|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 57 (9190 total) |
| |
critterridder | |
Total: 919,041 Year: 6,298/9,624 Month: 146/240 Week: 89/72 Day: 1/10 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: My Beliefs- GDR | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
GDR writes: I believe it's going to be sunny tomorrow so I'll plan a picnic. That would be a really stupid thing to do wouldn't it? Tomorrow I KNOW it will be raining; I know it because it's pissed down all day and the forecast for tomorrow is worse. If I 'believed' that it would be sunny regardless of real facts available to me I'd be behaving stupidly wouldn't I? Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
oni writes: oni writes: I wonder, would you be willing to test that, say, by stepping off a tall building? Maybe they can and maybe they can't! The point is, because you already believe in god, you hold this maybe they can, maybe they can't position for the resurrection. But if YOUR life was on the line, there would be NO maybe. For one thing I have no expectation of controlling God and expecting a miracle on command. Yes, I believe that the argument for the resurrection is compelling but in the end I can't know so there is certainly an element of faith. oni writes: I had moved pat that a long time ago.
Good, then we can move past that. oni writes:
I started out from that position.
Good, then we can move past that as well. oni writes: Again, not the point I was making. It is not yet relevant to this discussion whether or not god guides evolution when there is not yet any evidence for god.Because you have side tracked us into discussions about altruism and god's role in evolution, you have forgotten that one continuous point. You've already jumped ahead to assuming god is real and he acts upon nature. But, when I show you evidence for a natural evolution of altruism, you will jump over the "Where's the evidence for god" question and immediately tell me that doesn't disprove god didn't cause evolution. Yes, you're right, it doesn't disprove that. But, if you're going to slip that in after you've been shown the evidence for altruism when you were clai ming there wasn't any just to make a point. Then I have to remind you that there is no evidence for god, so whether or not he plays a role in evolution is irrelevant. 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.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: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
So you never plan anything unless you are absolutely certain of the facts that you are basing you plan on.
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: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
GDR writes:
So you never plan anything unless you are absolutely certain of the facts that you are basing you plan on. Well obviously, I, like you, plan on the available facts, then make the best bet. What neither of us do is plan our day based on an un-evidenced belief about what we would like to be true regardless of the facts before us. You would not plan your picnic on a belief. You, like everyone else on the planet, would look out of the window, look at the forecast and then decide. What else in your life do you think you do purely on belief?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
Not sure why this is in the news today because the original study seems to have been published in january, but biologists have been studying empathetic behaviour - consolation - in bonobo apes, finding rather a lot of it, discovering that it's innate and varies according to the physical closeness, age and relatedness to the distressed individual.
BBC - 404: Not Found
Is Tom whispering in bonobo ears too? Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6220 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 3.6 |
Tangle writes: Not sure why this is in the news today because the original study seems to have been published in january, but biologists have been studying empathetic behaviour - consolation - in bonobo apes, finding rather a lot of it, discovering that it's innate and varies according to the physical closeness, age and relatedness to the distressed individual. 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.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: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.4 |
GDR writes: 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. Just thought you might be interested; but it's good to hear that you now accept the rational conclusion that morality is a naturally occurring phenomenon - so there is no requirement for any more supernatural whispering talk is there?Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 263 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: What epistemological techniques are you applying (i.e. what methods of knowledge acquisition)? Why do you consider conclusions borne from these techniques to be accurate or reliable? What verifiable discoveries have resulted as a consequence of applying these epistemological techniques (i.e. what is their track record)? GDR writes: In the end though it is belief and faith but the track record of that belief and faith appears reliable. "Belief" isn't an epistemological technique. You can't say that we know something because we believe it. That is ridiculous. I am asking what method of knowledge acquisition has led to this belief of yours. I am asking why you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are likely to be correct?
GDR writes: There is no objective knowledge. Of course there is. That is what scientific knowledge is.
GDR writes: The fact that The "Golden Rule" is so widely held does indicate that it has considerable validity. It suggests that there is a large degree of commonality between human societies. Given what we objectively know about the evolution of human empathy, morality, altruism etc. etc. that common factor would seem to be common aspects of human psychology.
GDR writes: If there is a god then it seems reasonable that in some way that form of morality has divine origins but that does not mean that divine revelation is the only way of acquiring that as a world view. Why is it reasonable to conclude "divine origins"....? What method of knowledge acquisition led you to that conclusion? Why do you think this method of knowledge acquisition results in conclusions that are correct?
GDR writes: Objectively we can understand the value of the "golden rule" but objectively we can't know whether the origins are divine or not so again it does come back to belief. But we know the origins of human empathy, morality et al (i.e. those things that lead to the 'golden rule') evolved naturally.
GDR writes: Even if it is an evolved trait that does not mean that it doesn't have divine origins. Even if we know that thunder and lightning occur naturally by virtue of static electricity that doesn't disprove that Thor is willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on his divine intervention to cause thunder..... Even if we know that human farts occur naturally that doesn't disprove the notion that fart fairies are willing things to behave in ways that seem entirely natural but which ultimately depend on their divine intervention as the cause of farts..... If we design the object of our un-evidenced beleif to be unassailable then, unsurprisingly, it will be un-disprovable. But that is no reason to give such notions any credence at all is it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 263 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: 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. OK. But is this animal behaviour dependent at all on Tom's divine inaudible whispering intervention in the same way that you have suggested human moral decisions sometimes are? Or do genetic and social factors alone (i.e. without divine intervention) suffice here? How do you decide when Tom is intervening and when he isn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 241 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
GDR writes: 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. This, in itself, has nothing wrong with it. The point being brought to you is the difference between "a reasonable idea" and "the most reasonable idea that humans have been able to come up with." If you are content using "a reasonable idea" instead of "the most reasonable idea" when thinking of your beliefs... then this is your choice. I don't think anyone has a problem with such a thing. An issue arises when you attempt to say things like this:
We do that in all sorts of aspects of our lives. Saying things like this seems to imply that you think "a reasonable idea" is on par with "the most reasonable idea."People see it as equivocation on the term and not understanding the objective difference between the two distinct concepts. It is false and it can be shown to be false, and that's what everyone's been describing to you for over 1000 posts.The whole reason we know we have a "most reasonable idea" is because it has a track record that proves it to be much more accurate (more reasonable) than all the other "regular-reasonable ideas." What we don't know (and perhaps is even impossible for us to know) is if we'll ever be "absolutely reasonable" (absolutely accurate). However, the fact that "a reasonable idea" and "the most reasonable idea" are both not "absolutely reasonable" also does not make the two equal in anyway. 85 and 25 are both less than 100.85 and 25 are both greater than 0. These two facts of similarity do not make 25 equal to 85.It is still objectively clear that 85 is greater than 25. You keep discussing the similarities between faith and belief (25) and scientific thought (85).Both can make mistakes and neither can achieve perfect knowledge (less than 100). Both can give us a level of insight of the world we live in (greater than 0). Then you seem to make comments that hint you therefore think the two are equal. They are not, and there is an objective historical record that shows the resulting progress from using the two different methods (85 > 25). The question being put to you over and over again is: You seem to accept the scientific progress and superiority for the gains that science has made and we now understand.However, for something that is not yet fully understood (God's hand in the creation of our universe... if He even exists to use his hand...) you decide to pursue the answer using your beliefs. No one minds that you're doing this. You're free to do whatever you want for whatever reasons you think are best. The question is just... why? You seem to say "It's just what I believe."Which is a strange answer, given that you accept science's superiority on known progress and concepts... just not for any possible future progress. But beliefs are sometimes strange. But then you don't stop there... you continue to justify your belief by comparing the similarities of science vs. belief and hinting that they're simply on par anyway... this is what causes continued discussion. You're never going to get away with it (here, anyway). As long as you continue to even hint at a personal justification ("we all just go with what we believe anyway...") that can objectively be shown to be incorrect, other posters here will continue to point out the correction that 85 is always greater than 25.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18549 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
I challenge the idea that 85 is always science and that 25 is always faith. This may well be true in the science of evolution vs biblical creationism, but the Bible has some deep insights into human nature that science is only now beginning to catch up with.
Lets take the science behind addiction.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 3148 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
We have already agreed that there may be a genetic copmponent No! There IS a genetic basis for altruism. It is gene driven.
there is definitely a social component The genetics comes before any type of social component. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9568 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 7.4
|
phat writes: ......the Bible has some deep insights into human nature that science is only now beginning to catch up with. Name one that hasn't been blindingly obvious for thousands of years.Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member (Idle past 241 days) Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: I challenge the idea that 85 is always science and that 25 is always faith. The numbers were just picked to prove a point.I don't think it's actually possible to quantify how much science is better than faith in terms of accuracy for learning things about the world we live in. One works, the other doesn't. It's probably more of a binary deal if we were to get into it. Lets take the science behind addiction. You can take anything you'd like. The contest was over hundreds of years ago. The progress of Faith and Belief (basing success on what feels right, in our heart-of-hearts) kept humanity stagnant for over 1000 years. We call a large portion of that "the dark ages."The progress of Scientific Thought (basing success on being able to test and verify ideas) produced an era we call "the enlightenment." It basically comes down to guessing vs. testing. Yes, testing is going to be wrong sometimes.Yes, guessing is going to be right sometimes. Your personal priorities may prefer one over the other in certain situations... mine certainly do. I don't stick with one or the other all the time.But this doesn't change the facts of their track records. You just need to understand the methods, the results they can get and your own priorities. Do you want answers for every question... but not know whether or not those answers are valid? - Then guess away with Faith and Belief.Do you want validated answers and know that you are correct for the answers you can get... but understand that there are some questions that do not have answers today? - Then test things with Scientific Thought. Personally, I think the methods (and others) should be applied in varying degrees for varying situations. But none of my personal ideas, or your personal feelings have any effect on the objective track records for human progress of these two methods.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18549 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Again--Lets take the science behind addiction.
Look at Romans.. 7:15
15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16 And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17 As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18 For I know that good itself does not dwell in me, that is, in my sinful nature.[c] For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do”this I keep on doing. 20 Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. They now know that addictions cannot be easily stopped. The reason is because the brain actually changes. Certain neural pathways are laid down and reinforced...so that to attempt to stop in the middle of the loop is next to impossible. Possible...yet not easy at all. Blindingly obvious? The addictions experts are only now catching up to explaining it in a way other than sin. Not only do we generate neurological pathways of behavior in our brain, we become addicted to our own brain chemicals. Just as an addict must get high off an external chemical, we too can be addicted to a behavioral strategy which releases the sought after chemicals. If our behavior is of a positive nature then we never worry about it. But, if the behavior is undesirable, we may try all manner of interventions to change it only to find we’re replacing it with something else. Oddly, the Biblical passage essentially says the same thing. We replace sanity with sin...even when we know better.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024