" 12 On hearing this, Jesus said, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. 13 But go and learn what this means: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice.' For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by Otto Tellick, posted 04-06-2013 6:05 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2013 1:09 PM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 233 of 652 (695520)
04-06-2013 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Dr Adequate
04-06-2013 3:26 AM


Re: It's important
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 3:26 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 1:56 PM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 234 of 652 (695521)
04-06-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by GDR
04-06-2013 12:29 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 12:29 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 8:56 PM Tangle has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 235 of 652 (695525)
04-06-2013 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by GDR
04-06-2013 12:31 PM


Re: It's important
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 12:31 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 8:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 236 of 652 (695533)
04-06-2013 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by Tangle
04-06-2013 1:09 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
Tangle writes:
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.
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.
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:
a. The awareness of a moral or ethical aspect to one's conduct together with the urge to prefer right over wrong: Let your conscience be your guide.
b. A source of moral or ethical judgment or pronouncement: a document that serves as the nation's conscience.
c. Conformity to one's own sense of right conduct: a person of unflagging conscience.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Tangle, posted 04-06-2013 1:09 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2013 3:50 AM GDR has replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 237 of 652 (695534)
04-06-2013 8:59 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by Dr Adequate
04-06-2013 1:56 PM


Re: It's important
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 1:56 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 10:22 PM GDR has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 238 of 652 (695535)
04-06-2013 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by GDR
04-06-2013 8:59 PM


Re: It's important
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).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 8:59 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by GDR, posted 04-07-2013 1:50 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 239 of 652 (695537)
04-07-2013 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 238 by Dr Adequate
04-06-2013 10:22 PM


Re: It's important
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-06-2013 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Tangle, posted 04-07-2013 4:08 AM GDR has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 240 of 652 (695540)
04-07-2013 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by GDR
04-06-2013 8:56 PM


Re: it's all about knowledge and honesty.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by GDR, posted 04-06-2013 8:56 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by GDR, posted 04-09-2013 1:57 PM Tangle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024