Same deal as the smoking. Believe what the hell you want. Don’t try to make it the law of the land, don’t try to pass any laws or resolutions or initiatives that interfere with someone else who doesn’t believe what you believe and it’s all good. You can believe whatever the hell you want. DO NOT try to make it the law, DO NOT try to make others believe it. No one gives a damn what you believe, unless and until it is pushed in their face. Then it’s a problem. Got it?
I live in California. We had a Proposition and it was battled over tooth and nail with the religious “thing” - God and morality and stuff. Religious preference or prejudice made law. STOP DOING THAT SHIT.
I don’t think anyone’s saying “YOU CAN’T KNOW ANYTHING NOW CAN YOU!!!” and I know I’m not. I am saying that you can’t know everything through science, and someone who says here that that means we can’t have any kind of answer at all about the rest will probably contradict himself later.
Occam’s Razor. You do not multiply entia beyond their necessity. There is no observable necessity for human existence to have a “purpose” (indeed, we know that evolution is not so guided), so it’s irrational to presume anything else but that there is no higher purpose. It’s hard to argue that there even could be a purpose since humans do not appear to exist as a result of any intelligent guidance or design, but simply as the inexorable result of a hugely complex chain of cause and effect resulting from the Big Bang (of course, you could surmise that the Big Bang itself was a magnificent trick shot by some unimaginable powerful and intelligent entity which exploded a singularity just-so as a means to eventually result in human life, but there is no evidence for that and Occam’s Razor still slices against it).
I’m assuming there’s no reason it can’t, given enough time. Anything which can be empirically observed can be subjected to scientific method. Anything which does not exist empirically, by definition, does not exist at all.
Because it provides no methodology or tools for doing so.
Come on. Is there any other sort of debate - say about nuclear energy or tax cuts to grow the economy or whatever, where one side totally eschews actually trying to prove their case and instead starts waxing philosophical about what really is knowledge and how do you even know you exist and hey you can’t technically prove a negative yada yada.
When you can’t actually argue the subject at hand but have to make grand philosophical arguments about whether or not one can even make an argument, it’s probably time to realize your position is just a bit week.
Murder provkes a biologically evolved aversive response in my brain. This emotional response is virtually universal in normally developed human brains. The word “wrong” is nothing but a convenient despriptive lable for things which commonly evoke these kinds of commonly shared (because they are biologically evolved) neurological responses in human beings. Murder feels “wrong” to me personally because I am evolved to have that emotional response, but that doesn’t mean that “wrong” actually has any objective existence or meaning outside of those very particuarly devoloped emotional responses.
To use an analogy, shit usually smells “bad” to most humans. There are good evolutionary reasons that shit smells bad to us, but that “bad” smell is still just a neurogical response to a a dangerous sensory stimulus. “Good and bad” smells don’t actually have any objective existence. They describe physiological human responses, not any genuine, objective value about smells. Odors have no aesthetic value except for whatever biological responses they evoke in the smeller. Shit smells great to a fly.
Murder feels “wrong” to humans for the same reason that shit smells “bad.” Because the devolpment of those responses made our evolutionary precursers more likely to survive and reproduce.
Now that is interesting. If, as I believe, the whole point of religion is dealing with and explaining mystical experiences, if you’re right then religion is dead wrong. (Except Buddhism. Who cares if Nirvana is real? Nirvana ends suffering. Nirvana is useful and fun. Also, even if they’re dead wrong, theists aren’t all fools, just wrong. It’s not foolish to trust your experiences, and if you studied mysticism intensely, the answer wasn’t obvious.)
What led you to your conclusion, if I may ask? Feel free to go into detail; I think this is important.
In other words, you acknowledge that murder feels wrong, but you insist that it is not actually wrong. Or at least, that’s the position you are now forced to take.
It was a combination of a couple of things. The first was being able to reach some of the conventional “mystic” states of consciousness (by more than one method) and finding that while it was experientially very interesting – even exhilarating – I still didn’t really know anything afterwards that I didn’t know before. It was an exploration of my own consciousness and gave me some insights into the nature of consciousness. I had the sensation of being “one with the universe,” but that sensation wasn’t particularly useful to me, and I saw the whole thing as basically an interesting cognitive gymnastic, but not a source of actual information or (at least in my case) a catalyst for any change in philosphical or moral outlook. To give an example, during one incident involving meditation, I had a sensation of my perception of myself and the universe being turned “inside out,” where I felt – for lack of a better word – a “sensation” of no longer being a person inside of a universe, but of a universe inside of a person. I even incorporated the exprience into a song lyric (I was a musician and songwriter at the time) with a refrain of the phrase “the universe is in your head” in an Alan Watts inspired song about Vedantic Hinduism, but ultimately I didn’t come away feeling like I had learned anything other than perhaps having an insight into how truly subjective and narrow our perceptions of reality can be.
In addition to all this, I also encountered in college (I actually majored in Religious Studies. I was truly obsessed with religion in general and with mystic experiences at the time – with what William James called "the universal religious experience) a lot of material on the brain chemistry and physiology behind these expriences, including the discovery that virtually all the classic religious experiences can be induced by stimulating specific parts of the brain (or with drugs). I came away persuaded that it was all just brain chemistry and there was no evdience I could ever see that it ever imbued anybody with new information (although it could give them good ideas sometimes.
Perhaps you missed my earlier post #196. “Murder” is an entirely human construct, which is “wrong” in the sense that it has been defined, by deliberative human institutions, to be so. It is the killing of human beings under circumstances that are not approved by law.
The killing of human beings, in and of itself, is clearly NOT inherently wrong, at least so far as virtually every society and religion is concerned. Why? Because they envision circumstances where killing of other humans is not only acceptable, but mandatory. For example, a soldier who refuses to kill during a war may be punished. Most human social institutions recognize a right to kill in self defense, even in some circumstances where the threat is less than lethal. One example of this might be to kill someone to stop the rape of a child.
"Meanwhile, it is learned that Richard Dawkins and his wife Mrs. Garrison were destined to become the co-founders of worldwide atheism. Atheism has split into three hostile denominations at perpetual war over the so-called “Great Question”: the super-intelligent otters of the AAA (Allied Atheist Alliance), the humans of the UAA (United Atheist Alliance), and a rival human faction, the UAL (Unified Atheist League).
As the AAA otters complete their planning for a sneak attack against the UAA and UAL, one elderly otter known as ‘The Wise One’, asks if the war is worth fighting, and implies that logic and science can be harmonized with some sort of belief in the supernatural. After pondering this for a moment, the rest of the otters brutally murder the Wise One." -Southpark Episode 1013 ‘Go GOD GO XII’
“You believe in God don’t you?”
“No”
“Then how do you know his name asshole?” -The Young Ones BBC
I will never say that someone is stupid and ignorant if they believe a certain way. I may say they are wrong based on the evidence or opinion of someone who I believe has studied the evidence, that is why I would never say that there is 100% a God. We just don’t really know and that is the truth.
Because it works. Because starting out with the least number of assumptions and expanding from there only as necessary is a fairly effective means of keeping you from fooling yourself. As opposed to making loads of assumptions to start, which results nearly inevitably in you being completely wrong.
Don’t be silly. Calling a truck disordered brain chemicals won’t keep it from running you down. Calling religious experiences that however works because that’s the hypothesis that fits the facts. As opposed to a physics ignoring logically incoherent god, which doesn’t.
And? You presume that there IS “proof” for things like morality. Science can’t “prove” something that isn’t there.
You also presume that utility isn’t a good enough reason for morality, and you presume that the opinion of a god is somehow relevant to the question.
Nonsense. Whether it’s nations or individuals the same reasoning holds; no one wants to be attacked, therefore the moral thing is for no one to attack anyone else. No one wants to be treated as subhuman, therefore we shouldn’t treat others as subhuman. And so on.
It may not be perfect, but that’s a perfectly good reason for morality/. A far better one that the imaginary opinion of an imaginary god, and one with a far better track record that the malignance and ruthlessness religion promotes. Religion fails as a guide to moral behavior; is is far better at producing utterly evil behavior.
This is just one example of a major flaw in your reasoning; you are trying to justify religion by bashing science, without providing any reason to consider religion anything other than the pile of malice and delusion that it actually is. No amount of discrediting science will make religion anything other than worthless and vile.
No, the universe needs to follow regular mathematical laws because otherwise it would dissolve into chaos and we wouldn’t be here to discuss the matter. Regardless of whether it came from nature, genies or a is a computer simulation. And as I said (and I note you left this out of the quote), the same would be true of some hypothetical god, so a god can’t qualify as the explanation for order because without pre-existing order it wouldn’t be able to exist.
